Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 28, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 44

Study Guide Avoda Zara 44

Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate whether or not one should (and can) crush the idol and scatter it to the wind or not? Is it considered benefitting from as it can fertilize the land? A braita is brought in which Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate the meaning of various verses in order to prove their opinion. Rabban Gamliel was questioned by a non-Jew why he was bathing in a bathhouse that had a statue to Aphrodite. He gave 3 answers. In the gemara聽it is suggested that his answer was not a real answer but a deception, however, it is then explained that it was a true answer. Four explanations are given to explain what the possible deception was and why it was actually a true answer. The next mishna聽discusses mountains and hills that are worshipped, what about them is forbidden to benefit from? How does an Asheira tree fit the rule? Verses from the book of Devarim are brought as proof texts for the various opinions and are explained in different ways.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗砖专 注砖讬转诐 讗转 讛注讙诇 诇拽讞转讬 讜讗砖专祝 讗转讜 讘讗砖 讜讗讻转 讗转讜 讟讞讜谉 讛讬讟讘 注讚 讗砖专 讚拽 诇注驻专 讜讗砖诇讱 讗转 注驻专讜 讗诇 讛谞讞诇 讛讬专讚 诪谉 讛讛专

the calf that you had made, I took and burned it with fire, and beat it in pieces, grinding it very small, until it was as fine as dust; and I cast its dust into the brook that descended out of the mount鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:21)? Moses, who ground up the idolatrous golden calf and dispersed its dust, was apparently unconcerned with the fact that it may fertilize the soil.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝专 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜讬砖拽 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讜讚拽谉 讻住讜讟讜转

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state in the verse: 鈥淎nd he took the calf that they had made, and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it鈥 (Exodus 32:20)? Moses ground up the calf intending only to inspect them like sota women, i.e., like a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful. Such a woman is compelled to drink water containing the ground-up ink from a scroll of Torah passages relating to a sota woman, which causes her to die if she was unfaithful, and exonerates her and bestows blessings upon her if she was faithful. Similarly, Moses ground up the calf in order to compel the people to drink, to cause the guilty parties to die.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 讗转 诪注讻讛 讗诪讜 讛住讬专讛 诪讙讘讬专讛 讗砖专 注砖转讛 诪驻诇爪转讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讚拽 讜讬砖专祝 讘谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉

Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn鈥檛 it already stated concerning Asa: 鈥淎nd he also removed Maacah his mother from being queen, because she had made an abominable image [miflatztah] for an ashera; and Asa cut down her image, and burned it at the Kidron River鈥 (see I聽Kings 15:13)? It seems that Asa was unconcerned that the ground-up idol may provide fertilization. They said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? The Kidron River does not grow vegetation, so even if the idol would have fertilized the soil, it would have been of no benefit.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 诇讙谞谞讬谉 诇讝讘诇 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖 讘讜 讬砖 诪拽讜诐 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉 讜讬砖 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does the Kidron River not grow vegetation? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Yoma 58b): This remainder of blood from the external altar and that remainder of blood from the inner altar are mixed in the Temple courtyard drain beneath the altar, and they flow out with the water used to rinse the area, to the Kidron River, and this water is sold to gardeners for use as fertilizer? The mishna continues: The gardeners pay for this water and thereby desacralize it, and failure to do so would render them liable for misuse of consecrated property. This is explicit proof that the Kidron River does yield produce. The Gemara answers: There are different places in the Kidron River area. There is a place that grows vegetation, and there is a place that does not grow vegetation.

诪讗讬 诪驻诇爪转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讛讜讛 诪驻诇讬讗 诇讬爪谞讜转讗 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讬谉 讝讻专讜转 注砖转讛 诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 谞讘注诇转 诇讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara tangentially inquires about the meaning of a word in the verse quoted above. What is the meaning of miflatztah鈥? Rav Yehuda says: It means an object that intensifies [mafli] licentiousness [leitzanuta]; as Rabbi Yosef teaches: Maacah fashioned upon the idol the likeness of a male organ, and she would engage in sexual activity with it daily.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讻转转 谞讞砖 谞讞砖转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诪砖讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei attempts to cite another proof that grinding an object of idol worship is sufficient, from Hezekiah鈥檚 destruction of Moses鈥 serpent, which was worshipped by the Jewish people in Hezekiah鈥檚 time. Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he broke into pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; as until those days the children of Israel sacrificed to it鈥 (II聽Kings 18:4)? This indicates that breaking an object of idol worship into pieces suffices.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 注砖讛 诇讱 砖专祝 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讜转讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 爪专讬讱

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state in the verse: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Make you a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, shall live鈥 (Numbers 21:8)? The term 鈥渕ake you鈥 is interpreted to mean that the Lord commanded Moses: Make the serpent from your property. Consequently, the serpent belonged to Moses, and the principle in such a case is that a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. Therefore, despite worshipping the serpent, the Jewish people could not render it a forbidden object of idol worship, and by right, it was not necessary to demolish it there.

讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讗 讟注讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讬讛 注诪讚 讜讻讬转转讜

Rather, despite the fact that the serpent did not have the halakhic status of an object of idol worship, since Hezekiah saw that the Jewish people were straying after it, he arose and demolished it. Nevertheless, since this demolishing was not done in order to fulfill the obligation to eradicate objects of idol worship, but merely to prevent its worship, breaking it into pieces was sufficient.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬注讝讘讜 砖诐 讗转 注爪讘讬讛诐 讜讬砖讗诐 讚讜讚 讜讗谞砖讬讜 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讜讬砖讗诐 讚讜讚 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讝专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讝专诐 讜专讜讞 转砖讗诐 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 转讝专讬谞讜谉 讜专讜讞 转讟诇讟诇讬谞讜谉

Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis, citing another proof for his opinion: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd they left their images there, and David and his men took them away [vayyissa鈥檈m]鈥 (II聽Samuel 5:21)? And from where may it be inferred that the meaning of this formulation: 鈥Vayyissa鈥檈m David,鈥 is winnowing, i.e., scattering in the wind? It is as Rav Yosef translates the verse: Tizrem verua岣 tissa鈥檈m (Isaiah 41:16), and we translate it as follows: 鈥淵ou shall fan them, and the wind shall carry them away.鈥 Apparently, this way of disposing of idolatrous objects is sufficient.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖专驻讜 讘讗砖 讜诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖专驻诐 讜讬砖讗诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讬砖讗诐 诪诪砖

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state with regard to the same incident: 鈥淎nd they left their gods there; and David gave an order, and they were burned with fire鈥 (I聽Chronicles 14:12)? And from the fact that it is not written here: And they burned them vayyissa鈥檈m, learn from it that the word vayyissa鈥檈m is not referring to scattering in the wind, but rather it should be understood literally, i.e., David and his men took the idols away; and it does not mean that they demolished and scattered them.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讜 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: In any case, the verses contradict each other. The two accounts with regard to David鈥檚 disposal of the idols seem inconsistent. One states that his men took them away or scattered them, while the other recounts that they burned them.

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讚讜讚 讜讬砖专驻讜 讘讗砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讗诐

The Gemara answers in accordance with the resolution of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna raises a contradiction between the verses, as follows: It is written: 鈥淎nd they left their gods there; and David gave an order, and they were burned with fire鈥 (I聽Chronicles 14:12), and it is also written: 鈥淎nd David and his men took them away鈥 (II聽Samuel 5:21).

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讘讗 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘讗 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬

Rav Huna answers: It is not difficult. In the interim, Ittai the Gittite, who was a gentile, arrived, and David commanded him to revoke the idolatrous status of the idols, as only gentiles are capable of doing this. Here, the verse that states that they burned the idols describes their actions before Ittai the Gittite came, whereas there, the verse that indicates that they simply carried them away is referring to after Ittai the Gittite came and revoked their status as objects of idol worship, obviating the need to burn them.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 讗转 注讟专转 诪诇讻诐 诪注诇 专讗砖讜 讜诪砖拽诇讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬 讘讗 讜讘讬讟诇讛

Another difficulty is resolved by Ittai鈥檚 arrival; as it is written with regard to the Ammonite idol: 鈥淎nd he took the crown of Malcam from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones; and it was set on David鈥檚 head鈥 (II聽Samuel 12:30). But is it permitted for David to wear the crown? Isn鈥檛 it an object of idol worship and therefore under the category of items from which deriving benefit is prohibited? Rav Na岣an says: Ittai the Gittite arrived and revoked its status as an object of idol worship.

诪砖拽诇讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪谞讞 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讗讜讬讛 诇谞讜讞 注诇 专讗砖 讚讜讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讘谉 砖讜讗讘转 讛讬转讛 讘讛 讚讛讜转 讚专讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗讘谉 讬拽专讛 讛讬转讛 讘讛 砖砖讜讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘

搂 The Gemara discusses David鈥檚 crown. The verse states: 鈥淎nd its weight was a talent of gold.鈥 As a talent is a very heavy weight, the Gemara asks: How could David place it on his head? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is meant is not that it was actually placed on his head, but rather that it was fit to rest on David鈥檚 head, i.e., it fit the size of his head. Giving a different answer, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: There was a lodestone in it that would hold it up, i.e., from which it was suspended. David sat and placed his head in it, giving the appearance that he was wearing it. Rabbi Elazar says: What is meant is not that it weighed a full talent of gold, but rather that there was a precious stone on it that was worth a talent of gold.

讝讗转 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讻讬 驻拽讜讚讬讱 谞爪专转讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讻专 砖驻拽讜讚讬讱 谞爪专转讬 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 诇讬 诇注讚讜转 诪讗讬 注讚讜转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讛讬讛 诪谞讬讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇诪转讜 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讗谞讜讞讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪拽讜诐 讬砖 讘专讗砖 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讜 砖转讬 转驻讬诇讬谉

The Gemara asks with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his I have had, as I have kept Your precepts鈥 (Psalms 119:56): What is it saying? The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: As reward for the fact that I kept your precepts, this crown was a testimony for me that I am fit to be king. What exactly was its testimony? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was that David would place the crown on his head on the spot where one dons phylacteries, and it fit him perfectly. The Gemara asks: But how could he have worn the crown? Wasn鈥檛 he required to don phylacteries? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: There is enough space on the part of the head that is fit for donning phylacteries for one to don two phylacteries.

讜讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讘谉 讛诪诇讱 讜讬转谞讜 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛谞讝专 讜讗转 讛注讚讜转 谞讝专 讝讜 讻诇讬诇讗 注讚讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讚讜转 讛讜讗 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 砖讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛讜诇诪转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谉 讛讜诇诪转讜

Similarly, it is stated with regard to Joash: 鈥淭hen they brought out the king鈥檚 son, and put upon him the crown [hanezer] and the testimony, and made him king鈥 (II聽Chronicles 23:11). Nezer鈥 is a crown. What was the 鈥渢estimony鈥? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is a testimony for the progeny of house of David that anyone who is fit for kingship, the crown fits him properly; and anyone who is unfit for kingship, the crown does not fit him properly.

讜讗讚谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讙讬转 诪转谞砖讗 诇讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗诪诇讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪转谞砖讗 诇讛讜诇诪讜 讜诇讗 讛讜诇诪转讜

Similarly, the verse states: 鈥淣ow Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king鈥 (I聽Kings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term 鈥渆xalted himself鈥 teaches that he sought to have the crown fit him, but it did not fit him.

讜讬注砖 诇讜 专讻讘 讜驻专砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗讬砖 专爪讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 讻讜诇诐 谞讟讜诇讬 讟讞讜诇 讜讞拽讜拽讬 讻驻讜转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讛讬讜

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him鈥 (I聽Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings with designs on the throne? It is taught in a baraita that what was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, i.e., flesh from their feet was removed, and these two procedures enhanced their speed.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗诇 驻专讜拽诇讜住 讘谉 驻诇讜住驻讜住 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘注讻讜 砖讛讬讛 专讜讞抓 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转讻诐 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 专讜讞抓 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬

MISHNA: A wise gentile, Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: 鈥淎nd nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?

讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讘诪专讞抓 讜讻砖讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 讘讙讘讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 谞讜讬 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 谞注砖讛 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诇诪专讞抓

Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. Furthermore, people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. Therefore, the main structure is not the Aphrodite statue, but the bathhouse.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讱 诪诪讜谉 讛专讘讛 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讱 注专讜诐 讜讘注诇 拽专讬 讜诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讛注诐 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗诇讛讬讛诐 讗转 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诇讜讛 讗住讜专 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诇讜讛 诪讜转专

Rabban Gamliel continued: Alternatively, there is another answer: Even if people would give you a lot of money, you would not enter before your object of idol worship naked, or as one who experienced a seminal emission who comes to the bathhouse to purify himself, nor would you urinate before it. This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all the people urinate before it. There is no prohibition in this case, as it is stated in the verse only: 鈥淭heir gods鈥 (see Deuteronomy 12:2), which indicates that a statue that people treat as a deity is forbidden, but one that people do not treat with the respect that is due to a deity is permitted.

讙诪壮 讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗

GEMARA: The mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel first told Proclus that he cannot answer a question related to Torah in a bathhouse. The Gemara asks: And how could he have acted in this manner? How could Rabban Gamliel have stated even this halakha in the bathhouse? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇

And if you would say that Rabban Gamliel stated this ruling to him in a secular language, and therefore it was permitted for him to do so, this would not be a satisfactory answer; but doesn鈥檛 Abaye say that it is permitted to say secular statements in a bathhouse or bathroom in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, but it is prohibited to say sacred, Torah-related, statements even in a secular language in a bathhouse or bathroom?

转谞讗 讻砖讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讘诪专讞抓

The Gemara answers that the mishna actually taught as follows: When he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转砖讜讘讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讛砖讬讘讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef the Distinguished says that Rabbi Oshaya says: Rabban Gamliel gave a deceptive response to that officer, Proclus. And I, Rav 岣ma, say that the response was not deceptive but truthful.

诪讛 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注讜专 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诪驻注专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara explains: What was its deception, according to Rabbi Oshaya? It was that Rabban Gamliel said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. In saying this, Rabban Gamliel meant that the statue has no idolatrous status as is evident from the demeaning conduct performed before it. And this claim is deceptive, as even if one urinates before it, what of it? Does that really negate its idolatrous status? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that the idol of Peor proves the contrary, as its worshippers defecate before it daily, and its idolatrous status still is not revoked?

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讝讜 注讘讜讚转讛 讘讻讱 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讘讻讱

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. With regard to that idol, Peor, its standard manner of worship is in that manner; therefore, its status is certainly not revoked by that behavior. But with regard to this statue, Aphrodite, its standard manner of worship is not in that manner. Therefore, the display of demeaning conduct in its presence is indicative of a lack of reverence for it and of its lack of idolatrous status.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 讘讙讘讜诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬 讜讻讬 讘讗 讘讙讘讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪专讞抓 讗讜 讙讬谞讛 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛

Abaye said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him: I did not come into its domain, but rather it came into my domain. He explains: And even if it, the bathhouse, had come into its domain, what of it? Even if the idol had preceded the bathhouse, it would still not render use of the bathhouse prohibited; but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (51b): With regard to an object of idol worship that has a bathhouse or a garden in front of it, one may derive benefit from the bathhouse or garden without showing favor by giving thanks or payment to its priests, but one may not derive benefit from it while showing it favor? Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 answer was therefore deceptive because the permissibility of using the bathhouse had nothing to do with its antecedence to the statue.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讘讟讜讘转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer, as even though Rabban Gamliel visited the bathhouse without showing favor by expressing thanks or giving payment, the very fact that such an esteemed visitor paid it a visit is the equivalent of others actively showing favor.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讛砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讙讬专专讛 讜讝专拽 讘讛 讗转 讛爪讜讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讘讟讬诇讛

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya says: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. He explains: And if people urinate before it, what of it? That does not indicate a lack of idolatrous status; but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (53a): If one spit in front of it, urinated in front of it, dragged it, or threw feces at it, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked?

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讛转诐 诇驻讬 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 专转讞 注诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬讬住 诇讛 讛讻讗 讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讘讝诇讝讜诇讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. There, the case of that mishna is of one who temporarily rages against the idol, and afterward he appeases it. Here, in the case of the Aphrodite statue erected on the sewage pipe, each and every hour the statue remains in a constant state of disparagement. This setup indicates a permanent lack of reverence and an absence of true idolatrous status.

专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 谞讜讬 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诇诪专讞抓 讜讻讬 讗诪专 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讝讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讜住 讝讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabba bar Ulla said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him that people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. He explains: And even if people say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite, what of it? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says: This house is hereby dedicated to idol worship, or: This cup is hereby dedicated to idol worship, he has said nothing, i.e., his words take no effect, as there is no halakha of consecration with regard to objects of idol worship. While one can consecrate an item to the Temple through verbal designation, there is no such method for according idolatrous status to an object. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 deception lies in his indication that such a formulation would render the bathhouse forbidden as an object of idol worship.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 谞讜讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. Although the bathhouse would not be rendered forbidden as an object of idol worship due to a verbal designation, it would at least have the status of an adornment of an object of idol worship, which is also forbidden.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 44

讗砖专 注砖讬转诐 讗转 讛注讙诇 诇拽讞转讬 讜讗砖专祝 讗转讜 讘讗砖 讜讗讻转 讗转讜 讟讞讜谉 讛讬讟讘 注讚 讗砖专 讚拽 诇注驻专 讜讗砖诇讱 讗转 注驻专讜 讗诇 讛谞讞诇 讛讬专讚 诪谉 讛讛专

the calf that you had made, I took and burned it with fire, and beat it in pieces, grinding it very small, until it was as fine as dust; and I cast its dust into the brook that descended out of the mount鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:21)? Moses, who ground up the idolatrous golden calf and dispersed its dust, was apparently unconcerned with the fact that it may fertilize the soil.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝专 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜讬砖拽 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讜讚拽谉 讻住讜讟讜转

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state in the verse: 鈥淎nd he took the calf that they had made, and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it鈥 (Exodus 32:20)? Moses ground up the calf intending only to inspect them like sota women, i.e., like a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful. Such a woman is compelled to drink water containing the ground-up ink from a scroll of Torah passages relating to a sota woman, which causes her to die if she was unfaithful, and exonerates her and bestows blessings upon her if she was faithful. Similarly, Moses ground up the calf in order to compel the people to drink, to cause the guilty parties to die.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 讗转 诪注讻讛 讗诪讜 讛住讬专讛 诪讙讘讬专讛 讗砖专 注砖转讛 诪驻诇爪转讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讚拽 讜讬砖专祝 讘谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉

Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn鈥檛 it already stated concerning Asa: 鈥淎nd he also removed Maacah his mother from being queen, because she had made an abominable image [miflatztah] for an ashera; and Asa cut down her image, and burned it at the Kidron River鈥 (see I聽Kings 15:13)? It seems that Asa was unconcerned that the ground-up idol may provide fertilization. They said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? The Kidron River does not grow vegetation, so even if the idol would have fertilized the soil, it would have been of no benefit.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 诇讙谞谞讬谉 诇讝讘诇 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖 讘讜 讬砖 诪拽讜诐 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉 讜讬砖 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讚诇 爪诪讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does the Kidron River not grow vegetation? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Yoma 58b): This remainder of blood from the external altar and that remainder of blood from the inner altar are mixed in the Temple courtyard drain beneath the altar, and they flow out with the water used to rinse the area, to the Kidron River, and this water is sold to gardeners for use as fertilizer? The mishna continues: The gardeners pay for this water and thereby desacralize it, and failure to do so would render them liable for misuse of consecrated property. This is explicit proof that the Kidron River does yield produce. The Gemara answers: There are different places in the Kidron River area. There is a place that grows vegetation, and there is a place that does not grow vegetation.

诪讗讬 诪驻诇爪转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讛讜讛 诪驻诇讬讗 诇讬爪谞讜转讗 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讬谉 讝讻专讜转 注砖转讛 诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 谞讘注诇转 诇讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara tangentially inquires about the meaning of a word in the verse quoted above. What is the meaning of miflatztah鈥? Rav Yehuda says: It means an object that intensifies [mafli] licentiousness [leitzanuta]; as Rabbi Yosef teaches: Maacah fashioned upon the idol the likeness of a male organ, and she would engage in sexual activity with it daily.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讻转转 谞讞砖 谞讞砖转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诪砖讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei attempts to cite another proof that grinding an object of idol worship is sufficient, from Hezekiah鈥檚 destruction of Moses鈥 serpent, which was worshipped by the Jewish people in Hezekiah鈥檚 time. Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he broke into pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; as until those days the children of Israel sacrificed to it鈥 (II聽Kings 18:4)? This indicates that breaking an object of idol worship into pieces suffices.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 注砖讛 诇讱 砖专祝 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讜转讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 爪专讬讱

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state in the verse: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Make you a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, shall live鈥 (Numbers 21:8)? The term 鈥渕ake you鈥 is interpreted to mean that the Lord commanded Moses: Make the serpent from your property. Consequently, the serpent belonged to Moses, and the principle in such a case is that a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. Therefore, despite worshipping the serpent, the Jewish people could not render it a forbidden object of idol worship, and by right, it was not necessary to demolish it there.

讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讗 讟注讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讬讛 注诪讚 讜讻讬转转讜

Rather, despite the fact that the serpent did not have the halakhic status of an object of idol worship, since Hezekiah saw that the Jewish people were straying after it, he arose and demolished it. Nevertheless, since this demolishing was not done in order to fulfill the obligation to eradicate objects of idol worship, but merely to prevent its worship, breaking it into pieces was sufficient.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬注讝讘讜 砖诐 讗转 注爪讘讬讛诐 讜讬砖讗诐 讚讜讚 讜讗谞砖讬讜 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讜讬砖讗诐 讚讜讚 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讝专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讝专诐 讜专讜讞 转砖讗诐 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 转讝专讬谞讜谉 讜专讜讞 转讟诇讟诇讬谞讜谉

Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis, citing another proof for his opinion: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd they left their images there, and David and his men took them away [vayyissa鈥檈m]鈥 (II聽Samuel 5:21)? And from where may it be inferred that the meaning of this formulation: 鈥Vayyissa鈥檈m David,鈥 is winnowing, i.e., scattering in the wind? It is as Rav Yosef translates the verse: Tizrem verua岣 tissa鈥檈m (Isaiah 41:16), and we translate it as follows: 鈥淵ou shall fan them, and the wind shall carry them away.鈥 Apparently, this way of disposing of idolatrous objects is sufficient.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖专驻讜 讘讗砖 讜诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖专驻诐 讜讬砖讗诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讬砖讗诐 诪诪砖

The Rabbis said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? Doesn鈥檛 it state with regard to the same incident: 鈥淎nd they left their gods there; and David gave an order, and they were burned with fire鈥 (I聽Chronicles 14:12)? And from the fact that it is not written here: And they burned them vayyissa鈥檈m, learn from it that the word vayyissa鈥檈m is not referring to scattering in the wind, but rather it should be understood literally, i.e., David and his men took the idols away; and it does not mean that they demolished and scattered them.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讜 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: In any case, the verses contradict each other. The two accounts with regard to David鈥檚 disposal of the idols seem inconsistent. One states that his men took them away or scattered them, while the other recounts that they burned them.

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讚讜讚 讜讬砖专驻讜 讘讗砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讗诐

The Gemara answers in accordance with the resolution of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna raises a contradiction between the verses, as follows: It is written: 鈥淎nd they left their gods there; and David gave an order, and they were burned with fire鈥 (I聽Chronicles 14:12), and it is also written: 鈥淎nd David and his men took them away鈥 (II聽Samuel 5:21).

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讘讗 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘讗 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬

Rav Huna answers: It is not difficult. In the interim, Ittai the Gittite, who was a gentile, arrived, and David commanded him to revoke the idolatrous status of the idols, as only gentiles are capable of doing this. Here, the verse that states that they burned the idols describes their actions before Ittai the Gittite came, whereas there, the verse that indicates that they simply carried them away is referring to after Ittai the Gittite came and revoked their status as objects of idol worship, obviating the need to burn them.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 讗转 注讟专转 诪诇讻诐 诪注诇 专讗砖讜 讜诪砖拽诇讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬转讬 讛讙讬转讬 讘讗 讜讘讬讟诇讛

Another difficulty is resolved by Ittai鈥檚 arrival; as it is written with regard to the Ammonite idol: 鈥淎nd he took the crown of Malcam from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones; and it was set on David鈥檚 head鈥 (II聽Samuel 12:30). But is it permitted for David to wear the crown? Isn鈥檛 it an object of idol worship and therefore under the category of items from which deriving benefit is prohibited? Rav Na岣an says: Ittai the Gittite arrived and revoked its status as an object of idol worship.

诪砖拽诇讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪谞讞 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讗讜讬讛 诇谞讜讞 注诇 专讗砖 讚讜讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讘谉 砖讜讗讘转 讛讬转讛 讘讛 讚讛讜转 讚专讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗讘谉 讬拽专讛 讛讬转讛 讘讛 砖砖讜讛 讻讻专 讝讛讘

搂 The Gemara discusses David鈥檚 crown. The verse states: 鈥淎nd its weight was a talent of gold.鈥 As a talent is a very heavy weight, the Gemara asks: How could David place it on his head? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is meant is not that it was actually placed on his head, but rather that it was fit to rest on David鈥檚 head, i.e., it fit the size of his head. Giving a different answer, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: There was a lodestone in it that would hold it up, i.e., from which it was suspended. David sat and placed his head in it, giving the appearance that he was wearing it. Rabbi Elazar says: What is meant is not that it weighed a full talent of gold, but rather that there was a precious stone on it that was worth a talent of gold.

讝讗转 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讻讬 驻拽讜讚讬讱 谞爪专转讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讻专 砖驻拽讜讚讬讱 谞爪专转讬 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 诇讬 诇注讚讜转 诪讗讬 注讚讜转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讛讬讛 诪谞讬讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇诪转讜 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讗谞讜讞讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪拽讜诐 讬砖 讘专讗砖 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讜 砖转讬 转驻讬诇讬谉

The Gemara asks with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his I have had, as I have kept Your precepts鈥 (Psalms 119:56): What is it saying? The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: As reward for the fact that I kept your precepts, this crown was a testimony for me that I am fit to be king. What exactly was its testimony? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was that David would place the crown on his head on the spot where one dons phylacteries, and it fit him perfectly. The Gemara asks: But how could he have worn the crown? Wasn鈥檛 he required to don phylacteries? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: There is enough space on the part of the head that is fit for donning phylacteries for one to don two phylacteries.

讜讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讘谉 讛诪诇讱 讜讬转谞讜 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛谞讝专 讜讗转 讛注讚讜转 谞讝专 讝讜 讻诇讬诇讗 注讚讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讚讜转 讛讜讗 诇讘讬转 讚讜讚 砖讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛讜诇诪转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讬谉 讛讜诇诪转讜

Similarly, it is stated with regard to Joash: 鈥淭hen they brought out the king鈥檚 son, and put upon him the crown [hanezer] and the testimony, and made him king鈥 (II聽Chronicles 23:11). Nezer鈥 is a crown. What was the 鈥渢estimony鈥? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is a testimony for the progeny of house of David that anyone who is fit for kingship, the crown fits him properly; and anyone who is unfit for kingship, the crown does not fit him properly.

讜讗讚谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讙讬转 诪转谞砖讗 诇讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗诪诇讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪转谞砖讗 诇讛讜诇诪讜 讜诇讗 讛讜诇诪转讜

Similarly, the verse states: 鈥淣ow Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king鈥 (I聽Kings 1:5). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The term 鈥渆xalted himself鈥 teaches that he sought to have the crown fit him, but it did not fit him.

讜讬注砖 诇讜 专讻讘 讜驻专砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗讬砖 专爪讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 讻讜诇诐 谞讟讜诇讬 讟讞讜诇 讜讞拽讜拽讬 讻驻讜转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讛讬讜

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him鈥 (I聽Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings with designs on the throne? It is taught in a baraita that what was unique was that the runners all had their spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, i.e., flesh from their feet was removed, and these two procedures enhanced their speed.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讗诇 驻专讜拽诇讜住 讘谉 驻诇讜住驻讜住 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘注讻讜 砖讛讬讛 专讜讞抓 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转讻诐 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 专讜讞抓 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬

MISHNA: A wise gentile, Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: 鈥淎nd nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?

讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讘诪专讞抓 讜讻砖讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 讘讙讘讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 谞讜讬 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 谞注砖讛 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诇诪专讞抓

Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. Furthermore, people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. Therefore, the main structure is not the Aphrodite statue, but the bathhouse.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讱 诪诪讜谉 讛专讘讛 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讱 注专讜诐 讜讘注诇 拽专讬 讜诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讛注诐 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗诇讛讬讛诐 讗转 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诇讜讛 讗住讜专 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诇讜讛 诪讜转专

Rabban Gamliel continued: Alternatively, there is another answer: Even if people would give you a lot of money, you would not enter before your object of idol worship naked, or as one who experienced a seminal emission who comes to the bathhouse to purify himself, nor would you urinate before it. This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all the people urinate before it. There is no prohibition in this case, as it is stated in the verse only: 鈥淭heir gods鈥 (see Deuteronomy 12:2), which indicates that a statue that people treat as a deity is forbidden, but one that people do not treat with the respect that is due to a deity is permitted.

讙诪壮 讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗

GEMARA: The mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel first told Proclus that he cannot answer a question related to Torah in a bathhouse. The Gemara asks: And how could he have acted in this manner? How could Rabban Gamliel have stated even this halakha in the bathhouse? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讚砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 拽讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇

And if you would say that Rabban Gamliel stated this ruling to him in a secular language, and therefore it was permitted for him to do so, this would not be a satisfactory answer; but doesn鈥檛 Abaye say that it is permitted to say secular statements in a bathhouse or bathroom in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, but it is prohibited to say sacred, Torah-related, statements even in a secular language in a bathhouse or bathroom?

转谞讗 讻砖讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讘诪专讞抓

The Gemara answers that the mishna actually taught as follows: When he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转砖讜讘讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讛砖讬讘讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗讜转讜 讛讙诪讜谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef the Distinguished says that Rabbi Oshaya says: Rabban Gamliel gave a deceptive response to that officer, Proclus. And I, Rav 岣ma, say that the response was not deceptive but truthful.

诪讛 讙谞讜讘转讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注讜专 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诪驻注专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara explains: What was its deception, according to Rabbi Oshaya? It was that Rabban Gamliel said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. In saying this, Rabban Gamliel meant that the statue has no idolatrous status as is evident from the demeaning conduct performed before it. And this claim is deceptive, as even if one urinates before it, what of it? Does that really negate its idolatrous status? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that the idol of Peor proves the contrary, as its worshippers defecate before it daily, and its idolatrous status still is not revoked?

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讝讜 注讘讜讚转讛 讘讻讱 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚转讛 讘讻讱

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. With regard to that idol, Peor, its standard manner of worship is in that manner; therefore, its status is certainly not revoked by that behavior. But with regard to this statue, Aphrodite, its standard manner of worship is not in that manner. Therefore, the display of demeaning conduct in its presence is indicative of a lack of reverence for it and of its lack of idolatrous status.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 讘讙讘讜诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬 讜讻讬 讘讗 讘讙讘讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 诪专讞抓 讗讜 讙讬谞讛 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛

Abaye said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him: I did not come into its domain, but rather it came into my domain. He explains: And even if it, the bathhouse, had come into its domain, what of it? Even if the idol had preceded the bathhouse, it would still not render use of the bathhouse prohibited; but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (51b): With regard to an object of idol worship that has a bathhouse or a garden in front of it, one may derive benefit from the bathhouse or garden without showing favor by giving thanks or payment to its priests, but one may not derive benefit from it while showing it favor? Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 answer was therefore deceptive because the permissibility of using the bathhouse had nothing to do with its antecedence to the statue.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讘讟讜讘转 讗讞专讬诐 讚诪讬

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer, as even though Rabban Gamliel visited the bathhouse without showing favor by expressing thanks or giving payment, the very fact that such an esteemed visitor paid it a visit is the equivalent of others actively showing favor.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 注讜诪讚转 注诇 讛讘讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讛砖转讬谉 讘驻谞讬讛 讙讬专专讛 讜讝专拽 讘讛 讗转 讛爪讜讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讘讟讬诇讛

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya says: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. He explains: And if people urinate before it, what of it? That does not indicate a lack of idolatrous status; but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (53a): If one spit in front of it, urinated in front of it, dragged it, or threw feces at it, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked?

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 讛转诐 诇驻讬 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 专转讞 注诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬讬住 诇讛 讛讻讗 讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讘讝诇讝讜诇讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. There, the case of that mishna is of one who temporarily rages against the idol, and afterward he appeases it. Here, in the case of the Aphrodite statue erected on the sewage pipe, each and every hour the statue remains in a constant state of disparagement. This setup indicates a permanent lack of reverence and an absence of true idolatrous status.

专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讙谞讜讘转讛 诪讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 谞讜讬 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诇诪专讞抓 讜讻讬 讗诪专 谞注砖讛 诪专讞抓 诇讗驻专讜讚讬讟讬 谞讜讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讝讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讜住 讝讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabba bar Ulla said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 response was from here, when he said to him that people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. He explains: And even if people say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite, what of it? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says: This house is hereby dedicated to idol worship, or: This cup is hereby dedicated to idol worship, he has said nothing, i.e., his words take no effect, as there is no halakha of consecration with regard to objects of idol worship. While one can consecrate an item to the Temple through verbal designation, there is no such method for according idolatrous status to an object. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 deception lies in his indication that such a formulation would render the bathhouse forbidden as an object of idol worship.

讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讙谞讜讘讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 谞讜讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗

Rav 岣ma bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. Although the bathhouse would not be rendered forbidden as an object of idol worship due to a verbal designation, it would at least have the status of an adornment of an object of idol worship, which is also forbidden.

Scroll To Top