Avodah Zarah 010

8:
We come now to the fourth of the six pagan festive days that our mishnah lists: Accession Day. This is rendered in the Hebrew text as "Genousia". When scribes encounter foreign words that they do not understand there is always the danger of errors in transliteration. In this present case at some stage in the transmission process a letter yod became a vav – something which is easy to understand. The Greek word is γενεσια [Genesia] and it means 'anniversary' or 'birthday'.

9:
Rambam, in his commentary, describes this day as

Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro concurs with this explanation, and it would seem to refer to the day on which a new Roman emperor was installed. In this they are both following the Gemara [AZ 10a].

10:
However, there is a difficulty with this explanation, and it is that such a day does not occur with regularity, once a month or once a year. Furthermore, given the manner in which so many Roman rulers ended their term of office it would not seem possible to know three days in advance when the next 'accession' would take place. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [AZ 3b] gives a different explanation. Or, to be more exact it does not give an explanation at all, but simply quotes scripture. In the well-known story told in Genesis of how Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh's butler and his baker we read:

The Talmud of Eretz-Israel just explains:

This explanation makes much better sense. The celebration of the Emperor's birthday was an annual festival.

11:
The day of birth: Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro says that this refers to the day on which a son is born to the reigning emperor, and this is a good explanation. Since the festivities had to be arranged they never took place as soon as the child was born but a few days – or weeks – later. The same applies to "the day of death": this would refer to the obsequies of the deceased emperor.

12:
Concerning the day of death there is a maĥloket [difference of opinion] between Rabbi Me'ir and the rest of the sages. Rabbi Me'ir holds that the obsequies of a Roman notable were by definition idolatrous and therefore the day of burial of any notable must be treated as a pagan holy day. The sages disagree. They hold that

It would seem but natural to us to understand the burning here as referring to the incineration of the body of the deceased. Roman practice was to erect a monumental funeral pyre; the body was ceremonially laid on top of the pyre which was then ignited. However, none of the classical commentators hold that this is what the sages are saying. They understand the mishnah to be referring to a Jewish custom of burning incense during a burial. The Gemara [AZ 11a] asks and answers:

The amount of incense referred to is about 250 kilograms! Surely this is a pious exaggeration. The Gemara also notes that Presidents of the Sanhedrin (such as Rabban Gamli'el the Elder) were treated as kings.

To be continued.

In AZ 003 we noted that the sages interpreted the Torah as prohibiting Jews from mentioning the names of pagan deities.

Meir Stone writes:

I assume that it would be best for a Jew not to read out loud parts of Shakespeare that invokes pagan deities. But what of the days of the week and the names of the months in English or months? Almost all of which come from the names of Pagan so called deities?

I respond:

The sages had a delightful expression which they used whenever a ruling could be taken to possibly absurd extremes: "In which case there is no end to the possibilities": Mishnah Pesaĥim 1:2 concerning the search for Ĥametz in absurd places, Mishnah Yoma 1:1 concerning the possibility that a whole series of wives might be needed in case the High Priest becomes a widower on the Day of Atonement. And there are many more examples. Even in the fulfillment of a mitzvah we do not need to go to ridiculous extremes.

In AZ 004 I noted that the original meaning of the Hebrew word for an idol was 'godling'.

Reuven Artzi writes:

The measurements of the statuettes of the fertility godesses and other gods that have been found in archeological digs are about 17 cms at the most. Thus we have indeed a 'godling'.

I respond:

I suspect that these statuettes were small so that they could be conveniently carried and that the original intention of the Hebrew word was derogatory.