This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A third challenge is brought against the ruling of Raba bar Avuha, which posits that one who vows to bring “an ox from my oxen” must provide his best ox. The difficulty arises from a comparison to commercial law: if a person sells “a house among my houses,” they are not legally obligated to provide the buyer with their finest property. This discrepancy is resolved by distinguishing between the laws of hekdesh (consecration to the Temple), where the Sanctuary maintains the “upper hand,” and the laws of sales, where the seller retains the “upper hand.”
If an individual vows to bring an offering to the Temple of Onias in Egypt, the fulfillment of that vow depends on its specific phrasing. Generally, if the vow was intended for a Temple for God, the offering must be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem; however, if the vow was specific to the Temple of Onias, there is a dispute as to whether the offering is considered a sacrifice and would be punished by karet or if the person has merely committed a “meaningless” act.
A kohen who served at the Temple of Onias and subsequently repents is barred from performing service in the Temple in Jerusalem. This was a penalty to such priests, categorizing them as equivalent to a blemished kohen; while they are disqualified from performing the sacrificial service, they are still permitted to eat and share in the distribution of the sacrificial foods (kodashim) with their fellow priests.
Likewise, a kohen who served in idolatrous worship is disqualified from serving in the Temple. Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet debate four specific scenarios to determine if they constitute “serving” an idol and whether a priest who performed them can return to Temple service. These four cases are: slaughtering an animal to an idol intentionally, sprinkling the blood unwittingly, bowing down to the idol, and accepting the idol as a god by verbal declaration.
A fundamental debate exists between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the nature of the Temple of Onias itself – specifically, whether it was established for worship of God or for idolatry. Each Sage cites a different historical tradition regarding the political and family disputes that led Onias to flee to Egypt and build his Temple.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Menachot 109
וְאַמַּאי? לִיחְזֵי הֵיידֵן נְפַל, הֵיידֵן מֵת!
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.
לוֹקֵחַ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי לוֹקֵחַ, דְּיַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
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.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא עֲלִיָּיה דִּגְרִיעָה – יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
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’ula] 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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זוֹ עוֹלָה.
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.
״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יְגַלֵּחַ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה נָזִיר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ יָצָא? הָא מִקְטָל קַטְלַהּ!
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’t he merely killed it without sacrificing it properly?
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ״.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּילַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו״? נָזִיר כַּמָּה דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו – לָא מִתַּכְשַׁר!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָדָם זֶה לְדוֹרוֹן נִתְכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי – לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי.
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.
נָזִיר נָמֵי, הַאי גַּבְרָא לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי.
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.
וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר לָךְ: נָזִיר – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלָה – עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ קָאָמַר.
And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to Rava’s 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.
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
This explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁמְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַךְ לֹא יַעֲלוּ כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֶל מִזְבַּח ה׳ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם כִּי אִם אָכְלוּ מַצּוֹת בְּקֶרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם״. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין וְלֹא מַקְרִיבִין.
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: “Nevertheless 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” (II 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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׁחַט לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
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.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״יַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ אוֹתָם לִפְנֵי גִלּוּלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן עַל כֵּן נָשָׂאתִי יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם נְאֻם ה׳ אֱלֹהִים וְנָשְׂאוּ עֲוֹנָם״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְלֹא יִגְּשׁוּ אֵלַי לְכַהֵן לִי״. אִי עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת – אִין, שְׁחִיטָה לָאו שֵׁירוּת הוּא.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: “Because 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” (Ezekiel 44:12). And it is written afterward: “And they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly role” (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.
אִיתְּמַר: שָׁגַג בִּזְרִיקָה, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
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 Naḥman 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.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן״, מַאי לָאו – אוֹ מִכְשׁוֹל אוֹ עָוֹן, וּ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ – שׁוֹגֵג, וְ״עָוֹן״ – מֵזִיד.
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: “And they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.” 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 “stumbling block” is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term “iniquity” is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.
וְרַב נַחְמָן – ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ דְּ״עָוֹן״.
And Rav Naḥman 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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכֹּהֵן מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rav Naḥman 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: “And 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” (Numbers 15:27–28). The phrase: “For the soul that errs unwittingly” teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה – מַאי אִירְיָא שׁוֹגֵג? אֲפִילּוּ מֵזִיד נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּזְרִיקָה.
Rav Naḥman 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.
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּבְמֵזִיד – לֹא נַעֲשָׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה?!
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’s 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?
וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִתְּמַר: הֵזִיד בִּשְׁחִיטָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
And Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, דְּלָא עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ,
Rav Naḥman 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,
נַעֲשָׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְשָׁב, קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
Rav Naḥman 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.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג – מַאי ״וְשָׁב״? שָׁב וְעוֹמֵד הוּא! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּמֵזִיד, וְאִי בִּזְרִיקָה – כִּי שָׁב מַאי הָוֵי? הָא עֲבַד לֵהּ שֵׁירוּת! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
Rav Naḥman 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’t 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.
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ, לְעוֹלָם בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם שָׁב מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, דְּכִי עֲבַד בְּשׁוֹגֵג עֲבַד – קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
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.
הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ. הוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
§ The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שֵׁירוּת, אֲבָל שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ שֵׁירוּת – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן.
Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Naḥman 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’s 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 Naḥman.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁחִיטָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבֵד לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה, אֲבָל הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה דְּלָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
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’s 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’s subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל הוֹדָה דְּדִיבּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
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’s 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’s subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר אַחֵר [וְכוּ׳]. מִדְּקָאָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר אַחֵר, מִכְּלָל דְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא.
§ 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.
תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה שֶׁמֵּת שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק, אָמַר לָהֶן: שָׁנָה זוֹ הוּא מֵת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ?
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?
אָמַר לָהֶן: כׇּל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים נִזְדַּמֵּן לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד לָבוּשׁ לְבָנִים, וְנִתְעַטֵּף לְבָנִים, וְנִכְנַס עִמִּי וְיָצָא עִמִּי. שָׁנָה זוֹ נִזְדַּמֵּן לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד לָבוּשׁ שְׁחוֹרִים, וְנִתְעַטֵּף שְׁחוֹרִים, וְנִכְנַס עִמִּי וְלֹא יָצָא עִמִּי.
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.
לְאַחַר הָרֶגֶל, חָלָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וָמֵת, וְנִמְנְעוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִלְּבָרֵךְ בַּשֵּׁם.
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.
בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם: חוֹנְיוֹ בְּנִי יְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתַּי. נִתְקַנֵּא בּוֹ שִׁמְעִי אָחִיו, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה. אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַאֲלַמֶּדְךָ סֵדֶר עֲבוֹדָה. הִלְבִּישׁוֹ בְּאוּנְקְלִי, וַחֲגָרוֹ בְּצִילְצוֹל, (העמידו) [וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ] אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר לָהֶם לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ מָה נָדַר זֶה וְקִיֵּים לַאֲהוּבָתוֹ: ״אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה אֶלְבּוֹשׁ בְּאוּנְקְלִי שֶׁלִּיכִי וְאֶחְגּוֹר בְּצִילְצוֹל שֶׁלִּיכִי״.
At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Onias’ 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’unkeli] 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.
בִּקְּשׁוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהׇרְגוֹ, רָץ מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו. הָלַךְ לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, וּבָנָה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו לְשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: מָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד לָהּ – כָּךְ, הַיּוֹרֵד לָהּ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא לֹא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו חוֹנְיוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה שִׁמְעִי אָחִיו גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נִתְקַנֵּא בּוֹ חוֹנְיוֹ בְּשִׁמְעִי אָחִיו. אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַאֲלַמֶּדְךָ סֵדֶר עֲבוֹדָה, וְהִלְבִּישׁוֹ בְּאוּנְקְלִי, וַחֲגָרוֹ בְּצִילְצוֹל, וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר לָהֶם לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ מָה נָדַר זֶה וְקִיֵּים לַאֲהוּבָתוֹ ״אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה אֶלְבּוֹשׁ בְּאוּנְקְלִי שֶׁלִּיכִי וְאֶחְגּוֹר בְּצִילְצוֹל שֶׁלִּיכִי״.
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.
בִּקְּשׁוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהׇרְגוֹ, סָח לָהֶם כׇּל הַמְאוֹרָע, בִּקְּשׁוּ לַהֲרוֹג אֶת חוֹנְיוֹ, רָץ מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו, רָץ לְבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו, כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ אוֹמֵר: זֶה הוּא, זֶה הוּא, הָלַךְ לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, וּבָנָה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְהָיָה) בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה מִזְבֵּחַ לַה׳ בְּתוֹךְ אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וּמַצֵּבָה אֵצֶל גְּבוּלָהּ לַה׳״.
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: “In 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” (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.
וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁבָּרַח מִמֶּנָּה כָּךְ, הַמְבַקֵּשׁ לֵירֵד לָהּ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
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.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה: בַּתְּחִלָּה, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עֲלֵה לָהּ״ – אֲנִי כּוֹפְתוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לִפְנֵי הָאֲרִי; עַתָּה, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר לִי לֵירֵד מִמֶּנָּה – אֲנִי מֵטִיל עָלָיו קוּמְקוּם שֶׁל חַמִּין.
§ 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 Peraḥya 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.
שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁאוּל בָּרַח מִמֶּנָּה, וּכְשֶׁעָלָה בִּקֵּשׁ לַהֲרוֹג אֶת דָּוִד.
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: “When they sought him he could not be found…Behold he has hidden himself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:21–22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18–27).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי קְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
§ Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, 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?
לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְאַחַר מַפַּלְתּוֹ שֶׁל סַנְחֵרִיב, יָצָא חִזְקִיָּה וּמָצָא בְּנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בִּקְרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב, הִדִּירָן שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיוּ חָמֵשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מְדַבְּרוֹת שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן
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 Kings, chapters 18–19), 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’s prophecy about Egypt: “In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menachot Daf 102-110- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Ontario, Canada
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Menachot 109
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ°Χ€Φ·Χ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χͺ!
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.
ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ· Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ? Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ.
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 [meβula] 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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ. Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ. Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ!
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, hasnβt he merely killed it without sacrificing it properly?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧΧ΄? Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨!
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ.
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.
Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ, Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨.
And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to Ravaβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan also holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana said that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
This explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΧ³ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧ΄. ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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: βNevertheless 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 brethrenβ (II 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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ? Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧͺΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦ»Χ ΧΧ³ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
Rav YitzαΈ₯ak bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: βBecause 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 iniquityβ (Ezekiel 44:12). And it is written afterward: βAnd they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly roleβ (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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
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 NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ: ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ΄Χ’ΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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: βAnd they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.β 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 βstumbling blockβ is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term βiniquityβ is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄Χ’ΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄.
And Rav NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧ€ΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΉΦΌΧΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ.
Rav NaαΈ₯man 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: βAnd 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 forgivenβ (Numbers 15:27β28). The phrase: βFor the soul that errs unwittinglyβ teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ.
Rav NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ?!
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 Yehudaβs 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?
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
And Rav NaαΈ₯man 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 NaαΈ₯man 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.
Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ. Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·,
Rav NaαΈ₯man 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,
Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ, Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
Rav NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄? Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
Rav NaαΈ₯man 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? Hasnβt 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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ β Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·. ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ· Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧΦ·.
Β§ The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav NaαΈ₯man and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav NaαΈ₯man 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 NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ§Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Having listed four similar disputes between Rav NaαΈ₯man 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 priestβs 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 NaαΈ₯man.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ. Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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 priestβs 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 priestβs subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ. Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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 priestβs 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 priestβs subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ [ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³]. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧͺ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χͺ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·?
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?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ. Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ£ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χͺ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ, (ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ) [ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ] ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ: Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ: Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Oniasβ 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 [beβunkeli] 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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ: Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, Χ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΧ, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄(ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ) ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΧ³ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄.
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: βIn 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 Lordβ (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€Φ°ΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄Χ; Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ.
Β§ 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 PeraαΈ₯ya 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.
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄Χ.
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: βWhen they sought him he could not be foundβ¦Behold he has hidden himself among the baggageβ (I Samuel 10:21β22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18β27).
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
Β§ Mar Kashisha, son of Rav αΈ€isda, 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?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ’Φ·Χ
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 Kings, chapters 18β19), 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 Isaiahβs prophecy about Egypt: βIn that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan
