Talmudic Apologetics: A Cycle of Dialogues with Roman Pagans Regarding God and Idols (Avodah Zarah 54b-55a) - Pt. 2
Pt. 1 contained an introduction and the first two dialogues, this part—pt. 2 —contains the remaining four dialogues. To reiterate the outline of the dialogues:
Mishnah - “They asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome”
Talmud - Beraita - “Philosophers asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome”
Talmud - “A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel”
Talmud - “Agrippas the general asked Rabban Gamliel”
Talmud - “Zunin said to Rabbi Akiva”
Talmud - “Rava bar Rav Yitzḥak said to Rav Yehuda”
Illustration by DALL-E. Description: “An illustration depicting a scene from the Talmud, specifically from Avodah Zarah 54b-55a. The scene is set in ancient times, showing a group of Jewish scholars engaged in a philosophical dialogue with Roman pagans.”
#3 - Talmud - “A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel”
Rabban Gamliel's Dialogue with an unnamed philosopher:
He explains God's anger is towards idol worshippers, not the idols themselves, using a parable of a son disrespecting his father by naming a dog after him.
Confronted with the argument that idols have power (evidenced by a temple surviving a fire), Rabban Gamliel responds that God punishes living worshippers, not inanimate idols. (Puzzlingly, this seems to skirt the challenge, which is that idols seem to have actual power. It's possible that Rabban Gamliel means that although it's true that idols have power, they have power in a mechanistic way, but don't have agency in the same way that humans do. See later, in the final story [#6], where this philosophical challenge is addressed more directly.)
Addressing why God doesn't remove idols, he explains (as in stories #1 and #2) the necessity of natural elements and the impracticality of destroying the world because of foolish idolaters.
Talmud, ibid. (section #18) - 55a (section # 1):
שאל פלוספוס אחד את ר"ג: כתוב בתורתכם (דברים ד, כד) "כי ה' אלהיך אש אוכלה הוא, אל קנא", מפני מה מתקנא בעובדיה, ואין מתקנא בה?
אמר לו: אמשול לך משל למה"ד, למלך בשר ודם שהיה לו בן אחד, ואותו הבן היה מגדל לו את הכלב, והעלה לו שם על שם אביו, וכשהוא נשבע, אומר "בחיי כלב אבא". כששמע המלך, על מי הוא כועס, על הבן הוא כועס, או על הכלב הוא כועס? הוי אומר על הבן הוא כועס.
אמר לו: כלב אתה קורא אותה? והלא יש בה ממש.
אמר לו: ומה ראית?
אמר לו: פעם אחת נפלה דליקה בעירנו, ונשרפה כל העיר כולה, ואותו בית עבודת כוכבים לא נשרף.
אמר לו: אמשול לך משל למה"ד, למלך ב"ו שסרחה עליו מדינה, כשהוא עושה מלחמה, עם החיים הוא עושה, או עם המתים הוא עושה? הוי אומר עם החיים הוא עושה.
א"ל: כלב אתה קורא אותה? מת אתה קורא אותה? א"כ יאבדנה מן העולם.
אמר לו :אילו לדבר שאין העולם צריך לו היו עובדין, הרי הוא מבטלה. הרי הן עובדין לחמה וללבנה לכוכבים ולמזלות לאפיקים ולגאיות, יאבד עולמו מפני שוטים?
וכן הוא אומר (צפניה א, ב) "אסוף אסף כל מעל פני האדמה נאם ה' אסף אדם ובהמה אסף עוף השמים ודגי הים והמכשלות את הרשעים [וגו']", וכי מפני שהרשעים נכשלים בהן יאבדם מן העולם? והלא לאדם הן עובדין (צפניה א, ג) "והכרתי את האדם מעל פני האדמה [וגו']"
A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). For what reason is He jealous and does He exact vengeance from the idol’s worshippers, but He is not jealous of the idol itself and does not destroy it?
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who had one son, and that son was raising a dog. And the son gave the dog a name, naming him after his father. When the son would take an oath, he would say: I swear by the life of the dog, my father. When the king heard about this, with whom was the king angry? Is he angry with the son or is he angry with the dog? You must say that he is angry with the son. So too, God is angry with the worshippers who attribute divinity to objects of idol worship and not with the objects of idol worship themselves.
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: Do you call the idol a dog? But the idol truly exists, i.e., has power.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: And what did you see that caused you to believe that the idols have power?
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: A fire once broke out in our city, and the entire city was burned down, but that temple of idol worship was not burned down.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood whose province sinned against him. When he wages war, does he wage war against the living or does he wage war against the dead? You must say that he wages war against the living. God punishes the living worshippers and not the idol, which is not alive.
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: You call the idol a dog; you call the idol dead. If it is so, let God remove it from the world.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon, the stars and the constellations, and the streams and the valleys. Should He destroy His world because of fools? And so the verse states: “Shall I utterly consume all things from off the face of the earth? says the Lord. Shall I consume man and beast? Shall I consume the fowls of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the stumbling blocks of the wicked, and shall I cut off man from off the face of the earth? says the Lord” (Zephaniah 1:2–3). Should God remove objects of idol worship from the world due to the fact that the wicked stumble because of them? If so, He would have to destroy all of humanity as well, as do not idol worshippers also worship people? This is expressed in the continuation of the verse: “And shall I cut off man from off the face of the earth? says the Lord.”
#4 - Talmud - “Agrippas the general asked Rabban Gamliel”
A certain “General Agrippas” (אגריפס שר צבא - an otherwise unknown person) questions God's jealousy towards idols. Rabban Gamliel uses the analogy of a man marrying a less distinguished second wife, explaining that jealousy arises from the inferior status of idols compared to God. (This response seems to be fairly weak.)
Talmud, ibid. 55a (sections # 2-3):
שאל אגריפס שר צבא את ר"ג: כתיב בתורתכם (דברים ד, כד) "כי ה' אלהיך אש אכלה הוא, אל קנא", כלום מתקנא אלא חכם בחכם, וגבור בגבור, ועשיר בעשיר?
אמר לו: אמשול לך משל למה"ד, לאדם שנשא אשה על אשתו. חשובה ממנה, אין מתקנאה בה, פחותה ממנה, מתקנאה בה.
Agrippas the general asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). Doesn’t jealousy arise only in the following cases: A wise man might be jealous of another wise man, and a mighty man might be jealous of another mighty man, and a rich man might be jealous of another rich man? If so, why is God jealous of objects of idol worship, which are not gods?
Rabban Gamliel said to Agrippas: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It can be compared to a person who married a second wife in addition to his first wife. If the second wife is more distinguished than the first wife, the first wife is not jealous of her, and she does not feel anger toward her husband. But if the second wife is less distinguished than the first wife, she is jealous of her.
#5 - Talmud - “Zunin said to Rabbi Akiva”
Zunin observes people apparently healed by idolatry and asks for an explanation. R’ Akiva uses a parable of a trustworthy man to illustrate that the natural order (like healing) isn't influenced by idol worship, but follows a predetermined path, independent of the idolatry.
In contemporary terms, we’d summarize R’ Akiva’s response as saying that the healing is a coincidence, and that correlation doesn’t imply causation.
In actual terminology and theory, R’ Akiva’s description of disease is strongly animistic (“at the time when suffering [יסורין - yisurin] is sent to afflict the person, an oath is administered to them...The forms of suffering say: By right we should not leave him. But then they say: Should we forsake our pledge [נאבד שבועתנו] ...”).
Wikipedia, “Animism”:
“Animism is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as animated and alive. ”
This theoretical perspective is common throughout the Talmud, but this doesn’t affect the broader point. Animistic terminology and assumptions might be implicit in story #2 as well. It’s not impossible that the language is simply highly anthropomorphic and allegorical, with no animistic assumptions whatsoever, but this is unlikely, taking into account many other relevant statements in the Talmud.
Talmud, ibid. (sections # 4-7):
א"ל זונין לר"ע: לבי ולבך ידע דעבודת כוכבים לית בה מששא, והא קחזינן גברי דאזלי כי מתברי, ואתו כי מצמדי, מ"ט?
אמר לו: אמשול לך משל למה"ד, לאדם נאמן שהיה בעיר, וכל בני עירו היו מפקידין אצלו שלא בעדים, ובא אדם אחד והפקיד לו בעדים. פעם אחד, שכח והפקיד אצלו שלא בעדים. אמרה לו אשתו: בוא ונכפרנו. אמר לה: וכי מפני ששוטה זה עשה שלא כהוגן, אנו נאבד את אמונתינו?
אף כך, יסורין, בשעה שמשגרין אותן על האדם, משביעין אותן שלא תלכו אלא ביום פלוני, ולא תצאו אלא ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ועל ידי פלוני ועל ידי סם פלוני, כיון שהגיע זמנן לצאת, הלך זה לבית עבודת כוכבים, אמרו יסורין, דין הוא שלא נצא, וחוזרין ואומרים, וכי מפני ששוטה זה עושה שלא כהוגן, אנו נאבד שבועתנו?
והיינו דא"ר יוחנן: מאי דכתיב (דברים כח, נט) "וחלים רעים ונאמנים" רעים בשליחותן, ונאמנים בשבועתן.
Zunin said to Rabbi Akiva: Both my heart and your heart know that there is no substance to idol worship. Nevertheless, don’t we see people who go with broken limbs to worship idols and come back when they are whole? What is the reason for this?
Rabbi Akiva said to Zunin: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It can be compared to a trusted person who was in a certain city, and all the residents of his city would deposit items and money with him, even not in the presence of witnesses. And there was one man who did not trust him, who came and specifically deposited money with him in the presence of witnesses. On one occasion, that person forgot and deposited money with him not in the presence of witnesses. The trusted man’s wife said to him: Come, let us deny that he deposited the money with us, as there are no witnesses. The man said to her: Should we lose our credibility and act deceitfully just because this fool acted improperly and did not require the presence of witnesses?
So too, with regard to different forms of suffering, at the time when they are sent to afflict the person, an oath is administered to them as follows: Take an oath that you shall not go and afflict the person except on such and such a day. And you shall not leave him except on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, by means of so-and-so, a specific doctor, and by means of such and such a medicine. When the time came for the suffering to leave him, this sick man went to a temple of idol worship. The forms of suffering said: By right we should not leave him. But then they say: Should we lose the fulfillment of our oath just because this fool is acting improperly?
And this is consistent with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then the Lord will make your plagues wonderful, and the plagues of your seed, even great plagues and faithful, and evil and faithful sicknesses” (Deuteronomy 28:59)? The term “evil” does not mean that the agent of sickness is in itself evil. Rather, this is referring to its mission, which is to cause harm. The term “and faithful sicknesses” indicates that the illnesses are faithful to their oath and adhere to the times designated for the affliction.
#6 - Talmud - “Rava bar Rav Yitzḥak said to Rav Yehuda”
Rava bar Rav Yitzhak and Rav Yehuda discuss a local idol temple where ritual human sacrifice appears to directly lead to rain:
“When the world is in need of rain, the idol appears to them in a dream, and it says to them: Slaughter a man as an offering to me, and I will bring rain. They then slaughter a man for it, and the rain comes”.
Rav Yehuda explains that God allows nations to be misled by idolatry, so that they’ll eventually be punished. Reish Lakish is then cited to the effect that those who seek sin are “provided with an opening” (פותחין לו), while those seeking purity receive divine assistance.
Talmud, ibid. 55a (sections # 8-10):
א"ל רבא בר רב יצחק לרב יהודה: האיכא בית עבודת כוכבים באתרין, דכי מצטריך עלמא למטרא, מתחזי להו בחלמא, ואמר להו "שחטו לי גברא, ואייתי מטרא", שחטו לה גברא, ואתי מטרא?
א"ל: השתא אי הוי שכיבנא, לא אמרי לכו הא מלתא, דאמר רב: מאי דכתיב (דברים ד, יט) "אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אותם לכל העמים" מלמד שהחליקן בדברים, כדי לטורדן מן העולם.
והיינו דאמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב (משלי ג, לד) "אם ללצים הוא יליץ, ולענוים יתן חן", בא לטמא, פותחין לו, בא לטהר, מסייעין אותו:
Rava bar Rav Yitzḥak said to Rav Yehuda: Isn’t there a temple of idol worship in our locale, where, when the world is in need of rain, the idol appears to them in a dream, and it says to them: Slaughter a man as an offering to me, and I will bring rain. They then slaughter a man for it, and the rain comes.
Rav Yehuda said to Rava bar Rav Yitzḥak: Now, were I dead I would not have been able to tell you the explanation of this matter. It is therefore good that you reminded me of this matter while I am alive. The explanation is as Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And lest you lift up your eyes to the heavens, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heavens, you are drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which the Lord your God has allotted [ḥalak] to all the nations under the whole heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19). The verse teaches that God allowed the nations to be misled [sheheḥelikan] by matters that seemingly indicate that idol worship is effective in order to expel the nations from the world due to their decision to engage in idol worship.
And this is consistent with that which Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scornful, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? One who comes in order to become impure, i.e., to sin, they, in Heaven, provide him with an opening to do so, and he is not prevented from sinning. If one comes in order to become purified, not only is he allowed to do so, but they, in Heaven, assist him.
This final story (#6) is the only one where it’s not a Roman pagan querying a Jewish sage. In any case, Rav Yehuda in his response seems to be implying something even more strong than the previous explanation of R’ Akiva (#5): That indeed the idol worship is having a positive effect, because God actually causes it to happen, to trick (החליקן בדברים) the idol worshippers.
(This point is made here as well: יכולות העבודה הזרה (עבודה זרה נה ע"א)).
Interestingly, in the whole sugya, there’s no evidence of the currently popular Jewish Orthodox claim, that lack of evidence of God’s power is for the sake of the Jews, so that would be choosing belief in God through free will and faith.