Smashing / Smoothing Its Face
In today’s daf, Avodah Zarah 53a, there’s a curious Mishnah and gemara:
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ? קָטַע רֹאשׁ אׇזְנָהּ, רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמָהּ, רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ, פְּחָסָהּ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִיסְּרָהּ — בִּיטְּלָהּ; רָק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, גֵּרְרָהּ, זָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה; מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ — רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּיטֵּל, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בִּיטֵּל.
MISHNA: How does a gentile revoke the status of an object of idol worship? If he cut off the tip of its ear, or the tip of its nose, or its fingertip; or if he crushed it, even though he did not remove any part of it, in all these cases he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship. If he spat before the idol, urinated before it, dragged it on the ground, or threw excrement at it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn, and afterward the gentile might continue to worship the idol. If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status.
Specifically regarding the pechasah, there is the modification that he did not thereby remove / reduce it. The other actions obviously would reduce it.
In the gemara, we have Rabbi Zeira:
גְּמָ׳ כִּי לֹא חִיסְּרָהּ, בְּמַאי בִּיטְּלָהּ? אָמַר רַב זֵירָא: שֶׁפְּחָסָהּ בְּפָנֶיהָ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the gentile crushed the idol without removing any part of it, the status of the idol is revoked. The Gemara asks: In a case where he did not remove any part of it, by what action did he revoke its status? Rav Zeira says: The mishna is referring to a case where he crushed its face with a hammer, destroying its form, even though none of its stone was removed.
It is unclear what R’ Zeira is adding? Isn’t this what the Mishnah said? The most straightforward explanation is that he adds “in its face”, meaning specifically “crushing” that portion of it is enough of a bittul, and maybe enough of a “removal” even though there is no removal.
There’s a dispute between the standard / Rashi explanation above, where it is crushed or smashed, and Rambam, who explains it as smoothed. In this latter explanation, the idolator is smoothing out the facial features of the idol, thus removing those features even without removing actual material.
I think a credible alternative for Rabbi Zeira comes to mind when examining Jastrow on a different word entry:
That s, with a ש / shin but related to the word with a samech. A variant (?) of Targum Yerushalmi on Vayikra 21:18 about mumin for a kohen renders the word charum in the context of:
כִּ֥י כׇל־אִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ מ֖וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרָ֑ב אִ֤ישׁ עִוֵּר֙ א֣וֹ פִסֵּ֔חַ א֥וֹ חָרֻ֖ם א֥וֹ שָׂרֽוּעַ׃
No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified: no man who is blind, or lame, or has a limb too short or too long;
not as דְלָקִי בְּחוּטְמֵיהּ, stricken in his nostrils, but rather פחיש, which Jastrow renders as flat-nosed.
So, Rabbi Zeira’s insight is that this פחס in the Mishnah refers to creating the same פחש condition, that its facial features / nose is flattened!
(Throw-away pun, that it is פחס, even though, that is, af al pi / nose on mouth?)
Also, what entirely threw me for a while was Rabbi Zeira introducing a secondary usage of the word בְּפָנֶיהָ. Right after saying that smashing / flattening indeed works, the Mishnah contrasts it with רָק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, spitting in front of it or urinating in front of it.
Within Rabbi Zeira, the hammering is not בְּפָנֶיהָ, in front of it, but בְּפָנֶיהָ, to its face!
That led me on a false exploration to find a פחס meaning that is degrading and performed in front of the idol. But, that is not correct. Similarly, we can wonder whether these degrading acts were performed to the idol’s face. But that also does not seem true. Rather, at most, there could be wordplay.
Last, I found this version of the Mishnah, in Munich 95, fun:
Here it says that פחתה with a sav, rather that פחסה with a samech, even though he did not חסרה reduce it. This is a samech / sav erroneous switchoff common in modern Ashkenazim. But of course it does not mean that he reduced it even though he did not reduce it!