Avodah Zarah 058

1:
Our mishnah consists of three clauses. The first clause is concerned with Jews working in a winery together with non-Jews; this clause is a continuation of the previous mishnah. (Indeed, in the Babylonian Talmud mishnahs 8 and 9 are treated as one.) The second and third clauses in our mishnah are concerned with Jews working in certain foodstuffs together with other Jews who happen to be in a state of ritual impurity.

2:
The Gemara [AZ 55b] explains that the first clause of our mishnah is dealing with work in a winery that belongs to a non-Jew. It will be easier to understand this clause if we deal with its components in reverse order.

3:
A Jewish labourer may not assist in the harvesting of grapes from a vineyard that belongs to a non-Jew. The reason is connected with yeyn nesekh. The owner of the vineyard is a non-Jew, so the Jew would be depositing grapes into baskets that belong to a non-Jew. By doing so he would be rendering produce of Eretz-Israel ritually impure and in doing so the Jew would be a kind of accessory to the ritual defilement of food that could otherwise be consumed by observant Jews. (We have discussed the issue of ritual impurity many times; in particular see our study of Tractate Yadayyim. The details are not relevant to our present study.)

4:
The Gemara notes that our present mishnah seems to contradict what is implied in the previous mishnah. In Mishnah 8 we learned that

We explained in the previous shiur that as long as the grapes are in the pit where they are trodden and their juice has not yet reached the vat they do not become yeyn nesekh if they are handled by a non-Jew. In the Gemara [AZ 55b] Rav Huna explains that the apparent contradiction derives from the fact that the sages reconsidered their opinion: our present mishnah, he says, reflects the earlier opinion which was later superceded by the one implied in mishnah 8.

The logic becomes apparent from the continuation of our mishnah:

If we are not permitted to harvest grapes with a Jew who does not observe the rules and regulations of ritual purity it is but logical that we may not do so with a non-Jew (who does not observe those rules and regulations). However, the halakhah is not according to our present mishnah but according to the previous mishnah since the juice from the grapes can only become yeyn nesekh once it reaches the vat, and not before.

To be continued.

In AZ 054 we learned how the sages viewed the possibility of a non-Jew cancelling the sanctity of his idol. Among other things we read: If [a non-Jew] spat on [the idol], urinated before it, dragged it [around], threw feces on it – it has not been cancelled.

Daniel Kirk, writes:

Didn't Chazal knew of one idol that was worshipped just by such filthy business – Peor? Rashi comments on Bmidbar 25:3 ("And Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor…"): "Peor" was so named because they bared their anus before it and relieved themselves. This was the manner of its worship." The Talmud [Sanhedrin 64a]: "Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A gentile woman once fell sick. She vowed, 'If I recover, I will go and serve every idol in the world.' She recovered, and proceeded to serve all idols. On reaching Peor, she asked its priests, 'How is this worshipped'? They replied, 'People eat beets, drink strong drink, and then uncover themselves before it.'" The last clause is euphemistic, isn't it? Our Mishnah's idol-to-be-cancelled could have been Peor, and then its would-be canceller would honor rather than desecrate it by resorting to such measures. The Gemara goes on to tell how R. Manasseh threw a stone at an idol as a gesture of desecration, only to learn that the idol was Merculis, which, as we have learned, was served davka by throwing stones.

My question, at last: is the Mishnah excluding these means of cancelling an idol because they might have been means of worshipping it? If so, perhaps there is a point of mussar to be made that even in extirpating an evil as fundamental as idolatry, we should beware soiling ourselves by taking on its indignities.

I respond:

The explanation offered by Daniel is not that offered by the Gemara, as explained in AZ 054. But Daniel has here offered a fascinating insight. Yes, the sages were of the opinion that the Moabite god Pe'or was worshipped by defecation – incredible as this may seem to us. So Daniel's insight is certainly not far-fetched. However, we should also bear in mind that modern scholarship is not so certain that the biblical Ba'al Pe'or can be identified as an independent deity. Some are of the opinion that the term simply refers to the Ba'al of the mountain top Pe'or – and we know that the Canaanite deity Ba'al was indeed worshipped on mountain tops. Others (rather dubiously, in my opinion) identify Pe'or with the Semitic sun-god Shamash. A third opinion is that the Hebrew Pe'or represents the Egyptian Pi-Hor and that therefore Pe'or is a representation of the Egyptian god Horus. Whether or not any of these identifications are valid it does suggest that the sages were more concerned with the emotional motivation of the would-be canceller than his or her actual actions. Thank you, Daniel, for a most interesting suggestion.