174 CHAPTER FIVElaws of idolatry may have as their primary context the rabbinic study house,
and so they may have been motivated by the internal dynamics of rabbinic
law, they may also be seen as part of a larger social process. Having moved to
the cities and having decided to set about acquiring the authority that they
believed the Torah had granted them, the rabbis could not have maintained
the purely rigoristic approach to idolatry that they presumably had inherited
fro mtheir pre-Destruction Pharisaic and priestly predecessors. At most, the
persistence of individual extremists in or near rabbinic circles (or at least the
rabbinic recounting of stories about such men and about the miraculous de-
struction of public statuary) kept pure aniconis mand separatis malive as ide-
als, by definition generally unattainable. But the universalization of such atti-
tudesamongtherabbisofthesecondandthirdcenturieswouldhavereduced
themtoexistingincompleteisolationfromtherestofPalestinianJewishsoci-
ety. Their modified rigorism, with its uncompromising rejection of anything
remotely connected to pagan cult,^25 but acceptance of most noncultic mani-
festationsofGreco-Romanpaganculture,permittedthemtoliveandfunction
in the cities.
On the other hand, there is reason to believe that some rabbis, even apart
fro mthe patriarchs, took more liberties than the codified halakhah allowed.
We know, for instance, that Hamat Gader, the hot springs near Gadara, was
a favorite resort of some rabbis in the third and fourth centuries, yet we also
know that the place was thoroughly pagan in character. Not only did all the
springs and baths have mythological names, but the annual festival that took
place there, aswell as the common practices ofincubation and commemora-
tion of miraculous cures, clearly indicate that the hot springs were not simply
awinterresortbutalsofunctionedasashrinetoAsclepiusandHygieia.^26 The
Mishnah admittedly permits the use of baths and gardens owned by temples,
but it is hard to see how a bath thatwasa temple could have been permitted.
ThewillingnessofsomerabbistopatronizeaplacelikeHamatGaderdemon-
strates what we might have supposed anyway—a greater diversity of rabbinic
behavior (and opinion?) than the rabbinic sources indicate.
(^25) Even this was to some extent modified by, or in tension with, another rabbinic principle,
darkei shalom, “the ways of peace,” which requires Jews to treat pagans far better than the letter
of the law would lead one to expect. Thus, in towns with mixed population Jews are required to
support the pagan poor, care for their sick, comfort their mourners, and so on. R. Ammi (early
fourth century) is said to have almost permitted some Jews of Gadara (or “weavers”:garda’eor
gadra’ei) to attend a pagan’s (wedding? religious?) celebration, but to have been dissuaded by a
colleague, R. Ba (Y. Avodah Zarah 1:3 = Y. Gittin 5:9, 47c).
(^26) See Y. Hirschfeld,The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: Final Report(Jerusalem: IES,
1997).TherabbinicpassagesarecollectedinKlein,Sefer Hayishuv,s.v.“HamatGader=Hamat.”
Themosaicinscriptionsfromthefifth-centurysynagogueindicatethattheresortremainedpopu-
lar among Jewish visitors even after it was thoroughly christianized; see Naveh,On Mosaic, nos.
32–35.