Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 27, 2018 | 讬状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 109

聽The mishna discusses a temple called the house of Onais that was in Egypt – if someone vows to bring a sacrifice there or to shave his hair (if he is a nazir), what is considered fulfillment of the vow? If a priest worshipped there and then returns to wroship in the Temple – can we accept his sacrifices? Are they valid?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬讬讚谉 谞驻诇 讛讬讬讚谉 诪转

But according to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, why can the seller automatically give the purchaser the fallen house or the dead slave? Let him see which house fell, or which slave died, as according to Rabba bar Avuh, the sale should apply to the house or slave that was the most valuable at the time of the sale.

诇讜拽讞 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 讚讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: Are you saying that the statement of Rabba bar Avuh applies in the case of a purchaser? A purchaser is different, as there is a principle in the halakhot of commerce that in a case involving a dispute between the seller and the purchaser, the owner of the document of sale, i.e., the purchaser, is at a disadvantage, as a document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible. Therefore, the seller can claim that he has sold the buyer the fallen house or the dead slave.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注诇讬讬讛 讚讙专讬注讛 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the objection posed earlier to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from the statement of Ulla can be rejected easily. Ulla said that if one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, since he did not specify which house he is selling, he can show him an attic [aliyya]. Although this was explained above as referring not to a loft but to the best [me鈥檜la] of his houses, now you may even say that it is referring to a loft, which is the worst of his houses, due to the principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 注讜诇讛

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem. And if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, it is not consecrated as a burnt offering; such a statement does not consecrate the animal at all.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 谞讝讬专

If one says: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must shave the hair of his head and bring the requisite offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem; and if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem; but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that one who says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, is not a nazirite at all, as his vow does not take effect.

讙诪壮 讬爪讗 讛讗 诪拽讟诇 拽讟诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, and sacrifices it in the temple of Onias, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: How has he fulfilled his obligation? By sacrificing it in the temple of Onias, hasn鈥檛 he merely killed it without sacrificing it properly?

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

Rav Hamnuna says: The mishna does not mean that he has fulfilled his vow to bring an offering. Rather, he is rendered like one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand. When the mishna says that he has fulfilled his obligation it simply means that if the animal he consecrated is no longer alive, he does not have to bring another animal in its place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 谞讝讬专 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讗 诪转讻砖专

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna: If that is so, what about the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation? In this case do you also maintain that he is rendered like one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will not be responsible for bringing its offerings if I kill them beforehand? Such a condition cannot exempt a nazirite from bringing his offerings, because as long as he does not bring his offerings, he is not fit to conclude his term of naziriteship and is still bound by all of the restrictions of a nazirite.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 讝讛 诇讚讜专讜谉 谞转讻讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬 住讙讬讗 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗讬爪讟注讜专讬

Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The animal was never consecrated at all, as this person intended merely to bring the animal as a gift [doron], but not to consecrate it as an offering. He presumably lives closer to the temple of Onias than to the Temple in Jerusalem, and must have said to himself: If it is sufficient to sacrifice this animal in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and bring it. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to bring it to Jerusalem, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that although the person never intended to bring the offering to Jerusalem, ideally, he should sacrifice the animal properly, in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he did not bring it there, but sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation, and is not required to bring any other offering in its place.

谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇爪注讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬 住讙讬讗 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗讬爪讟注讜专讬

This is the explanation of the latter clause of the mishna as well: If one said that he would be a nazirite provided that he will shave in the temple of Onias, this man did not intend to accept upon himself the halakhic status of naziriteship. Rather, he merely intends to practice abstinence by not drinking wine, along with observing the other restrictions of a nazirite. Therefore, he said to himself: If it is sufficient to shave in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and do so. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to go to Jerusalem to shave and bring the required offerings, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that ideally, he should go to the Temple in Jerusalem to shave and bring all his offerings. If he shaved and brought his offerings in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his vow and has no further obligation.

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 谞讝讬专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 注讜诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛 拽讗诪专

And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to Rava鈥檚 challenge: With regard to the case of one who vowed to become a nazirite on the condition that he would shave and bring his offerings in the temple of Onias, the interpretation of the mishna is as you said. But with regard to one who vows to bring a burnt offering in the temple of Onias, his intent is as I explained, and it is as if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讬爪讗 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the temple of Onias, and he sacrificed it in Eretz Yisrael but not in the Temple, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet] because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna that the animal is consecrated.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪讚讘专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讬爪讗 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

This explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan is also taught in a baraita: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the wilderness of Sinai, thinking that the wilderness of Sinai still has sanctity since the Tabernacle had been located there, and he sacrificed it on the east bank of the Jordan, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by karet because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖砖诪砖讜 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬砖诪砖讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讻讛谞讬 讛讘诪讜转 讗诇 诪讝讘讞 讛壮 讘讬专讜砖诇诐 讻讬 讗诐 讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讘拽专讘 讗讞讬讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽专讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: The priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say, if they served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. As it is stated: 鈥淣evertheless the priests of the private altars did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat matza among their brethren鈥 (II聽Kings 23:9). The halakhic status of these priests is like that of blemished priests in that they receive a share in the distribution of the meat of the offerings and partake of that meat, but they do not sacrifice offerings or perform any of the sacrificial rites.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谉 砖砖讞讟 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a priest who slaughtered an offering for idol worship and who subsequently repented and came to the Temple in Jerusalem to serve, his offering is acceptable and considered to be an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讬注谉 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讗讜转诐 诇驻谞讬 讙诇讜诇讬讛诐 讜讛讬讜 诇讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讻砖讜诇 注讜谉 注诇 讻谉 谞砖讗转讬 讬讚讬 注诇讬讛诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讜谞砖讗讜 注讜谞诐 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讙砖讜 讗诇讬 诇讻讛谉 诇讬 讗讬 注讘讚 砖讬专讜转 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 砖讬专讜转 讛讜讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: 鈥淏ecause they served them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel, therefore I have lifted up My hand against them, says the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity鈥 (Ezekiel 44:12). And it is written afterward: 鈥淎nd they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly role鈥 (Ezekiel 44:13). This indicates that if a priest performed a service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but the slaughter of an offering is not considered service, as it is not considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple and can be performed in the Temple even by a non-priest.

讗讬转诪专 砖讙讙 讘讝专讬拽讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

It was stated: If a priest unwittingly performed the sprinkling of the blood of an idolatrous offering and then repented and came to serve in the Temple, Rav Na岣an says that his offering is accepted and is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not a pleasing aroma to the Lord, as he is not fit to serve in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 诇讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讻砖讜诇 注讜谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜 诪讻砖讜诇 讗讜 注讜谉 讜诪讻砖讜诇 砖讜讙讙 讜注讜谉 诪讝讬讚

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled blood unwittingly for idol worship he cannot serve in the Temple? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.鈥 What, is it not referring to one who served in idol worship either as a stumbling block or as an iniquity? Accordingly, neither may perform the service in the Temple. And the term 鈥渟tumbling block鈥 is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term 鈥渋niquity鈥 is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讚注讜谉

And Rav Na岣an interprets the verse to mean a stumbling block of iniquity, i.e., only one who serves in idol worship intentionally is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but not one who serves in idol worship unwittingly.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讛讻讛谉 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讛砖讙讙转 讘讞讟讗讛 讘砖讙讙讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讻讛谉 诪转讻驻专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly his subsequent offering in the Temple is accepted? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to one who unwittingly committed idolatry: 鈥淎nd if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a she-goat in its first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly, before the Lord, to effect atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Numbers 15:27鈥28). The phrase: 鈥淔or the soul that errs unwittingly鈥 teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讜讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝专讬拽讛

Rav Na岣an clarifies: In what manner did this priest commit idolatry? If we say he sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering, why does the verse indicate specifically that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly can bring his own sin offering? This is obvious, as even one who did so intentionally may serve in the Temple after repentance. Rather, is it not referring to a priest who committed idolatry by sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering? Accordingly, if he did so unwittingly his subsequent service in the Temple is valid, but if he did so intentionally, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

And how does Rav Sheshet interpret that baraita? He could have said to you: Actually, the verse is referring to a case where the priest sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering. And although Rav Yehuda said that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering may serve in the Temple after repentance, that statement applies only to one who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly. But if he did so intentionally, the priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple. Rav Yehuda鈥檚 reasoning is that slaughter is not a sacrificial rite in the Temple; but does one who slaughters an idolatrous offering intentionally not become a servant of idol worship?

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗转诪专 讛讝讬讚 讘砖讞讬讟讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

And Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet follow their respective lines of reasoning, as it was stated that if a priest acted intentionally in the slaughter of an idolatrous offering and subsequently repented, Rav Na岣an says that his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is not disqualified, and Rav Sheshet says that his offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is disqualified.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讚诇讗 注讘讚 砖讬专讜转 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

Rav Na岣an says that his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, because he did not perform service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. And Rav Sheshet says that his offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord,

谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讘 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest who served in idol worship and repented, his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 诪讗讬 讜砖讘 砖讘 讜注讜诪讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讗讬 讘讝专讬拽讛 讻讬 砖讘 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 注讘讚 诇讛 砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Na岣an clarifies: In what manner did he serve in idol worship? If we say that he served in idol worship unwittingly, what does the baraita mean when it says: And repented? He is already repentant, as he never intended to sin in the first place. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case of intentional idol worship. And if the baraita is referring to sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering, when he repents, what of it? Hasn鈥檛 he performed idolatrous service, thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? Rather, is it not referring to the slaughter of an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 砖讘 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讻讬 注讘讚 讘砖讜讙讙 注讘讚 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

And as for Rav Sheshet, he could have said to you that actually the baraita is referring to unwitting slaughter. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the priest is repentant from the outset, as when he served in idol worship he served unwittingly, then his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable. But if not, i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, his subsequent offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讛砖转讞讜讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讛讜讚讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

搂 The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav Na岣an says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord. In a case where a priest acknowledges an object of idol worship as a divinity, Rav Na岣an says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讬专讜转 讗讘诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讬专讜转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉

Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: And it was necessary to teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. As, had the Sages taught us only this first case, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only in that case Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, because he performed a service for idolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. But in a case where the priest merely performed slaughter, since he did not perform a service for idolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet concedes to the opinion of Rav Na岣an.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讛砖转讞讜讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Sages taught us only the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing slaughter for an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed a sacrificial rite for idolatry. But if he merely bowed to the idol, since he did not perform a sacrificial rite for idolatry, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Sages taught us only the case of a priest bowing to an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed an action for idolatry. But if he only acknowledged the idol as a divinity, which is mere speech, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.

讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞专 [讜讻讜壮] 诪讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And needless to say, if priests served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: From the fact that it says: Needless to say, if they served for something else, by inference, the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship, but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 砖诪转 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讗诪专 诇讛谉 砖谞讛 讝讜 讛讜讗 诪转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪谞讬谉 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

It is taught in a baraita like the one who says that the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship. As it is taught: During the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to his associates: This year, he will die, euphemistically referring to himself. They said to him: From where do you know?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诇讘讜砖 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞转注讟祝 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 注诪讬 讜讬爪讗 注诪讬 砖谞讛 讝讜 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诇讘讜砖 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜谞转注讟祝 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 注诪讬 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 注诪讬

Shimon HaTzaddik said to them: In previous years, every Yom Kippur, upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which I would be met by an old man who was dressed in white, and his head was wrapped in white, and he would enter the Holy of Holies with me, and he would leave with me. But this year, I was met by an old man who was dressed in black, and his head was wrapped in black, and he entered the Holy of Holies with me, but he did not leave with me. Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.

诇讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讞诇讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜诪转 讜谞诪谞注讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诇讘专讱 讘砖诐

Indeed, after the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot, he was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting the Priestly Benediction with the ineffable name of God.

讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讞讜谞讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖诪砖 转讞转讬 谞转拽谞讗 讘讜 砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讗 讜讗诇诪讚讱 住讚专 注讘讜讚讛 讛诇讘讬砖讜 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 讜讞讙专讜 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 讛注诪讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专讗讜 诪讛 谞讚专 讝讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讗讛讜讘转讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讗砖转诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诇讘讜砖 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗讞讙讜专 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 砖诇讬讻讬

At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Onias鈥 brother, became jealous of him, as Shimi was two and a half years older than Onias. Shimi said to Onias treacherously: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. Shimi dressed Onias in a tunic [be鈥檜nkeli] and girded him with a ribbon [betziltzul] as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and stood him next to the altar. Shimi said to his fellow priests: Look what this man vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.

讘拽砖讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讛专讙讜 专抓 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讛诇讱 诇讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜讘谞讛 砖诐 诪讝讘讞 讜讛注诇讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 讬专讚 诇讛 讻讱 讛讬讜专讚 诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The fellow priests of Onias wanted to kill him because he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias ran away from them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this person, Shimi, who did not enter the position of High Priest, acted with such jealousy, all the more so will one who enters a prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讞讜谞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 谞转拽谞讗 讘讜 讞讜谞讬讜 讘砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讗 讜讗诇诪讚讱 住讚专 注讘讜讚讛 讜讛诇讘讬砖讜 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 讜讞讙专讜 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专讗讜 诪讛 谞讚专 讝讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讗讛讜讘转讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讬砖转诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诇讘讜砖 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗讞讙讜专 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 砖诇讬讻讬

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The incident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not accept the position of High Priest because his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him, so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. And even so, even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, Onias was jealous of his brother Shimi. Onias said to Shimi: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. And Onias dressed Shimi in a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar. Onias said to his fellow priests: Look what this man, Shimi, vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.

讘拽砖讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讛专讙讜 住讞 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛诪讗讜专注 讘拽砖讜 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讞讜谞讬讜 专抓 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 专抓 诇讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讛诇讱 诇讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜讘谞讛 砖诐 诪讝讘讞 讜讛注诇讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 (讜讛讬讛) 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讛讬讛 诪讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讘转讜讱 讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讜诪爪讘讛 讗爪诇 讙讘讜诇讛 诇讛壮

His fellow priests wanted to kill Shimi. Shimi then told them the entire incident, that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests wanted to kill Onias. Onias ran away from them, and they ran after him. Onias ran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him, and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: 鈥淚n that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord鈥 (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.

讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖讘专讞 诪诪谞讛 讻讱 讛诪讘拽砖 诇讬专讚 诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one, Onias, who fled from the position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with such jealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, all the more so will one who wants to enter a prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 驻专讞讬讛 讘转讞诇讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诇讛 讗谞讬 讻讜驻转讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讗专讬 注转讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讬 诇讬专讚 诪诪谞讛 讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讜 拽讜诪拽讜诐 砖诇 讞诪讬谉

搂 As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Pera岣a said: Initially, in response to anyone who would say to me: Ascend to the position of Nasi, I would tie him up and place him in front of a lion out of anger for his suggestion. Now that I have become the Nasi, in response to anyone who tells me to leave the position, I would throw a kettle [kumkum] of boiling water at him out of anger at his suggestion.

砖讛专讬 砖讗讜诇 讘专讞 诪诪谞讛 讜讻砖注诇讛 讘拽砖 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讚讜讚

It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. As evidence of this principle, Saul initially fled from the kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: 鈥淲hen they sought him he could not be found鈥ehold he has hidden himself among the baggage鈥 (I聽Samuel 10:21鈥22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I聽Samuel, chapters 18鈥27).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?

诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪驻诇转讜 砖诇 住谞讞专讬讘 讬爪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讜诪爪讗 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讚讬专谉 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讛讬讜 讞诪砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 诪讚讘专讜转 砖驻转 讻谞注谉

Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: After the downfall of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II聽Kings, chapters 18鈥19), King Hezekiah emerged from Jerusalem and found the gentile princes Sennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, sitting in carriages [bikronot] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols, and they fulfilled their vow, as it is stated in Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy about Egypt: 鈥淚n that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 109

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 109

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬讬讚谉 谞驻诇 讛讬讬讚谉 诪转

But according to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, why can the seller automatically give the purchaser the fallen house or the dead slave? Let him see which house fell, or which slave died, as according to Rabba bar Avuh, the sale should apply to the house or slave that was the most valuable at the time of the sale.

诇讜拽讞 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 讚讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: Are you saying that the statement of Rabba bar Avuh applies in the case of a purchaser? A purchaser is different, as there is a principle in the halakhot of commerce that in a case involving a dispute between the seller and the purchaser, the owner of the document of sale, i.e., the purchaser, is at a disadvantage, as a document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible. Therefore, the seller can claim that he has sold the buyer the fallen house or the dead slave.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注诇讬讬讛 讚讙专讬注讛 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the objection posed earlier to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from the statement of Ulla can be rejected easily. Ulla said that if one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, since he did not specify which house he is selling, he can show him an attic [aliyya]. Although this was explained above as referring not to a loft but to the best [me鈥檜la] of his houses, now you may even say that it is referring to a loft, which is the worst of his houses, due to the principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 注讜诇讛

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem. And if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, it is not consecrated as a burnt offering; such a statement does not consecrate the animal at all.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讛 谞讝讬专

If one says: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must shave the hair of his head and bring the requisite offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem; and if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem; but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that one who says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, is not a nazirite at all, as his vow does not take effect.

讙诪壮 讬爪讗 讛讗 诪拽讟诇 拽讟诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, and sacrifices it in the temple of Onias, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: How has he fulfilled his obligation? By sacrificing it in the temple of Onias, hasn鈥檛 he merely killed it without sacrificing it properly?

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

Rav Hamnuna says: The mishna does not mean that he has fulfilled his vow to bring an offering. Rather, he is rendered like one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand. When the mishna says that he has fulfilled his obligation it simply means that if the animal he consecrated is no longer alive, he does not have to bring another animal in its place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讙诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬讙诇讞 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讬爪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 谞讝讬专 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讗 诪转讻砖专

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna: If that is so, what about the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation? In this case do you also maintain that he is rendered like one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will not be responsible for bringing its offerings if I kill them beforehand? Such a condition cannot exempt a nazirite from bringing his offerings, because as long as he does not bring his offerings, he is not fit to conclude his term of naziriteship and is still bound by all of the restrictions of a nazirite.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 讝讛 诇讚讜专讜谉 谞转讻讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬 住讙讬讗 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗讬爪讟注讜专讬

Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The animal was never consecrated at all, as this person intended merely to bring the animal as a gift [doron], but not to consecrate it as an offering. He presumably lives closer to the temple of Onias than to the Temple in Jerusalem, and must have said to himself: If it is sufficient to sacrifice this animal in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and bring it. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to bring it to Jerusalem, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that although the person never intended to bring the offering to Jerusalem, ideally, he should sacrifice the animal properly, in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he did not bring it there, but sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation, and is not required to bring any other offering in its place.

谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇爪注讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬 住讙讬讗 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗讬爪讟注讜专讬

This is the explanation of the latter clause of the mishna as well: If one said that he would be a nazirite provided that he will shave in the temple of Onias, this man did not intend to accept upon himself the halakhic status of naziriteship. Rather, he merely intends to practice abstinence by not drinking wine, along with observing the other restrictions of a nazirite. Therefore, he said to himself: If it is sufficient to shave in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and do so. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to go to Jerusalem to shave and bring the required offerings, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that ideally, he should go to the Temple in Jerusalem to shave and bring all his offerings. If he shaved and brought his offerings in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his vow and has no further obligation.

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 谞讝讬专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 注讜诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛 拽讗诪专

And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to Rava鈥檚 challenge: With regard to the case of one who vowed to become a nazirite on the condition that he would shave and bring his offerings in the temple of Onias, the interpretation of the mishna is as you said. But with regard to one who vows to bring a burnt offering in the temple of Onias, his intent is as I explained, and it is as if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讬爪讗 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the temple of Onias, and he sacrificed it in Eretz Yisrael but not in the Temple, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet] because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna that the animal is consecrated.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 砖讗拽专讬讘谞讛 讘诪讚讘专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讬爪讗 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转

This explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yo岣nan is also taught in a baraita: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the wilderness of Sinai, thinking that the wilderness of Sinai still has sanctity since the Tabernacle had been located there, and he sacrificed it on the east bank of the Jordan, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by karet because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖砖诪砖讜 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬砖诪砖讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讻讛谞讬 讛讘诪讜转 讗诇 诪讝讘讞 讛壮 讘讬专讜砖诇诐 讻讬 讗诐 讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讘拽专讘 讗讞讬讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽专讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: The priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say, if they served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. As it is stated: 鈥淣evertheless the priests of the private altars did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat matza among their brethren鈥 (II聽Kings 23:9). The halakhic status of these priests is like that of blemished priests in that they receive a share in the distribution of the meat of the offerings and partake of that meat, but they do not sacrifice offerings or perform any of the sacrificial rites.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谉 砖砖讞讟 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a priest who slaughtered an offering for idol worship and who subsequently repented and came to the Temple in Jerusalem to serve, his offering is acceptable and considered to be an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讬注谉 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讗讜转诐 诇驻谞讬 讙诇讜诇讬讛诐 讜讛讬讜 诇讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讻砖讜诇 注讜谉 注诇 讻谉 谞砖讗转讬 讬讚讬 注诇讬讛诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讜谞砖讗讜 注讜谞诐 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讙砖讜 讗诇讬 诇讻讛谉 诇讬 讗讬 注讘讚 砖讬专讜转 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 砖讬专讜转 讛讜讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: 鈥淏ecause they served them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel, therefore I have lifted up My hand against them, says the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity鈥 (Ezekiel 44:12). And it is written afterward: 鈥淎nd they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly role鈥 (Ezekiel 44:13). This indicates that if a priest performed a service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but the slaughter of an offering is not considered service, as it is not considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple and can be performed in the Temple even by a non-priest.

讗讬转诪专 砖讙讙 讘讝专讬拽讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

It was stated: If a priest unwittingly performed the sprinkling of the blood of an idolatrous offering and then repented and came to serve in the Temple, Rav Na岣an says that his offering is accepted and is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not a pleasing aroma to the Lord, as he is not fit to serve in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 诇讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讻砖讜诇 注讜谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜 诪讻砖讜诇 讗讜 注讜谉 讜诪讻砖讜诇 砖讜讙讙 讜注讜谉 诪讝讬讚

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled blood unwittingly for idol worship he cannot serve in the Temple? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.鈥 What, is it not referring to one who served in idol worship either as a stumbling block or as an iniquity? Accordingly, neither may perform the service in the Temple. And the term 鈥渟tumbling block鈥 is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term 鈥渋niquity鈥 is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻砖讜诇 讚注讜谉

And Rav Na岣an interprets the verse to mean a stumbling block of iniquity, i.e., only one who serves in idol worship intentionally is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but not one who serves in idol worship unwittingly.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讛讻讛谉 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讛砖讙讙转 讘讞讟讗讛 讘砖讙讙讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讻讛谉 诪转讻驻专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly his subsequent offering in the Temple is accepted? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to one who unwittingly committed idolatry: 鈥淎nd if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a she-goat in its first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly, before the Lord, to effect atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Numbers 15:27鈥28). The phrase: 鈥淔or the soul that errs unwittingly鈥 teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讜讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝专讬拽讛

Rav Na岣an clarifies: In what manner did this priest commit idolatry? If we say he sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering, why does the verse indicate specifically that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly can bring his own sin offering? This is obvious, as even one who did so intentionally may serve in the Temple after repentance. Rather, is it not referring to a priest who committed idolatry by sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering? Accordingly, if he did so unwittingly his subsequent service in the Temple is valid, but if he did so intentionally, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

And how does Rav Sheshet interpret that baraita? He could have said to you: Actually, the verse is referring to a case where the priest sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering. And although Rav Yehuda said that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering may serve in the Temple after repentance, that statement applies only to one who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly. But if he did so intentionally, the priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple. Rav Yehuda鈥檚 reasoning is that slaughter is not a sacrificial rite in the Temple; but does one who slaughters an idolatrous offering intentionally not become a servant of idol worship?

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗转诪专 讛讝讬讚 讘砖讞讬讟讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

And Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet follow their respective lines of reasoning, as it was stated that if a priest acted intentionally in the slaughter of an idolatrous offering and subsequently repented, Rav Na岣an says that his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is not disqualified, and Rav Sheshet says that his offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is disqualified.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讚诇讗 注讘讚 砖讬专讜转 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

Rav Na岣an says that his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, because he did not perform service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. And Rav Sheshet says that his offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord,

谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讘 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say that even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest who served in idol worship and repented, his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 诪讗讬 讜砖讘 砖讘 讜注讜诪讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讗讬 讘讝专讬拽讛 讻讬 砖讘 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 注讘讚 诇讛 砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Na岣an clarifies: In what manner did he serve in idol worship? If we say that he served in idol worship unwittingly, what does the baraita mean when it says: And repented? He is already repentant, as he never intended to sin in the first place. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case of intentional idol worship. And if the baraita is referring to sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering, when he repents, what of it? Hasn鈥檛 he performed idolatrous service, thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? Rather, is it not referring to the slaughter of an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple.

讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 砖讘 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讻讬 注讘讚 讘砖讜讙讙 注讘讚 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

And as for Rav Sheshet, he could have said to you that actually the baraita is referring to unwitting slaughter. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the priest is repentant from the outset, as when he served in idol worship he served unwittingly, then his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable. But if not, i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, his subsequent offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讛砖转讞讜讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讛讜讚讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞

搂 The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav Na岣an says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord. In a case where a priest acknowledges an object of idol worship as a divinity, Rav Na岣an says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讬专讜转 讗讘诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讬专讜转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉

Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Na岣an and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: And it was necessary to teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. As, had the Sages taught us only this first case, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only in that case Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, because he performed a service for idolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. But in a case where the priest merely performed slaughter, since he did not perform a service for idolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet concedes to the opinion of Rav Na岣an.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讛砖转讞讜讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Sages taught us only the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing slaughter for an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed a sacrificial rite for idolatry. But if he merely bowed to the idol, since he did not perform a sacrificial rite for idolatry, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Sages taught us only the case of a priest bowing to an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed an action for idolatry. But if he only acknowledged the idol as a divinity, which is mere speech, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest鈥檚 subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.

讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞专 [讜讻讜壮] 诪讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And needless to say, if priests served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: From the fact that it says: Needless to say, if they served for something else, by inference, the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship, but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 砖诪转 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讗诪专 诇讛谉 砖谞讛 讝讜 讛讜讗 诪转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪谞讬谉 讗转讛 讬讜讚注

It is taught in a baraita like the one who says that the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship. As it is taught: During the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to his associates: This year, he will die, euphemistically referring to himself. They said to him: From where do you know?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诇讘讜砖 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞转注讟祝 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 注诪讬 讜讬爪讗 注诪讬 砖谞讛 讝讜 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讬 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诇讘讜砖 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜谞转注讟祝 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 注诪讬 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 注诪讬

Shimon HaTzaddik said to them: In previous years, every Yom Kippur, upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which I would be met by an old man who was dressed in white, and his head was wrapped in white, and he would enter the Holy of Holies with me, and he would leave with me. But this year, I was met by an old man who was dressed in black, and his head was wrapped in black, and he entered the Holy of Holies with me, but he did not leave with me. Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.

诇讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讞诇讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜诪转 讜谞诪谞注讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诇讘专讱 讘砖诐

Indeed, after the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot, he was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting the Priestly Benediction with the ineffable name of God.

讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讞讜谞讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖诪砖 转讞转讬 谞转拽谞讗 讘讜 砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讗 讜讗诇诪讚讱 住讚专 注讘讜讚讛 讛诇讘讬砖讜 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 讜讞讙专讜 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 讛注诪讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专讗讜 诪讛 谞讚专 讝讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讗讛讜讘转讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讗砖转诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诇讘讜砖 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗讞讙讜专 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 砖诇讬讻讬

At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Onias鈥 brother, became jealous of him, as Shimi was two and a half years older than Onias. Shimi said to Onias treacherously: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. Shimi dressed Onias in a tunic [be鈥檜nkeli] and girded him with a ribbon [betziltzul] as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and stood him next to the altar. Shimi said to his fellow priests: Look what this man vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.

讘拽砖讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讛专讙讜 专抓 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讛诇讱 诇讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜讘谞讛 砖诐 诪讝讘讞 讜讛注诇讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 讬专讚 诇讛 讻讱 讛讬讜专讚 诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The fellow priests of Onias wanted to kill him because he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias ran away from them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this person, Shimi, who did not enter the position of High Priest, acted with such jealousy, all the more so will one who enters a prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讞讜谞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 谞转拽谞讗 讘讜 讞讜谞讬讜 讘砖诪注讬 讗讞讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讗 讜讗诇诪讚讱 住讚专 注讘讜讚讛 讜讛诇讘讬砖讜 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 讜讞讙专讜 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专讗讜 诪讛 谞讚专 讝讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讗讛讜讘转讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讬砖转诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诇讘讜砖 讘讗讜谞拽诇讬 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗讞讙讜专 讘爪讬诇爪讜诇 砖诇讬讻讬

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The incident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not accept the position of High Priest because his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him, so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. And even so, even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, Onias was jealous of his brother Shimi. Onias said to Shimi: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. And Onias dressed Shimi in a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar. Onias said to his fellow priests: Look what this man, Shimi, vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.

讘拽砖讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讛专讙讜 住讞 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛诪讗讜专注 讘拽砖讜 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讞讜谞讬讜 专抓 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 专抓 诇讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讛诇讱 诇讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜讘谞讛 砖诐 诪讝讘讞 讜讛注诇讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 (讜讛讬讛) 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讛讬讛 诪讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讘转讜讱 讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讜诪爪讘讛 讗爪诇 讙讘讜诇讛 诇讛壮

His fellow priests wanted to kill Shimi. Shimi then told them the entire incident, that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests wanted to kill Onias. Onias ran away from them, and they ran after him. Onias ran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him, and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: 鈥淚n that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord鈥 (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.

讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖讘专讞 诪诪谞讛 讻讱 讛诪讘拽砖 诇讬专讚 诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one, Onias, who fled from the position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with such jealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, all the more so will one who wants to enter a prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 驻专讞讬讛 讘转讞诇讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诇讛 讗谞讬 讻讜驻转讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讗专讬 注转讛 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讬 诇讬专讚 诪诪谞讛 讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讜 拽讜诪拽讜诐 砖诇 讞诪讬谉

搂 As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Pera岣a said: Initially, in response to anyone who would say to me: Ascend to the position of Nasi, I would tie him up and place him in front of a lion out of anger for his suggestion. Now that I have become the Nasi, in response to anyone who tells me to leave the position, I would throw a kettle [kumkum] of boiling water at him out of anger at his suggestion.

砖讛专讬 砖讗讜诇 讘专讞 诪诪谞讛 讜讻砖注诇讛 讘拽砖 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讚讜讚

It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. As evidence of this principle, Saul initially fled from the kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: 鈥淲hen they sought him he could not be found鈥ehold he has hidden himself among the baggage鈥 (I聽Samuel 10:21鈥22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I聽Samuel, chapters 18鈥27).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?

诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪驻诇转讜 砖诇 住谞讞专讬讘 讬爪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讜诪爪讗 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘拽专讜谞讜转 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讚讬专谉 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讛讬讜 讞诪砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 诪讚讘专讜转 砖驻转 讻谞注谉

Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: After the downfall of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II聽Kings, chapters 18鈥19), King Hezekiah emerged from Jerusalem and found the gentile princes Sennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, sitting in carriages [bikronot] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols, and they fulfilled their vow, as it is stated in Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy about Egypt: 鈥淚n that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan

Scroll To Top