THE RABBIS AND URBAN CULTURE 169publicbaths,anduseinexpensiveitemsdecoratedwithunambiguouslypagan
symbols (3:3), but it is also permissible to derive benefit from idols assumed
nottohavebeenworshiped(4:4;cf.T.AvodahZarah5:3–4)oridolsthathave
been abandoned, slightly disfigured, or, in one opinion, simply sold, by a
pagan(4:5–6).Indeed,aJewmayunhesitatinglyenjoyagardenorbathhouse
that belongs to a pagan temple, as long as no expression of gratitude to the
priests is required (4:3). The later rabbinic collections go further, in some
cases, making explicit what the Mishnah leaves unsaid: images, even of the
gods—in paintings, mosaics, the carvings on such household items as “Del-
phic” tables—are expressly permitted, provided they are simply “decoration.”
How could the rabbis so blatantly ignore the tenor of the Pentateuchal laws,
withtheirapparentlyunconditionaloppositiontoimages,andofgeneralbibli-
cal thought?
Gamaliel’sResponse:ADoctrineofMereDecorationIntheirdiscussionsofthisMishnah,theTalmudsfocusonRabbanGamaliel’s
refusal to answer Proklos in the bathhouse. This refusal foreshadows the
Mishnah’sargumentthatthebath,withitsnaked,urinatingpatrons,isunsuit-
able for religious activities, such as pagan sacrifice and Torah study. The
Talmudim observethatGamaliel’sveryrefusaltoanswerwasapieceofTorah
study and so should have been forbidden! We will not let this characteristic
paradox detain us, though, since what follows is ofgreater interest. What can
Gamalielhavemeantbysayingthatthe goddessenteredhisterritory,andnot
viceversa?RabbanGamaliel’sfirstresponseisindeeddifficulttounderstand,
but it may in fact mean no more than that bathhouses are for bathers, not
worshipers, so the goddess, not the bather, is the intruder. As the Babylonian
Talmud observed in its comment on this Mishnah, this sort of argument is
palpablyinadequate, evenfromtheperspectiveofrabbiniclaw,letalonethat
of biblical prescription. But this very inadequacy explains why additional re-
sponses are given.
Thesecondandthirdclausesshould,Ibelieve,betakenascomplementary:
together they produce a kind of “doctrine of mere decoration.” The pagans
themselves would say that Aphrodite in the bath is secondary, a mere orna-
ment—indeed, they themselves do not hesitate to stand before her naked,
behavior they would not countenance in their own temples. An idol is only a
god, and so subject to (our attenuated version of) the biblical prohibitions, if
it is treated like one. If it is erected in a bathhouse or, by extension, used to
decorate tableware, or simply neglected, it is perfectly acceptable.^16
(^16) Myargumenthereabouttherabbis’creationofthecategoryofthedecorativeisfunctionally
similar to Halbertal’s claim (“Coexisting with the Enemy”) that with the laws ofavodah zarah
they created a “neutral space” in which Jews and pagans could coexist.