Proclus and Rabban Gamliel: A Philosophical Exchange on Idolatry and Civic Spaces Outside of Aphrodite's Bathhouse (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4)

Outline

1. Proclus the Philosopher Questions Rabban Gamliel on Bathhouse Dedicated to Aphrodite¹

2. Rabban Gamliel’s Threefold Defense: Why the Aphrodite Statue in the Bathhouse Is Not Idolatrous

3. Appendix - Talmud: Did Rabban Gamliel Deceive Proclus?

The Passage

Mishnah_Avodah_Zarah.3.4

Proclus the Philosopher Questions Rabban Gamliel on Bathhouse Dedicated to Aphrodite

In this passage from the Mishnah, Proclus,² a non-Jewish philosopher,³ questions Rabban Gamliel (presumably, Gamaliel II) in Akko about why he bathes in a bathhouse⁴ dedicated to the Greek goddess Aphrodite (אפרודיטי), despite a biblical verse understood as prohibiting benef from objects of idol worship (Deuteronomy 13:18). 

Rabban Gamliel initially deflects the question because it was asked in a bathhouse (presumably meaning that discussing Torah is forbidden there). 

שאל פרוקלוס בן פלוספוס את ר"ג בעכו, 

שהיה רוחץ במרחץ של אפרודיטי 

אמר ליה: 

כתוב בתורתכם (דברים יג, יח): 

"לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם" 

מפני מה אתה רוחץ במרחץ של אפרודיטי?

אמר לו: אין משיבין במרחץ 

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?

Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. 

Rabban Gamliel’s Threefold Defense: Why the Aphrodite Statue in the Bathhouse Is Not Idolatrous

Once outside, he provides several justifications:

1. “I did not come into its domain (גבולה); it came into my domain”

2. “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.”: Meaning, the statue was placed to decorate the bathhouse, not the other way around, which establishes the bathhouse as the main entity, therefore the statue is not an object of worship.

3. Disrespectful Treatment: Rabban Gamliel points out that people do not treat the statue as a deity worthy of reverence: they enter the bathhouse unclothed and “having experienced a seminal emission” (בעל קרי), and urinate near it. This lack of respect means the statue isn’t truly considered a deity, as pagans would never do this in a temple dedicated to the deity.

Thus, based on the verse “Their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2), which is interpreted as forbidding interaction only with revered idols, he concludes that since the statue isn’t treated with reverence, it’s permitted to be in its vicinity.

וכשיצא, אמר לו: 

1. אני לא באתי בגבולה, היא באה בגבולי 

2. אין אומרים: "נעשה מרחץ נוי לאפרודיטי", אלא אומר: "נעשה אפרודיטי נוי למרחץ"

3. דבר אחר: 

   1. אם נותנים לך ממון הרבה, אי אתה נכנס לעבודת כוכבים שלך 

      1. ערום 

      2. ובעל קרי 

      3. ומשתין בפניה 

   2. זו, עומדת על פי הביב, וכל העם משתינין לפניה!

   3. לא נאמר אלא "אלהיהם" -- 

   4. את שנוהג בו משום אלוה -- אסור 

   5. את שאינו נוהג בו משום אלוה -- מותר

And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: 

1. I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. 

2. 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.

3. Rabban Gamliel continued: Alternatively, there is another answer:

   1. Even if people would give you a lot of money, you would not enter before your object of idol worship

      1. naked,

      2. or as one who experienced a seminal emission who comes to the bathhouse to purify himself,

      3. nor would you urinate before it.

   2. This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all the people urinate before it. 

   3. There is no prohibition in this case, as it is stated in the verse only: “Their gods” (see Deuteronomy 12:2), which indicates that 

   4. a statue that people treat as a deity is forbidden, 

   5. but one that people do not treat with the respect that is due to a deity is permitted.

Appendix - Talmud

Avodah_Zarah.44b.7

Did Rabban Gamliel Deceive Proclus?

The Talmud on this Mishnah discusses whether Rabban Gamliel gave a deceptive answer to Proclus⁵ regarding the idolatrous status of a statue of Aphrodite in a bathhouse. 

R' Oshaya claims Rabban Gamliel’s response was deceptive,⁶ while Rav Ḥama bar Yosef (רבי חמא בר יוסף) defends it as truthful.⁷

(The Talmud then precedes, in the next sections, not quoted here, to reconstruct how each may have interpreted the Mishnah, giving four possible interpretations.)

א"ר חמא בר יוסף ברבי, א"ר אושעיא: 

תשובה גנובה השיבו ר"ג לאותו הגמון 

ואני אומר: אינה גנובה

Rav Ḥama bar Yosef the Distinguished says that R' 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.

1. Compare my earlier pieces on Talmudic passages featuring philosophical dialogues between a prominent Jewish sage and a non-Jewish figure: 

• “Talmudic Apologetics: A Cycle of Dialogues with Roman Pagans Regarding God and Idols (Avodah Zarah 54b-55a)”: Pt1 ; Pt2

• “Monotheism Defended: The Story of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi Debating a Theistic Dualist (Chullin 87a)”

• “Four Philosophical Dialogues Between R’ Yehuda Hanasi and the Roman Antoninus (Sanhedrin 91a-b)”

2. פרוקלוס; this was a common Greek name; for a list of people with this name, see Proclus (disambiguation) - Wikipedia > “People in history”.

See also Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.3.5.14:

רבי מנא, כד עאל פרוקלא בציפורי, הורי מפקא נחתומיא בשוקא.

When Proclus (פרוקלא) entered Sepphoris, R’ Mana instructed the bakers to present their wares in the market.

Ed. Guggenheimer notes on the name (f. 78):

Grätz (Geschichte der Juden p. 314) reads Proculus and identifies him as an officer of Ursicinus’s army (under the emperor Gallus.)

(See Wikipedia, “Jewish revolt against Constantius Gallus“, section “Ursicinus' campaign“.)

However, see the Wikipedia entry on R’ Mana (hyperlinked above):

The Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 3:5) records that R. Mana instructed the bakers of Sepphoris to bake bread (either on the Sabbath or Passover) when a certain Proqla arrived. This individual should be identified with Proculus (prefect of Constantinople), who was governor of Palestine in c. 380. This would indicate that the Jerusalem Talmud was completed after this time.

3. בן פלוספוס.

Steinsaltz incorrectly translates these two words as “ben Plospus”, as if this was a patronym; on formats of patronyms that aren’t father’s name, see my piece on my Academia page.

For another dialogue between Rabban Gamliel and a non-Jewish “philosopher”, quoted in the Talmud earlier in this tractate, see my previous piece “Talmudic Apologetics”, cited in an earlier note. There, the intro is similar to here, as follows, Avodah_Zarah.54b.18

שאל פלוספוס אחד את ר"ג:

כתוב בתורתכם

[…]

A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel:

It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship:

[…]

And see also Avodah_Zarah.55a.2:

שאל אגריפס שר צבא את ר"ג

כתיב בתורתכם

[…]

Agrippas the general asked Rabban Gamliel:

It is written in your Torah with regard to idol worship:

[…]

(On that second passage: The name Agrippas was a fairly common one in atiquity, see Wikipedia, “Agrippa“, > “People” > “Antiquity“.

However, no one listed there fits the date and description here exactly: non-Jewish general, interacting with Rabban Gamliel II, so c. 100 CE.)

4. מרחץ; on Roman bathhouses in Roman Eretz Yisrael, see the recent book by Yaron Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023)

5. Referring to him with a Greek word for ruler/officer: ‘hegemon” - הגמון.

6. גנובה - literally: “stolen”, i.e. “stealing” his mind.

Compare the talmudic term “Geneivat da'at”:

(Hebrew: גניבת דעת, literally: 'theft of the mind', from Hebrew גנבה  'stealing' and דעת  'knowledge')

A concept in Jewish law and ethics that refers to a kind of dishonest misrepresentation or deception.

It is applied in a wide spectrum of interpersonal situations, especially in business transactions.

7. Related to the broader question of permitted deception in the Talmud, see my piece at my Academia page on stories of deception in the Talmud.