Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Ulangan 12:3

V. 3. Chulin 16 b und 17 a differieren ר׳ ישמעאל und ר׳ עקיבא. Nach ersterem war während des ganzen Aufenthaltes in der Wüste בשר תאוה, d. h. das Schlachten von שור כבש ועז lediglich zum Fleischgenusse untersagt, vielmehr musste alles zu שלמים geweiht und als solche im משכן geopfert werden, wo dann das Fleisch den בעלים zum Genuss ward. Erst mit dem Eintritt ins Land הותר להם בשר תאוה und bezieht sich hierauf die gestattende Vorschrift Dewarim 12, 20 u. 21, und wäre dann, nach רש׳׳י Chulin daselbst, das Verbot des בשר תאוה in der Wüste hier in unserer Stelle Verse 3-7 enthalten. Nach ר׳׳ע jedoch בשר תאוה לא איתסר כלל, wäre das Schlachten und Genießen von בהמת חולין auch in der מדבר unverboten gewesen, das Gesetz Dewarim 12, 20-21 enthielte nur das Gebot der שחיטה, die vor dem Eintritt ins Land nur für קדשים geboten, während חולין durch bloße נחירה dem נבלה Charakter enthoben gewesen wären (siehe zu Dewarim daselbst). Dieser Auffassung gemäß spräche dann unsere Stelle ganz so wie die folgenden Vorschriften V. 8 u. f. nur von קדשים בחוץ. Rambam in Hilchot Schechita 4, 17 adoptiert ר׳׳ע's Ansicht. Allein Ramban zu unserer Stelle bemerkt, daß in der Mehrheit der uns von den Weisen überkommenen Äußerungen die Ansicht des ר׳ ישמעאל hervortritt, welchem auch der Wortlaut unserer Stelle am nächsten entspricht. Vergleicht man die Fassung der Verse 3 und 4 mit Versen 8 und 9, so spricht alles dafür, daß in den ersten Versen von חולין und in den letzten von קדשים die Rede ist. V. 3 sind die Objekte שור כשב ועז, V. 8 עולה או זבח. Wir hätten somit hier das Verbot, שור כשב ועז, also opferfähige Tiergattungen; als חולין, als Nichtopfer, außerhalb des משכן-Vorhofes zum Profangenuss zu schlachten; vielmehr soll ein jedes solches Tier nur als שלמים im הצר אהל מוער geschlachtet und dargebracht werden. Durch Dewarim 12, 20 כי ירחיב וגו׳ בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר ist sodann dieses Verbot des בשר תאוה auf den Aufentalt in der Wüste beschränkt und hört mit dem Eintritt ins Land auf.

Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
This mishnah contains a famous story of a discussion between Proclos, a Greek philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel, the Jewish patriarch.
In order to understand this mishnah we must remember that Roman and Greek society would have been full of statues. Indeed, anywhere a Jew turned his head, he probably saw a statue, often a statue of a god or goddess. If the Jews were to adopt an overly strict attitude towards these statues, and consider them idols, Jews would effectively be prohibited from taking part in most of Greco-Roman society, including such communal institutions such as the bathhouse, roads, bridges and marketplaces. In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel shows a remarkable degree of flexibility and accommodation to this situation.
The story begins with Proklos, the son of Plosphos (this may be the word for philosopher) pointing out that the Torah forbids Rabban Gamaliel’s being in Aphrodite’s bathhouse. Rabban Gamaliel responds that it is not appropriate to respond in the bathhouse.
When they leave the bathhouse Rabban Gamaliel answers Proklos’s question. The bathhouse was not made for Aphrodite. Rather it was made for the public use and Aphrodite was merely placed there as adornment. As such, Rabban Gamaliel’s presence in the bathhouse is not a form of worship to Aphrodite, as it would be in her temple. Furthermore, people do not say that the bathhouse was made to adorn Aphrodite. Rather she is ancillary to the bathhouse and it is the central structure.
Rabban Gamaliel further points out that if this sculpture of Aphrodite were truly considered to be a goddess, people would not walk naked in front of her, or have seminal emissions or urinate. Such actions are signs of disrespect, which would not be appropriate in front of a goddess. When the Torah states that a Jew is commanded to destroy idols, the intent is to destroy idols that are treated as gods, and not those that are treated with disrespect.

And he appointed judges When the seer told him, “good things were found in you, for you abolished the asheroth,” he approached the Sepher Torah [to see] whether he had abolished them properly. He first saw that it was written (Deut. 12:2f.): “You shall utterly destroy...and you shall burn their asherim with fire and cut down the images of their gods,” and he remembered that it is written in כִּי תִשָׂא (Exod. 34:13): “And you shall break down their monuments, etc.” He wondered why he had pleased the Lord by abolishing the asherim, the Jewish asherim, for [the Torah] only warned about their asherim. He went back to [the Torah portion] (Deut. 16:18): “Judges and law enforcing agents,” and found written (verse 21): “You shall not plant an asherah.” Then he rejoiced that he had abolished them. He also saw written there: “Judges and law enforcing agents you shall appoint for yourself,” and immediately “he appointed judges,” strong ones.

ואת הבהמה תהרגו AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST — If the man has sinned, what sin has the beast committed? But because the man’s opportunity to stumble (to sin) was occasioned by it, therefore Scripture says, “let it be stoned"! How much the more does this principle apply to a human being who knows to distinguish between good and evil and yet brings evil upon his fellow-man by inducing him to commit a sin. In a similar way you should explain: (Deuteronomy 12:2) “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places [where the nations… served their gods… under every bushy tree]" Now is not the following a logical conclusion? How is it in the case of trees which can neither see nor hear? Merely because an opportunity to sin was occasioned by them Scripture says, "Destroy, burn, exterminate them!״ One who makes his fellow-man deviate from the path of lifeto the path of death, does it not follow all the more that he should be punished? (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 5; cf. Sanhedrin 54a, 55a.)