Avodah Zarah 44b — the Talmud in English

The Mishna explains that there are things that belong to idolatry and nevertheless are permitted for benefit .

Mishna:

The Mishna relates:

A gentile

of the sectarian kind, whose name was

Proklos son of Plosphos, questioned Rabban Gamaliel in the city of

Akko,

when

Rabban Gamaliel

was bathing in a bathhouse

that was in the courtyard

of

an idol, whose name was

Aphrodite—

And thus

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

Nothing of the proscription shall cling to your hand”—

—

Why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?

Rabban Gamaliel said to him:

One does not respond

to words of Torah

in a bathhouse.

Because people stand there naked.

And when he went out

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

he said to him:

Rabban Gamaliel: The reason that I am bathing is:

I did not enter its boundary

within its domain—

it entered my boundary

The bathhouse preceded the idol, and it was made for everyone who comes to bathe in it; the idol has no right to enter my domain and dispossess the public.

And he further answered with another answer

One does not say: Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite

for a bathhouse is not an object of adornment,

but rather

on the contrary,

one says: Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bathhouse!

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

Another matter

he said to him:

If they gave you much money, would you not enter your idolatry naked and with a seminal emission, and urinate before it? This

Aphrodite

stands at the mouth of the sewer

of refuse,

and all the people urinate before it!

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 served there … 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 thought that he answered him inside the bathhouse, “One does not respond in a bathhouse,” and therefore we ask:

And how did he do this?

How did he do so? After all, this answer too is words of Torah?—

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Everywhere it is permitted to contemplate

words of Torah

, except in a bathhouse and a privy. And if you should say

and if you wish to say:

In a secular language—

he said

to him,

and what is forbidden is only in the holy language—

This is not correct—

But Abaye said: Secular matters—

it is permitted to say them

even

in the holy language. Sacred matters—

it is forbidden to say them

even

in a secular language.

And it is difficult: How did he answer him?

And we resolve it:

A tanna

We learned in a beraita in a different formulation: In the bathhouse he indeed answered him nothing, and only

when he went out—

he said to him: One does not respond in a bathhouse .

The Gemara brings statements of amoraim as to whether the answers that Rabban Gamaliel gave were proper answers, or whether he gave “stolen” answers—that is, whether he brushed him off with straw, and they were not superior answers .

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef said [the reading of the Bach is:

Rabbi Oshaya the Great said]:

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef said [the version of the Bakh:]

Rabbi Oshaya the Great said: A stolen answer—

Rabban Gamaliel gave it to that governor!

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

And I

disagree with him and

say: It is not stolen!

And we explain:

What is its theft?

Why did Rabbi Oshaya consider it a stolen answer?

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

And if they urinate before it

if they indeed do so—

what of it?

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

But

did

Rava said [in another discussion]: The idol

Peor proves it,

even though

they defecate before it

which is a very disgraceful act

every day

—

and

nevertheless it is not nullified!

And Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef continues:

And I say: It is not stolen!

For there is a distinction between Peor and Aphrodite—

this

Peor

its worship consists of this,

of defecating,

whereas this

Aphrodite

its worship does not consist of this,

of urinating, but they do so in the bathhouse that is in its courtyard.

Abaye said: Its theft is from here

Therefore it is a stolen answer:

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

And if it entered its boundary

even if Aphrodite indeed came before there was a bathhouse there—

what of it?

Is it forbidden?!

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

one derives benefit from them

It is permitted to benefit from it

without its benefit

if he does not show gratitude to the priests,

but one does not

derive benefit from them with its benefit

.

That is to say, there is no prohibition in the essence of the “benefit,” because the fact that something is designated for the needs of idolatry is not a reason to forbid it, because “there is no consecration for idolatry”; the bathhouse is not worshipped, and the bathhouse is not offered as an offering to idolatry.

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

And since Rabban Gamaliel did not show gratitude to the priests, it was permitted for him to bathe—even if Aphrodite preceded it.

According to Abaye’s words, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s statement will be interpreted: “

And I say: It is not stolen”—

it is not a proper answer, since

“without Rabban Gamaliel’s benefit is equivalent to

the benefit of others,”

Even though Rabban Gamaliel did not say words of thanks to them, it is as though he showed them gratitude, since he was an important person, and his very benefit from them is a benefit for them.

And why did he indeed 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 theft is from here

Therefore it is a stolen answer:

because he said to him: This one stands at the sewer, and every person 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

we learned

in our Mishna:

Only before it,

or

he urinated before it,

or

he dragged it,

he dragged mud and excrement over it,

and threw excrement upon it—

behold, this is not nullified

until he breaks it.

According to this interpretation, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s words will be interpreted: “

And I say: It is not stolen”—

there

it is not nullified, because

for the moment

he became angry at it, and afterward he appeases it

as is the way of gentiles—

Whereas

here—

at every moment

it remains in disgrace

at every hour

it stands in disgrace

.

And therefore it is not a stolen answer.

Rabba bar Ulla said: Its theft is from here

Therefore it is a stolen answer—

because he said to him:

One does not say: Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite—

but

one says:

Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bathhouse—

And if he said [the version of the Bakh:

they say]

Let us make a bathhouse an adornment for Aphrodite—

what of it?

Is it indeed thereby forbidden, and what difference does it make?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

One who says: This house

is consecrated

to idolatry, this cup [another version:

vineyard]

this

is consecrated

to idolatry—

he has said nothing

and it is not forbidden for benefit, for he did not worship the house, nor did he offer it as an offering to idolatry; he merely designated it for this with his mouth, and the halakha is

that there is no consecration for idolatry.

And consequently, in any event it was permitted for Rabban Gamaliel to bathe in it, even if the bathhouse was an adornment for idolatry.

According to this interpretation, Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef’s words will be interpreted: “

And I say: It is not stolen”—

because

although

it is true

that it was not forbidden

the bathhouse was not forbidden for benefit, because there is no consecration for idolatry, nevertheless

there is at least adornment

if it beautified Aphrodite, there is a prohibition in this, for it is forbidden to bathe idols in order to beautify them .

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

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

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.