Avodah Zarah 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna explains that there are objects belonging to idolatry that are nevertheless permitted for benefit.

Mishna:

The Mishna relates:

A gentile heretic

named

Proclus ben Philosophus questioned Rabban Gamliel in

the city of

Akko, where

Rabban Gamliel

was bathing in a bathhouse

that was in the courtyard

of

an idol named

Aphrodite—

And this is what he

said to him: It is written in your Torah [Deuteronomy 13], “

Nothing that has been condemned shall remain attached to your hand”—

Let nothing of the banned property cling to your hand”—

why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?

Rabban Gamliel said to him:

One does not respond

One may not respond

with words of Torah

in a bathhouse,

because people stand there naked.

When he left

for a place where it was permitted to speak words of Torah,

he said to him,

Rabban Gamliel: The reason I am bathing is:

I did not enter its domain

or its territory;

it entered my domain.

The bathhouse existed before the idol, and it was made for anyone who wished to bathe in it. The idol has no right to enter my domain and rob the public.

He gave him another answer

We do not say: Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite,

since a bathhouse is not an object of beauty;

rather,

on the contrary,

we say: Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bathhouse!

The idol serves the bathhouse and becomes an adornment for it. The bathhouse is primary, and the idol is secondary.

Alternatively,

he said to him:

If they were to give you a great deal of money, would you not enter your idolatrous temple naked, as one who has experienced a seminal emission, and urinate before it? This

Aphrodite

stands at the mouth of a sewer

of waste,

and everyone urinates before it!

It was not stated

in the Torah

except “their gods,”

as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12], “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations worshiped… their gods”:

That which one treats as a god—

is forbidden; that which one does not treat as a god—

is permitted.

Gemara:

The Gemara assumes that he answered him inside the bathhouse, “One may not respond in a bathhouse,” and therefore it asks:

But how could he do this?

How could he say so? After all, this answer too is a statement of Torah?

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said

Everywhere it is permitted to contemplate

words of Torah,

except in a bathhouse and a lavatory. And if you would say

that is, if you wish to say:

He said it in secular language—

he said

to him,

and what is forbidden is only in the sacred language—

That is not correct—

but Abaye said: Secular matters

may be uttered

even

in the sacred language. Sacred matters—

may not be uttered

even

in secular language.

And it is difficult: How, then, did he answer him?

And we resolve it:

A tanna

taught the matter in a different version in a beraita: In the bathhouse, indeed, he did not answer him at all; only

when he left

did he say to him: One may not respond in a bathhouse.

The Gemara cites statements of the amoraim, sages of the Gemara era, concerning whether the answers Rabban Gamliel gave were proper answers, or whether he gave “stolen answers”—that is, whether he fended him off with a pretext and did not give him excellent answers.

The Gemara cites statements of the amoraim concerning whether the answers that Rabban Gamliel gave were valid answers, or whether he gave “stolen” answers—that is, whether he fended him off with a flimsy response, and whether the answers were not sound.

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef said [the version of the Bach reads:

“It was a stolen answer

Rabbi Oshaya the Great said: It was a stolen answer—

Rabban Gamliel gave that official!

So said Rav Oshaya the Great, and Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef continues:

And I

disagree with him and

say: It was not stolen!

And we explain:

What was its stolen aspect?

Why did Rabbi Oshaya consider it a stolen answer?

Because he said to him: This one stands at the mouth of a sewer, and everyone urinates before it—

And if they urinate before it,

if this is indeed what they do,

what of it?

What difference does it make? Is it not still an idol, and is it thereby nullified?

But

did

Rava said [in another discussion]: The idol

Peor proves

Peor proves this,

for even

though people defecate before it—

which is extremely degrading—

every day—

nevertheless

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef continues:

it is not nullified!

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef continues:

And I say: It was not stolen!

For there is a distinction between Peor and Aphrodite:

This one—

Peor—

its worship consists of that,

through defecating;

whereas this one—

Aphrodite—

its worship does not consist of that, through urination. Rather, they do this in the bathhouse located in its courtyard.

and this is why it was a stolen answer:

Abaye said: Its stolen aspect is from here,

and therefore it is a stolen answer:

Because he said to him: I did not enter its domain, and it entered my domain—

And if he entered its domain,

even if Aphrodite did in fact precede the existence of the bathhouse there,

what of it?

Is it forbidden?!

But we learned: An idol that has a bathhouse or a garden—

one may benefit from them,

one may benefit from it

without providing a benefit,

if he does not show gratitude to the priests,

but one may not

benefit from them while providing a benefit.

That is to say, there is no prohibition in the benefit itself, because the fact that the bathhouse is designated for the needs of idolatry is not a reason to prohibit it, since “there is no consecration for idolatry.” The bathhouse is not worshiped, nor is it offered as an offering to idolatry.

The entire prohibition is only to show gratitude to the priests.

Since Rabban Gamliel did not show gratitude to the priests, he was permitted to bathe there—even if Aphrodite had preceded the bathhouse.

According to Abaye, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s statement is understood as follows: “

And I say: It was not stolen”—

it was not a proper answer, since

“without Rabban Gamliel’s benefit is equivalent

to

with the benefit of others,”

Even though Rabban Gamliel did not express any thanks to them, it is as though he showed them gratitude, since he was an important person, and the very fact that he benefited from them was a benefit to them.

Why, then, did he bathe there? Therefore he gave him a true answer [and not a stolen one]: because the bathhouse preceded the idolatry.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: Its stolen aspect is from here,

and therefore it is a stolen answer:

Because he said to him: This one stands at the sewer, and everyone urinates before it—

And if they urinate before it,

even if they do so,

what of it?

What difference does it make? Is it thereby nullified?!

But

learned

we learned

in our Mishna:

Only if he scraped before it,

or

urinated before it,

or

dragged it,

dragging mud and excrement over it,

and threw excrement at it—

it is not thereby nullified

until he breaks it.

According to this explanation, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s statement, “

And I say: It was not stolen,” is understood as follows:

There,

it is not nullified, because

for the moment

temporarily,

he was angry with it, and afterward he appeased it,

as is the practice of gentiles—

whereas

here—

at every moment,

at every hour,

it remains in a state of degradation

and continues to be treated contemptuously.

Therefore, it is not a stolen answer.

Rabba bar Ulla said: Its stolen aspect is from here,

and therefore it is a stolen answer:

Because he said to him: We do not say, “Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite”—

rather,

we say:

“Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bathhouse”—

And if he said [the version of the Bach reads:

“if they say”]]

“If they say]

“Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite”—

what of it?

Would it indeed become forbidden, and what difference would that make?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

One who says: “This house is

consecrated

to idolatry; this cup [another version:

“this vineyard”]]

“this vineyard”]

is

consecrated

to idolatry”—

he has said nothing,

and it is not prohibited for benefit, since they did not worship the house and did not offer it as an offering to idolatry; he merely designated it for that purpose verbally. The halakha is

that there is no consecration for idolatry.

Consequently, in any event Rabban Gamliel was permitted to bathe there, even if the bathhouse had been an adornment for idolatry.

According to this explanation, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s statement, “

And I say: It was not stolen,” is understood as follows:

because

although

it is true

that it is not rendered forbidden—

the bathhouse is not prohibited for benefit, because there is no consecration for idolatry—

there is nevertheless an adornment

if it beautifies Aphrodite, and this entails a prohibition, since it is forbidden to bathe an idol in order to beautify it.

Therefore he gave him a true answer: the bathhouse is not an adornment for idolatry.