Hubbry Logo
ShitufShitufMain
Open search
Shituf
Community hub
Shituf
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Shituf
Shituf
Shituf
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Shituf (Hebrew: שִׁתּוּף; also transliterated as shittuf or schituf; literally "association") is a term used in Jewish sources for the worship of God in a manner which Judaism does not deem to be purely monotheistic. The term connotes a theology that is not outright polytheistic, but also should not be seen as purely monotheistic. The term is primarily used in reference to the Christian Trinity by Jewish legal authorities who wish to distinguish Christianity from full-blown polytheism. Though a Jew would be forbidden from maintaining a shituf theology, non-Jews would, in some form, be permitted such a theology without being regarded as idolaters by Jews. That said, whether Christianity is shituf or formal polytheism remains a debate in Jewish philosophy.

Shituf is first mentioned in the commentary of Tosafot on the Babylonian Talmud,[1] in a passage concluding with a lenient ruling regarding non-Jews. Later authorities are divided between those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name,[2] and those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to actually worship such deities.[3] Though shituf is primarily used as a means of determining how to relate to Christians, it is applied to other religions as well.[4] It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialogue with Christians.[5]

Judaism's views of the Trinity doctrine

[edit]

In all branches of Judaism, the God of the Hebrew Bible is considered one absolute, singular entity, defined as no other deity beside Yahweh himself, without any divisions or plurality within (while some Kabbalistic sources speak of distinct "emanations" of God, these are seen as different windows through which Jews perceive a singular God). In general, Jews reject any conception of a coequal, multi-person godhead; anything but an absolute monotheism is contrary to the Shema.[6] Citing examples for "echad" in the Hebrew Bible as being either just one king, one house, one garden, one army, or one man, etc. Also, they reject the notion that somehow there are "traces of the Trinity" in the Hebrew word elohim. Jewish polemics against the Trinity date almost from its very conception. Even in the Talmud, Simlai (3rd century) declared, in refutation of the "heretics," "The three words 'El,' 'Elohim,' and 'YHWH' (Josh. xxii. 22) connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus'" (Yer. Ber. ix. 12d).[7] This view is espoused by Judaism's most revered credo, the Shema.

One of the best-known statements of Rabbinical Judaism on monotheism occurs in Maimonides' 13 principles of faith, Second Principle:

God, the Cause of all, is one. This does not mean one as in one of a pair, nor one like a species (which encompasses many individuals), nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements, nor as a single simple object that is infinitely divisible. Rather, God is a unity unlike any other possible unity. This is referred to in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."[citation needed]

Medieval Jewish views

[edit]

Jewish views, as codified in Jewish law, are split between those who see Christianity as outright idolatry[8] and those who see Christianity as shituf.[1] While Christians view their worship of a trinity as monotheistic,[9] Judaism generally rejects this view.

The Talmud warns against causing an idolater to take oaths. The commentators living in Christian Germany in the 12th century, called Tosafists, permitted Jews to bring a Christian partner to court in partnership during a breakup even though the Christian would take an oath by God, which to Christians would include Jesus, by saying that so long as another deity is not mentioned explicitly, there is no forbidden oath taking place, but only an association. Although all of the Tosafists agreed that partnerships that may lead to such an oath may not be entered into originally, they disagree as to once such a partnership exists whether or not one may go to court in order not to lose his portion of the partnership and even though such an oath is a side-effect. In a terse comment, they wrote:

It is permissible to [cause a gentile's oath through litigation with one's non-Jewish partner because] today all swear in the name of the saints to whom no divinity is ascribed. Even though they also mention God's name and have in mind another thing, in any event no idolatrous name is actually said, and they also have the Creator of the world in mind. Even though they associate (shituf) God's name with "something else", we do not find that it is forbidden to cause others to associate (shituf), and there is no issue of placing a stumbling block before the blind (see Leviticus 19:14) [by entering into litigation with the non-Jewish business partner, thereby causing him to take an oath] because Noachides were not warned about it.[1]

In the 16th century, the terse comment is explained as follows by Moses Isserles, where it is seemingly expanded to allowing partnerships in the first place:

Today, it is permitted [to form a partnership with Christians], because when they swear on their holy scriptures called the Evangelion, they do not hold it to be divine. Even though when they mention God they mean Jesus, they do not mention idolatry since they really mean the Creator of heaven and earth. Even though they mention jointly (shituf) God's name and another name, there is no prohibition to cause someone to jointly mention [or associate] (shituf) God with another... since this association is not forbidden to gentiles.[10]

18th-century views

[edit]

Moses Mendelssohn, the 18th century Jewish Enlightenment thinker, used the concept of shituf as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity.

[However,] the nations of the world though they recognize the entity of God ... they nevertheless worship another entity besides Him. A few worship the angels above believing that God apportioned to each one of them a nation or country ... to rule, and they have the power to do good or bad as they please.

And these are called "other gods" in the Torah.... And a few [of the nations of the world] worship the stars in the sky ... or people ... and bow down to them, as is known. And the judgment of the intellect does not require to forbid such worship to a Son of Noah if he does not intend to remove himself from the realm of God because by what [obligation] must he offer service and prayer to God alone? And if he hopes for good and fears bad from an entity besides Him and acknowledges that also that entity is subject to God, it is not beyond the intellect for him to offer sacrifices, incense, and libation and to pray to this entity be it an angel, demon, or person.... And who would say to us [Jews] that such offerings are appropriate for God only had He not warned us against [offering to other gods] in His Torah.[11]

Modern views

[edit]

Some contemporary Orthodox commentators have stated the allowance for shituf extends only to belief in multiple or complex deity, but not to worship of such a thing:

One contemporary view of Shituf holds that in Judaism, there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah, according to many authorities. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry.[12]

However, other 20th-century explanations differ. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (the Chazon Ish) wrote that Jewish law considers Christianity to be idolatry, and that the entire concept of shituf in Jewish law was only an ad hoc permission applying solely to oaths in court.

This position was explained by Orthodox historian of halakha, Rabbi David Berger, as follows:

Even medieval Jews understood very well that Christianity is avodah zarah of a special type. The tosafists assert that, although a Christian pronouncing the name of Jesus in an oath would be taking the name of "another god", it is nonetheless the case that, when Christians say the word "God", they have in mind the creator of heaven and earth. Some later authorities took the continuation of that Tosafot to mean that this special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews, but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin.[13]

Still other Orthodox historians have stated that shituf may not be forbidden to non-Jews, but present this more softly. Rabbi Walter Wurzburger wrote:

With all our appreciation of Christianity as an avenue to God available to the non-Jewish world, we must not gloss over the fact that the Trinitarian faith still falls short of our universal religious ideals. While the belief in the Trinity – classified by the Halakhah as Shituph – may not be regarded as downright prohibited to the non-Jew, we still cannot recommend it as the ideal way in which the non-Jew should relate himself to God."[14]

Conservative Rabbi Louis Jacobs took a more conciliatory approach:

Christian thinkers frequently assert that Jewish polemics against trinitarianism are based on an inadequate understanding of what the doctrine really means. It is no doubt true that crude attacks on Christianity as tritheism are unfounded (tritheism is, in fact, heresy from the Christian point of view), and there are subtleties in the doctrine which Christians have tried to uncover. But the fact remains that all Jewish thinkers have rejected trinitarianism as Judaism understands it.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Shituf

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Shituf (Hebrew: שִׁתּוּף, pronounced shee-toof), literally meaning "partnership" or "association," is a theological and halakhic concept in denoting the belief in or of a supreme, singular alongside the attribution of independent divine powers or intermediary roles to other entities, such as created beings, forces, or idols. This notion is considered a form of diluted and is categorically prohibited for as a violation of the commandment against (avodah zarah), equivalent to equating anything with (Exodus 20:3). In Jewish law, shituf arises in discussions of oaths, , and interfaith relations, particularly regarding non-Jews bound by the Seven Noahide Laws, where the permissibility of such beliefs is debated among rabbinic authorities. The (e.g., 63a; 64a) condemns shituf as uprooting one from the world, yet (Bekhorot 2b) and later poskim distinguish between and gentiles, with the majority lenient view—articulated by R. Moshe Isserles (Rema) in Shulchan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 156:1)—holding that non- are not obligated to pure and may engage in shituf without transgressing Noahide prohibitions, provided they affirm a supreme Creator . Stringent opinions, such as those of the Nodah b'Yehudah (Yoreh De'ah 148), classify shituf as full for all, including adherents of or . The concept is prominently applied to , where Trinitarian doctrine is often analyzed as shituf: medieval authorities like Menachem ha-Meiri (Gittin 61b) viewed as observant Noahides despite such associations, enabling practical leniencies in business and oaths, while modern rabbis like the Hazon Ish (Yoreh De'ah 62) rejected this, insisting on stricter boundaries. This debate underscores Judaism's emphasis on absolute monotheism for its adherents while allowing interpretive flexibility toward other faiths, influencing contemporary Jewish-gentile interactions and theological dialogues.

Etymology and Definition

Linguistic Origins

The term shituf derives from the Hebrew root שׁ-ת-ף (sh-t-f), which conveys the ideas of "joining," "associating," or "sharing," as seen in related nouns like shutaf (partner) and shituf itself denoting participation or . This sense of the root emerges in post-biblical rabbinic Hebrew, while biblical forms (e.g., שָׁטַף) relate to "overflowing" or "flooding" rather than . Its nominal use as shituf to describe the act of combining or associating elements in religious or legal expressions develops in rabbinic contexts. The concept of the prohibited practice of combining the name of with something else is introduced in Talmudic literature using the verb meshatef. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate 63a, the states: "Anyone who joins (meshatef) the name of with something else is excluded from the world," drawing on Exodus 22:19 to underscore the severity of such association in oaths or declarations. This usage establishes the idea as a linguistic and conceptual marker for the fusion of divine and created entities, distinct from full (avodah zarah), and the noun shituf gains prominence in medieval commentaries for these discussions of monotheistic purity within rabbinic jurisprudence. In medieval commentaries, the term shituf evolves to emphasize associative partnership over explicit , refining its application in interpretive glosses. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040–1105), in his Talmudic commentaries, glosses related passages to highlight the prohibitive nature of joining God's name with other powers in swearing or worship, portraying shituf as a subtle violation of exclusive divine unity rather than a complete rejection of . This interpretive shift, echoed in subsequent works like the , solidifies shituf as a key term for nuanced discussions of theological boundaries in Jewish legal texts.

Core Theological Concept

Shituf (Hebrew: שִׁתּוּף), literally "association" or "partnership," refers to the theological practice of incorporating intermediary entities, such as saints or divine persons, into the of the one , while still acknowledging as the ultimate creator. This concept arises in Jewish thought as a way to describe forms of devotion that blend monotheistic intent with additional figures, without denying God's primacy. For , shituf constitutes a violation of strict , specifically the principle of yichud , which emphasizes the absolute unity and indivisibility of , prohibiting any form of partnership in divine worship. In contrast, for gentiles, shituf is often deemed permissible under the Noahide laws, provided it affirms belief in the singular creator and avoids attributing independent to the associated entities. Conceptually, shituf serves as a middle ground between pure and full , accommodating a functional augmented by secondary elements that do not challenge God's sovereignty. This framework allows Jewish legal authorities to evaluate non-Jewish religions pragmatically, such as in cases where oaths invoke God's name alongside another entity, which rabbinic sources tolerate for non-Jews without equating it to prohibited .

Scriptural and Rabbinic Foundations

Biblical Prohibitions

The biblical foundation for prohibiting shituf—the association of any partners or intermediaries with —stems from the Torah's core declarations of absolute , which demand exclusive recognition and worship of the one without dilution or sharing of divine attributes. These commands emphasize 's uniqueness, forbidding from conceptualizing or attributing to anything alongside Him, as this would compromise the integrity of pure monotheistic . A primary verse establishing this prohibition is Deuteronomy 4:35, where Moses recounts the revelation at Sinai: "You have been shown, to know that the LORD is the God; there is none else beside Him." This statement, delivered in the context of Israel's unique encounter with God, explicitly rejects any notion of divine multiplicity or association, affirming God's solitary sovereignty as a foundational truth for the Jewish people. The First Commandment in Exodus 20:3 further reinforces this exclusivity: "You shall have no other gods before Me." Beyond prohibiting the physical worship of idols, this commandment extends to any form of conceptual partnership with God, such as ascribing independent divine powers or status to other entities, which would violate the command's intent to center all devotion solely on the Lord. Prophetic texts build on these Torah imperatives, with :8 declaring: "I the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My unto graven images." This verse underscores God's refusal to share His glory or with any other being or representation, prohibiting any attribution of divine honor that could imply and thus reinforcing the 's monotheistic mandate. These verses collectively establish the scriptural basis for barring shituf, providing the essential framework for subsequent rabbinic elaborations on maintaining uncompromised .

Talmudic Discussions

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 63a addresses the severity of shituf through a discussion involving Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, who states that anyone who links the name of with something else—a reference to associating an idol or other entity with —is uprooted from the world, deriving this from the verse in Exodus 22:19: "He who sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed." This declaration underscores the spiritual and existential consequences of such association, positioning shituf as a profound violation of that warrants divine eradication. In the tractate , rabbinic analysis extends to practices involving shituf, particularly regarding the use of 's name alongside pagan elements in rituals or oaths. Later commentaries, such as on and Bekhorot 2b, explore conditions under which such practices by non-Jews may be tolerable within the framework of Noahide laws, distinguishing them from outright prohibited to all humanity. These views suggest that while Jews must avoid any form of shituf, face a less stringent standard, allowing certain associations as long as they acknowledge a supreme .

Distinction from Idolatry

Avodah Zarah for Jews

Avodah zarah, or "foreign worship," constitutes a core prohibition in Jewish law against any form of , explicitly encompassing shituf as the attribution of divine power, partnership, or intermediary status to entities other than the singular . defines this in the (Hilchot 1:1), tracing its origins to the era of Enosh when humanity erroneously ascribed causative powers to stars and spheres as agents of , leading to their and the corruption of pure . This conceptualization frames shituf not merely as but as a subtle violation of absolute divine unity, rendering it forbidden for regardless of intent to affirm 's supremacy. The practical implications for Jewish observance are stringent, prohibiting any participation in acts that imply shituf, such as reciting Trinitarian prayers, swearing oaths incorporating non-divine names, or engaging in rituals that elevate secondary figures to divine status. Intentional transgression incurs the penalty of karet—divine excision from the Jewish people—as stipulated in biblical commandments against (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:2–5). The Talmudic foundation for this equation appears briefly in 63a, which declares that one who combines God's name with another entity merits uprooting from the world, equating such association with idolatrous sacrifice. This halakhic stance is codified authoritatively in the (Yoreh De'ah 147), where Rabbi Yosef Karo rules that shituf equates to for , explicitly barring involvement in Christian liturgical practices or analogous rituals as direct violations of monotheistic fidelity. The glosses, including the , reinforce these restrictions by advising avoidance of idolatrous sites even in extenuating circumstances, underscoring the absolute nature of the prohibition to preserve doctrinal purity.

Noahide Laws for Gentiles

Under the seven Noahide laws, the prohibition against —known as —applies to all non-Jews, requiring recognition of one supreme as the ultimate sovereign. However, rabbinic authorities such as (Bekhorot 2b) and R. Moshe Isserles (Rema) in the (Orah Hayyim 156:1) permit shituf (association or partnership) for gentiles, allowing them to incorporate intermediary figures or powers alongside the one without violating the core monotheistic obligation, provided they affirm singular authority over creation. Maimonides, by contrast, takes a more stringent view, considering such associations as idolatrous even for non-Jews (, Hilkhot Melakhim 12). The rationale for this leniency stems from the distinct theological standards for gentiles versus : Noahides are obligated only to a foundational that upholds 's unity and sovereignty, without the rigorous purity demanded of the Jewish covenant. Associating figures like divine intermediaries or saints as secondary powers does not inherently nullify the acknowledgment of the one Creator, as long as worship and ultimate allegiance remain directed toward alone. This approach ensures universal ethical order while accommodating diverse expressions of devotion that do not devolve into outright . In practice, monotheistic faiths like are generally viewed as compliant with the Noahide idolatry ban due to shituf tolerance in the former and strict in the latter, exempting their adherents from charges of avodah zarah (). Polytheistic religions, by contrast, which posit multiple independent deities, violate the prohibition outright. This contrasts with the stricter avodah zarah rules for , where even shituf constitutes a transgression.

Historical Jewish Perspectives on Shituf in Christianity

Medieval Views

During the medieval period, Jewish scholars grappled with the implications of shituf in relation to , especially whether the doctrine amounted to outright idolatry for non-Jews or a permissible form of association under Noahide laws. These debates arose amid increasing interactions with Christian societies during the and expulsions, drawing on Talmudic precedents to assess practical allowances like business dealings and oaths. Maimonides (Rambam, 1138–1204) adopted a stringent position in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Avodat Kochavim 9:4), deeming idolatrous because it ascribes divine status to , constituting shituf by attributing intermediary powers to a created being alongside —a violation even for gentiles. He explicitly classified such beliefs as and counseled Jews to shun Christian-dominated regions to avoid idolatrous influences and potential . Nachmanides (Ramban, 1194–1270) offered a more permissive interpretation, suggesting that non-Jews may not be prohibited from swearing in an idol’s name if they initiate it and proposing a hierarchical model with intermediary figures for nations, though without permitting worship. This view allowed for economic and social engagements with , since shituf in belief—without denying God's unity—does not breach the core Noahide on for non-Jews. Rashi (1040–1105) and the , through their Talmudic commentaries such as on Bekhorot 2b, endorsed leniency for gentiles by permitting oaths invoking alongside saints or intermediaries, interpreting this as acceptable shituf under Noahide obligations. Rashi acknowledged medieval Christians (e.g., in ) as engaging in idolatrous practices but noted their diminished zeal compared to ancient pagans, which mitigated certain restrictions; the similarly concluded that such Christian customs do not render them full idolaters, facilitating interactions while upholding Jewish separation from worship. These glosses built on Talmudic allowances for non-Jewish associations in limited contexts. Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri (1249–1315), who in his Beit HaBechirah described (and ) as "nations bound by the ways of " (goyim she-nikb'adu be-darkhei dat), thereby exempting their shituf—the association of divine attributes with figures like —from the full prohibitions of applicable to ancient pagans. This view reframed Christian worship as a morally guided monotheistic framework, allowing for normalized Jewish-Christian interactions without halakhic stigma.

Early Modern Developments

In the , rabbinic thought on shituf evolved amid the and expanding , fostering greater pragmatism toward Christian practices. Although rooted in medieval precedents, such as ' qualified acceptance of as not fully idolatrous, these developments marked a shift toward broader tolerance. By the , Rabbi (1697–1776) further defended as non-idolatrous for gentiles, arguing in his writings that it aligned with the Noahide laws by promoting without abrogating Jewish obligations. Emden contended that and his disciples, particularly Paul, intended their teachings solely for non-Jews, reinforcing the seven Noahide commandments while upholding the for Jews, thus rendering Christian shituf permissible for gentiles as a form of guided worship rather than outright . In letters and commentaries, such as his analysis of texts, Emden addressed Christian theologians to clarify these compatibilities, emphasizing 's role in eradicating pagan and fostering moral order among nations. This stance reflected a theological optimism amid interfaith tensions, positioning shituf as a legitimate concession for non-Jews. The proliferation of the and increased during the significantly influenced these rabbinic shifts, exposing scholars to diverse Christian expressions post-Reformation and prompting pragmatic rulings on shituf. Printing disseminated texts like Emden's works widely, enabling rabbis in diaspora centers such as and to engage with Protestant and Catholic traditions, often viewing Christian divisions as opportunities for halakhic leniency in daily interactions. accounts, including those by figures like Abraham Ha-Levi ibn Megas (1585), highlighted Christianity's ethical dimensions, leading to rulings that permitted and social ties despite shituf concerns, prioritizing communal over strict isolation. These factors cultivated a more nuanced tolerance, balancing theological caution with practical coexistence in an era of religious upheaval.

Contemporary Interpretations

20th-21st Century Rabbis

In the , Rabbi (1903–1993), a leading figure in Modern Orthodoxy, articulated a stance on shituf that underscored the profound separation between Jewish and Christian theological frameworks. In his seminal essay "," Soloveitchik argued against interfaith theological dialogue, portraying the Jewish "man of " as inherently lonely and confronted by the uniqueness of the covenantal relationship with God, which renders Christian doctrines incompatible with Jewish participation. He permitted practical cooperation on secular and ethical issues but insisted on preserving the integrity of Jewish , aligning with the traditional halakhic view that shituf is tolerable for gentiles under Noahide laws but strictly forbidden for Jews. Contemporary Rabbi , an Orthodox anti-missionary activist, adopts a more stringent position, equating Trinitarian with outright (avodah zarah) rather than mere shituf, even in public teachings directed at non-Jews. Through his lectures and writings, such as in "Let's Get Biblical," Singer contends that Christian veneration of as divine violates the core prohibition against associating partners with , rendering it unacceptable for gentiles seeking Noahide and urging to reject any . His approach emphasizes countering efforts by highlighting these theological incompatibilities, often drawing on Rambam's classification of as idolatrous. In contrast, Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948–2020) promoted a more inclusive perspective in interfaith contexts, framing as a valid expression of within the Abrahamic family, influenced by early modern leniencies toward practices. In works like "The Dignity of Difference," Sacks described God as communicating through diverse faiths, including , stating, "In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through to , to Christians," thereby emphasizing shared ethical commitments and covenantal roots over doctrinal divides like shituf. This stance facilitated his active role in post-Holocaust dialogues, prioritizing mutual respect and reconciliation while upholding Jewish particularity.

Applications to Other Religions

In contemporary Jewish interpretations, the doctrine of shituf is most frequently applied to , where the belief in the —associating and the with —is viewed as a form of partnership in worship that violates strict for but is permissible for non- under the Noahide laws. Eliezer Melamed, in his halakhic work Peninei , categorizes as shituf, arguing that non- who direct primary worship to the one while incorporating secondary elements do not transgress prohibitions, drawing on medieval Ashkenazic precedents like those of Moshe Isserles. This leniency facilitates interfaith relations, allowing to engage with in business, oaths, and social contexts without treating their faith as outright (). In contrast, shituf does not apply to , which Jewish authorities regard as exemplifying pure akin to Judaism's, free of any partnership or intermediary in divine worship. (Rambam), whose views influence modern rabbis, explicitly praised for upholding —the absolute oneness of God—without idolatrous accretions, positioning it as fully compliant with Noahide requirements for . Contemporary poskim, including those at Yeshivat Har Bracha, affirm this distinction, noting that Muslims' rejection of divine incarnation or plurality aligns their practice with the prohibition against , enabling even closer halakhic accommodations in interactions compared to Christian contexts. The extension of shituf to other religions, such as , represents a more recent development in rabbinic discourse, adapting the category to polytheistic systems where a supreme deity coexists with lesser gods or idols. Melamed applies shituf to , interpreting its pantheon and statue veneration as intermediary practices subordinate to a singular ultimate source, thus permissible for Hindus as non-Jews so long as the remains paramount. Similarly, scholars like Nathan Katz argue that 's underlying —viewing all as manifestations of one —mitigates full status, though practices like idol could border on if not framed as shituf. This approach, echoed in analyses by Alon Goshen-Gottstein, promotes dialogue with Eastern traditions by recognizing their spiritual validity for gentiles while upholding Jewish exclusivity in . For , which lacks a creator , shituf is less directly applicable, often falling under broader Noahide evaluations of or permissibility absent explicit .

References

  1. https://en.yhb.org.il/revivim1090/
  2. https://hakirah.org/vol28Milevsky.pdf
  3. https://www.pealim.com/dict/4288-shituf/
  4. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7857.htm
  5. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.63a
  6. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-45528-4_8
  7. https://www.academia.edu/37672065/David_Ellenson_Rabbi_Hayim_David_Halevi_on_Christians_and_Christianity_An_Analysis_of_Selected_Legal_Writings_of_an_Israeli_Authority_in_Franklin_Harkins_ed_Transforming_Relations_Essays_on_Jews_and_Christians_in_Honor_of_Michael_A_Signer_Notre_Dame_Notre_Dame_2010_340_361
  8. https://torah.org/torah-portion/perceptions-5779-eikev/
  9. https://www.academia.edu/42306859/A_Positive_Light_on_the_Nations_R_Moshe_Isserliss_Revisionistic_Views_on_Christianity
  10. https://www.academia.edu/85896106/_Confronting_the_Challenge_of_Idolatry_Response_to_Alon_Goshen_Gottstein_Same_God_Other_god_Contemporary_Jewry_41_2021_pp_631_637
  11. https://www.chabad.org/torah-texts/5458328/The-Talmud/Sanhedrin/Chapter-7/63a
  12. https://www.torahmusings.com/2022/12/jewish-commentaries-on-christianity/
  13. https://library.yctorah.org/2011/12/is-christianity-avoda-zara-to-christians/
  14. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.63a?lang=bi
  15. https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/is-christianity-considered-avoda-zarah/
  16. https://hakirah.org/Vol28Milevsky.pdf
  17. https://www.iccj.org/fileadmin/files/pdf/201011271429260.BThesen_engl_kompl.pdf
  18. https://torahinmotion.org/articles/holiday-thoughts/asara-btevet-and-christmas
  19. https://www.rabbidavidrosen.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JUDAISM-AND-INTER-RELIGIOUS-CO-EXISTENCE.pdf
  20. https://eweb.furman.edu/~ateipen/ReligionA45/Emden.html
  21. https://www.kotzkblog.com/2019/12/253-r-yaakov-emdens-surprising-views-on.html
  22. https://repository.yu.edu/bitstreams/835fb218-d0d8-4493-87bf-429c5a3a5a2e/download
  23. https://themarginaliareview.com/edom-divided-jews-reformation/
  24. https://prchiz.pl/storage/app/media/pliki/Confrontation.pdf
  25. https://traditiononline.org/confrontation/
  26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJjf4Y-tOaI
  27. https://www.rabbisacks.org/books/the-dignity-of-difference/
  28. https://www.torahmusings.com/2022/11/rabbi-sacks-religious-pluralism-a-halakhic-and-hashkafic-defense/
  29. https://kavvanah.blog/2025/06/11/rabbi-eliezer-melamed-on-hinduism/
  30. https://www.torahmusings.com/2009/04/is-hinduism-avodah-zarah/
  31. http://www.mei.org.in/uploads/jijscontent/235-1559499156-jijsarticlepdf.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.