The term “Aseret Ha’diberot” is normally translated as “the Ten Commandments,” but this translation is imprecise, as at least one of the ten “Diberot” actually contains more than a single commandment. The “Aseret Ha’diberot” are actually ten pronouncements spoken by G-d to our ancestors at Mount Sinai, which together contain more than ten Misvot.
This observation is made as an introduction to the 27th Biblical command listed by the Sefer Ha’hinuch – the prohibition of “Lo Ta’aseh Lecha Pesel Ve’chol Temuna” (Shemot 20:4), which forbids making an article of idol worship. This prohibition is the second of several commands incorporated in the second of the “Aseret Ha’diberot,” and stands separate and apart from the prohibition against believing in foreign deities, and from the prohibition against worshipping foreign deities. Making a statue for the purpose of idol worship itself constitutes a Biblical prohibition.
This prohibition, quite obviously, is binding upon both men and women, and is applicable at all times and in all places. It is binding even upon gentiles, as it falls under the general category of Aboda Zara (idol worship), which is one of the seven Noachide Laws.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that one who makes an article of idol worship, but does not worship it, is liable to Malkut. Worshipping an idol is a capital offense which is punishable by death, but making the idol is punishable with Malkut.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch cites the surprising ruling of the Rambam that even one who instructs another person to create an idol violates this command and is liable to Malkut. Even though all the person did was speak to somebody and give the instruction to make an idol, he is in violation of this prohibition and receives Malkut.
Later writers – including the Sefer Ha’hinuch himself – raise several questions regarding the Rambam’s ruling. One difficulty is that prohibitions violated through speech, without performing an action, fall under the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” – prohibitions which do not involve an action, and are thus not punishable with Malkut. There is a fundamental principle that Bet Din does not administer punishment for the violation of a Biblical prohibition that is violated without an action. How, then, can the Rambam rule that one who instructs another to make an idol receives Malkut?
One answer given is that a command to perform an action is regarded as a Halachic “Ma’aseh” (action). Although speech is normally not regarded as a “Ma’aseh” with respect to liability to Malkut, an exception is made in the case of an instruction to commit a forbidden act. Since this speech directly results in an action, such a violation qualifies as a “Lav She’yesh Bo Ma’aseh” – a prohibition which involves an action.
Others suggest that since this prohibition can be violated through an action – by making an idol – it is considered a “Lav She’yesh Bo Ma’aseh” which is punishable with Malkut even if one happens to violate it without performing an action. According to this view, the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” includes only those prohibitions which cannot be violated through an action. If a prohibition can be violated through an action, then violators are liable to Malkut even if they transgress without performing an action.
The simplest answer, however, as some Aharonim explain, is that the Rambam made an exception in regard to this prohibition because of the singular severity of Aboda Zara. Although normally one does not receive Malkut for violating a prohibition without performing an action, this rule does not apply to instructing somebody to create an idol, because idol-worship undermines the entire foundation of our religion. Aboda Zara is an especially grievous sin which is treated more severely than other prohibitions, such that even verbally instructing somebody to make an idol is punishable with Malkut.
This principle can be used also to answer a different question that has been raised regarding the Rambam’s position – that it appears to violate the famous rule of “En Shaliah Li’dbar Abera” (literally, “there is no agent for a sinful act”). If somebody instructs another person to perform a forbidden act, then the person who committed the act, and not the one who sent him, is considered the guilty party who is liable to punishment. The concept underlying this rule is “Dibreh Ha’rab Ve’dbreh Ha’talmid, Dibreh Mi Shomin” – if one receives instructions from both the master and the master’s disciple, he is expected to obey the master. If G-d forbids performing a certain action, then one who is instructed by another person to perform that act is expected to ignore the instruction and obey G-d’s command. Therefore, a forbidden act performed at the behest of another person is attributable solely to the one who performed the action, and not to the person who gave the instruction. The person who performed the act is not considered the agent of the person who sent him if he was sent to perform a sinful act. How, then, could the Rambam rule that one who instructs somebody to make an idol is in violation of the prohibition against making idols?
In light of what we have seen, the answer is clear. Aboda Zara, due to its singular level of severity, is not subject to leniencies which are applied to other prohibitions. Therefore, whereas normally people are not held responsible for sins committed by another person at their behest, in the case of making an idol, even one who gives the instruction is in violation of this command.