Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Daled, Part 6

 

Introduction

The amoraim continue to discuss whether Rabban Gamaliel s response to Proklos was deceptive.

 

אמר אביי גנובתה מהכא דקאמר ליה אני לא באתי בגבולה והיא באה בגבולי וכי בא בגבולה מאי הוי והתנן עבודת כוכבים שיש לה מרחץ או גינה נהנין מהן שלא בטובה ואין נהנין מהן בטובה ואני אומר אינה גנובה שלא בטובת רבן גמליאל כבטובת אחרים דמי

 

Abaye said: Its deception was from the fact that he told him, I did not enter her domain, she entered mine. And if he had entered her domain, what of it? For we learn: If an idol has a bathhouse or garden, we may derive benefit from it as long as we don t provide something in return, but we may not derive benefit if we do provide something in return.

But I hold that [R. Gamaliel’s answer] was not deceptive, because the favor provided by Rabban Gamaliel is not like the favor provided by others.

 

Abaye offers a different alternative as to what the deception may have been. One of Rabban Gamaliel s answers was that he did not enter Aphrodite s domain, she entered his. But Abaye points out that it is permitted to enter the domain of an idol in order to take a bath, or a stroll in the garden. The prohibition is only to provide direct benefit to the idolatry. Thus Rabban Gamaliel did not need to say that he didn t enter her domain.

But Abaye himself points out that this answer is not actually deceptive. Rabban Gamaliel is a very important person, a real macher. His mere entrance into someone s domain is considered providing a benefit. So if Rabban Gamaliel had entered Aphrodite s domain, it would have been a problem. But he did not. She entered his.

 

רב שימי בר חייא אמר גנובתה מהכא דקאמר לו זו עומדת על הביב וכל אדם משתינין בפניה וכי משתינין בפניה מאי הוי והתנן רק בפניה השתין בפניה גיררה וזרק בה את הצואה הרי זו אינה בטילה ואני אומר אינה גנובה התם לפי שעתא הוא רתח עלה והדר מפייס לה הכא כל שעתא ושעתא בזלזולה קיימא

 

R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: Its deceptiveness was from the fact that he told him, This [statue] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. And if people do urinate before it, what does this matter? Have we not learned: If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it, or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled!

But I maintain that [his answer] was not deceptive. There [in the mishnah just cited] the man may have been momentarily angry at the idol and subsequently made his peace with it; but here [in the case of the Aphrodite image] it is constantly treated in this contemptuous manner.

 

R. Shimi b. Hiyya locates a different way in which Rabban Gamaliel s answer was deceptive. Urinating on an idol is not considered annulment, according to the mishnah. Thus the fact that people urinate it does not mean that he can derive benefit from it.

But R. Shimi b. Hiyya explains that one person urinating on the idol may not be considered annulment. Later, when he calms down, he will make peace with his idol. But people urinate in front of the idol all the time. Thus it is annulled.

 

רבה בר עולא אמר גנובתה מהכא דקאמר ליה אין אומרין נעשה מרחץ נוי לאפרודיטי אלא נעשה אפרודיטי נוי למרחץ וכי אמר נעשה מרחץ לאפרודיטי נוי מאי הוי והתניא האומר בית זה לעבודת כוכבים כוס זה לעבודת כוכבים לא אמר כלום שאין הקדש לעבודת כוכבים ואני אומר אינה גנובה נהי דאיתסורי לא מיתסרא נוי מיהא איכא:

 

Rabbah b. Ulla said: Its deceptiveness is from the fact that he told him, People do not say, the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite ; rather they say, Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath. And if one said that the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite, so what? For it has been taught: If one says, This house is for an idol, this cup is for an idol, he has said nothing because there can be no dedication to an idol!

But I say that [his answer] was not deceptive. Granted that [the use of the bath] is not actually forbidden, it is nevertheless intended as an ornament [of the idol, and is consequently prohibited].

 

Rabbah b. Ulla has yet another answer as to how Rabban Gamaliel s response may have been deceptive. Rabban Gamaliel claims that people do not say that the bathhouse was made for Aphrodite. But, Rabbah points out, even if they did say this, it still would not cause the bathhouse too become prohibited because items cannot be dedicated to idol worship. Even if they are, they are still permitted.

But Rabbah b. Ulla says that the remark was not actually deceptive. While we would not consider the bathhouse to have been dedicated to idolatry, it still would have been prohibited as an ornament for idolatry. Thus Rabban Gamaliel needed to point out that it is not prohibited because the idol adorns it; not the other way around.