Avodah Zarah 44b

עבודה זרה מ״ד ע״ב

Learn Avodah Zarah 44b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Avodah Zarah 44b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

רבן גמליאל in אפרודיטי's bathhouse: his answers to פרוקלוס, and whether they were 'stolen' (misleading)

Overview

The משנה tells how a non-Jew named פרוקלוס asked רבן גמליאל how he could bathe in a bathhouse with a statue of אפרודיטי, since the תורה forbids benefiting from עבודה זרה. Outside the bathhouse, רבן גמליאל gave his answers: the bathhouse came first, the statue is only decoration for it, and people urinate in front of this statue, so it is not treated as 'their gods.' The גמרא first asks how he could say even 'one may not answer in the bathhouse' while inside, since תורה is forbidden there in any language. It answers that he said it only after he left. Then רבי אושעיא calls רבן גמליאל's reply a 'stolen' (misleading) answer, and רב חמא בר יוסף says it was honest. Different אמוראים point to different parts as the misleading one: the urinating (רבי אושעיא and רב שימי בר חייא), who came first (אביי), and which serves which (רבה בר עולא). Each time, רב חמא בר יוסף defends רבן גמליאל with a real distinction: worship versus disrespect, a great man's visit counting as favor, permanent versus passing disgrace, and the idol's adornment being forbidden.

Opening lines

The steps (21)

1. Questionפרוקלוס asks why רבן גמליאל bathes in אפרודיטי's bathhouse
2. Responseרבן גמליאל refuses to answer inside the bathhouse
3. ResponseFirst answer: the bathhouse came first, and the statue is just decoration
4. ResponseSecond answer: a statue treated with disrespect is not 'their gods'
5. ChallengeHow could רבן גמליאל speak about Torah in the bathhouse at all?
6. ChallengeSpeaking in a secular language does not help
7. ResolutionHe said it only after leaving the bathhouse
8. StatementWas רבן גמליאל's answer misleading?
9. QuestionWhat was misleading about it?
10. ResponseThe argument about urinating before the statue
11. Proofפעור shows disgrace does not cancel an idol
12. Rejectionרב חמא rejects the proof from פעור
13. Statementאביי locates the misleading part elsewhere
14. ProofProof: even an idol's own bathhouse may be used
15. Rejectionרב חמא: for רבן גמליאל, no favor is still favor
16. Statementרב שימי בר חייא: the drain claim was misleading
17. ProofProof: disrespect does not cancel an idol
18. RejectionA passing insult is different from permanent disgrace
19. Statementרבה בר עולא: the misleading part was 'the statue adorns the bathhouse'
20. ProofWords alone cannot make an object forbidden for idol worship
21. RejectionNot forbidden by words, but still an adornment of the idol