מתני׳ שָׁאַל פְּרוֹקְלוֹס בֶּן פְּלוֹסְפוֹס אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּעַכּוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְרוֹדִיטִי, אָמַר לֵיהּ, כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם: ״לֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם״, מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְרוֹדִיטִי?

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: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?

אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין מְשִׁיבִין בַּמֶּרְחָץ. וּכְשֶׁיָּצָא, אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי בִּגְבוּלָהּ, הִיא בָּאָה בִּגְבוּלִי; אֵין אוֹמְרִים: ״נַעֲשֶׂה מֶרְחָץ נוֹי לְאַפְרוֹדִיטִי״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר: ״נַעֲשֶׂה אַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי לַמֶּרְחָץ״.

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.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: אִם נוֹתְנִים לְךָ מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, אִי אַתָּה נִכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלְּךָ עָרוּם וּבַעַל קֶרִי וּמַשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ; זוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּי הַבִּיב וְכָל הָעָם מַשְׁתִּינִין לְפָנֶיהָ, לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״, אֶת שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ – אָסוּר, אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ – מוּתָּר.

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: “Their gods” (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.

גמ׳ וְהֵיכִי עֲבִיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכָל מָקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר, חוּץ מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּמִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא!

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’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?

וְכִי תֵּימָא, בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל אֲמַר לֵיהּ – וְהָאָמַר אַבַּיֵי: דְּבָרִים שֶׁל חוֹל מוּתָּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן קֹדֶשׁ, דְּבָרִים שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל!

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’t 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?

תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁיָּצָא אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין מְשִׁיבִין בַּמֶּרְחָץ.

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.

אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר יוֹסֵף בְּרַבִּי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: תְּשׁוּבָה גְּנוּבָה הֱשִׁיבוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְאוֹתוֹ הֶגְמוֹן, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ גְּנוּבָה.

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

מַה גְּנוּבְתֵּיהּ? דְּקָאֲמַר לוֹ: זוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּי הַבִּיב וְכָל אָדָם מַשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ; וְכִי מַשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: פְּעוֹר יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁמְּפָעֲרִין לְפָנָיו בְּכָל יוֹם וְאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל;

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’t 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?

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ גְּנוּבָה, זוֹ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּכָךְ, וְזוֹ אֵין עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּכָךְ.

Rav Ḥama 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; 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.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: גְּנוּבָתָהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי בִּגְבוּלָהּ וְהִיא בָּאָה בִּגְבוּלִי; וְכִי בָּא בִּגְבוּלָהּ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ גִּינָּה – נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה, וְאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה;

Abaye said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s 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’t 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’s answer was therefore deceptive because the permissibility of using the bathhouse had nothing to do with its antecedence to the statue.

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ גְּנוּבָה, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כִּבְטוֹבַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמֵי.

Rav Ḥama 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.

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר: גְּנוּבָתָהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּקָאֲמַר לוֹ: זוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל הַבִּיב וְכָל אָדָם מַשְׁתִּינִין בְּפָנֶיהָ; וְכִי מַשְׁתִּינִין בְּפָנֶיהָ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: רָק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, גֵּירְרָהּ וְזָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה;

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s 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’t 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?

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ גְּנוּבָה, הָתָם לְפִי שַׁעְתָּא הוּא רָתַח עֲלָהּ וַהֲדַר מְפַיֵּיס לָהּ, הָכָא כָּל שַׁעְתָּא וְשַׁעְתָּא בְּזִלְזוּלָהּ קַיְימָא.

Rav Ḥama 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.

רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אֲמַר: גְּנוּבְתָהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַעֲשֶׂה מֶרְחָץ נוֹי לְאַפְרוֹדִיטִי אֶלָּא נַעֲשֶׂה אַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי לַמֶּרְחָץ; וְכִי אָמַר נַעֲשֶׂה מֶרְחָץ לְאַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״בַּיִת זֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״, ״כּוֹס זֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה;

Rabba bar Ulla said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s 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’t 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’s deception lies in his indication that such a formulation would render the bathhouse forbidden as an object of idol worship.

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ גְּנוּבָה, נְהִי דְּאִיתַּסּוּרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא, נוֹי מִיהָא אִיכָּא.

Rav Ḥama 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.