חיפוש

Menachot 109

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




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:

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.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

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. 

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!

Joséphine Altzman
Joséphine Altzman

Teaneck, United States

In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).

Sara-Averick-photo-scaled
Sara Averick

Jerusalem, Israel

Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .

Goldie Gilad
Goldie Gilad

Kfar Saba, Israel

I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.

Laura Major
Laura Major

Yad Binyamin, Israel

A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.

Sheila Hauser
Sheila Hauser

Jerusalem, Israel

I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.

Beth Elster
Beth Elster

Irvine, 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.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!

Lisa Kolodny
Lisa Kolodny

Raanana, Israel

I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.

Miriam Pollack
Miriam Pollack

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.

Gila Loike
Gila Loike

Ashdod, Israel

Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.

Rebecca Stulberg
Rebecca Stulberg

Ottawa, Canada

When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.

Laura Shechter
Laura Shechter

Lexington, MA, 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!

Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb

Givat Shmuel, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.

Patti Evans
Patti Evans

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

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!

Lori Stark
Lori Stark

Highland Park, 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

linda kalish-marcus
linda kalish-marcus

Efrat, Israel

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!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.

Dianne Kuchar
Dianne Kuchar

Dover Heights, Australia

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 .

Martha Tarazi
Martha Tarazi

Panama, Panama

In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).

Sara-Averick-photo-scaled
Sara Averick

Jerusalem, Israel

Menachot 109

Χ•Φ°ΧΦ·ΧžΦ·ΦΌΧΧ™? ΧœΦ΄Χ™Χ—Φ°Χ–Φ΅Χ™ Χ”Φ΅Χ™Χ™Χ“Φ΅ΧŸ נְ׀ַל, Χ”Φ΅Χ™Χ™Χ“Φ΅ΧŸ מ֡Χͺ!

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.

ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ—Φ· קָא אָמְרַΧͺΦ°ΦΌ? שָׁאנ֡י ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ—Φ·, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ™Φ·Χ“ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χœ Χ”Φ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧ˜ΦΈΧ¨ גַל Χ”Φ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ—Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ 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.

הַשְׁΧͺָּא דְּאָΧͺΦ΅Χ™Χͺ ΧœΦ°Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦΌΧ•ΦΌ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ™ΧžΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΄Χ™ΦΈΦΌΧ™Χ” Χ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ’Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΈΧ” – Χ™Φ·Χ“ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χœ Χ”Φ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧ˜ΦΈΧ¨ גַל Χ”Φ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ—Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ 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 [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.

מַΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ³ Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦ·Χ™ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ”Χ΄ – Χ™Φ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, וְאִם Χ”Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – לֹא יָצָא. Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦ·Χ™ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” שׁ֢אַקְרִיב֢נָּה Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ΄ – Χ™Φ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, וְאִם Χ”Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – יָצָא. Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧŸ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ–Χ•ΦΉ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ”.

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΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ Φ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨Χ΄ – Χ™Φ°Χ’Φ·ΧœΦ·ΦΌΧ— Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, וְאִם Χ’Φ΄ΦΌΧœΦ·ΦΌΧ— Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – לֹא יָצָא. Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ Φ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ’Φ·ΧœΦ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ· Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ΄ – Χ™Φ°Χ’Φ·ΧœΦ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ· Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, וְאִם Χ’Φ΄ΦΌΧœΦ·ΦΌΧ— Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – יָצָא. Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧŸ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ–ΦΆΧ” Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨.

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.

Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ³ יָצָא? הָא מִקְטָל Χ§Φ·Χ˜Φ°ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ!

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 Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧ‚Χ” Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦ·Χ™ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ”, גַל מְנָΧͺ שׁ֢לֹּא א֢ΧͺΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ™Φ΅ΦΌΧ™Χ‘ בְּאַחְרָיוּΧͺΦΈΧ”ΦΌΧ΄.

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 ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ רָבָא: א֢לָּא מ֡גַΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ”, ב֡י׀ָא Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ™ Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ Φ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ’Φ·ΧœΦ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ· Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – Χ™Φ°Χ’Φ·ΧœΦ·ΦΌΧ— Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, וְאִם Χ’Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ΧœΦ·ΦΌΧ— Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – יָצָא, Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧ‚Χ” Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ Φ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ גַל מְנָΧͺ שׁ֢לֹּא א֢ΧͺΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ™Φ΅ΦΌΧ™Χ‘ בְּאַחְרָיוּΧͺ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ™Χ•Χ΄? Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧžΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧœΦΈΧ ΧžΦ·Χ™Φ°Χ™ΧͺΦ΅Χ™ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ™Χ• – לָא מִΧͺַּכְשַׁר!

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.

א֢לָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָדָם Χ–ΦΆΧ” ΧœΦ°Χ“Χ•ΦΉΧ¨Χ•ΦΉΧŸ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧ•Φ΅ΦΌΧ™ΧŸ, אָמַר: אִי בַגִּיא Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – Χ˜ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ—Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ, Χ˜Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ™ – לָא ΧžΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ™Χ ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ¦Φ°Χ˜Φ·Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ¨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 ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™, הַאי גַּבְרָא ΧœΦ°Χ¦Φ·Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ™ נַ׀ְשׁ֡יהּ קָא ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧ•Φ΅ΦΌΧ™ΧŸ, אָמַר: אִי בַגִּיא Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – Χ˜ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ—Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ, Χ˜Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ™ לָא ΧžΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ™Χ ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ¦Φ°Χ˜Φ·Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ¨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.

Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ אָמַר לָךְ: Χ ΦΈΧ–Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ – Χ›Φ΄ΦΌΧ“Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ, Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” – גַל מְנָΧͺ שׁ֢לֹּא א֢ΧͺΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ™Φ΅ΦΌΧ™Χ‘ בְּאַחְרָיוּΧͺΦΈΧ”ΦΌ 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 Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ—ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧŸ Χ‘ΦΈΧ‘Φ·Χ¨ ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ ΧœΦ°Χ”ΦΈΧ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ—ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ” אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ—ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧŸ: Χ΄Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦ·Χ™ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” שׁ֢אַקְרִיב֢נָּה Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ΄, Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ בְּא֢ר֢Χ₯ Χ™Φ΄Χ©Φ°Χ‚Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ – יָצָא, וְגָנוּשׁ Χ›ΦΈΦΌΧ¨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.

Χͺַּנְיָא Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™ Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™: Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦ·Χ™ Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” שׁ֢אַקְרִיב֢נָּה Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ“Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨, Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ‘ΦΆΧ¨ Χ”Φ·Χ™Φ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ“Φ΅ΦΌΧŸ – יָצָא, וְגָנוּשׁ Χ›ΦΈΦΌΧ¨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.

מַΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ³ הַכֹּהֲנִים Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧžΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧ•ΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ – לֹא Χ™Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧžΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧ•ΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ¨Χ•ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧœΦ·Χ™Φ΄Χ, Χ•Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ·Χ¨ ΧœΦ°Χ“ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨ אַח֡ר, שׁ֢נּ֢אֱמַר: ״אַךְ לֹא Χ™Φ·Χ’Φ²ΧœΧ•ΦΌ Χ›ΦΉΦΌΧ”Φ²Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ”Φ·Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧžΧ•ΦΉΧͺ א֢ל ΧžΦ΄Χ–Φ°Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ— Χ”Χ³ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ¨Χ•ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧœΦ΄ΦΈΧ Χ›Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ אִם ΧΦΈΧ›Φ°ΧœΧ•ΦΌ ΧžΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧͺ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ אֲח֡יה֢ם״. Χ”Φ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ ΧΦ΅ΧœΦΌΧ•ΦΌ Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΅Χ™ ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧžΦ΄Χ™ΧŸ – Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧœΦ°Χ§Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ•Φ°ΧΧ•ΦΉΧ›Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧžΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ.

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: β€œNevertheless 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.

Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ³ אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ”: Χ›ΦΉΦΌΧ”Φ΅ΧŸ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ—Φ·Χ˜ ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ”, Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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 Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ§ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ΧžΦ΄Χ™: ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ קְרָאָה? Χ΄Χ™Φ·Χ’Φ·ΧŸ אֲשׁ֢ר יְשָׁרְΧͺΧ•ΦΌ אוֹΧͺָם ΧœΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ’Φ΄ΧœΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧ Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΈΧ™Χ•ΦΌ ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ™Φ΄Χ©Φ°Χ‚Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ ΧœΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧœ Χ’ΦΈΧ•ΦΉΧŸ גַל Χ›Φ΅ΦΌΧŸ נָשָׂאΧͺΦ΄Χ™ Χ™ΦΈΧ“Φ΄Χ™ Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧ נְאֻם Χ”Χ³ ΧΦ±ΧœΦΉΧ”Φ΄Χ™Χ וְנָשְׂאוּ גֲוֹנָם״, Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χ‘ Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ: Χ΄Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ יִגְּשׁוּ ΧΦ΅ΧœΦ·Χ™ ΧœΦ°Χ›Φ·Χ”Φ΅ΧŸ ΧœΦ΄Χ™Χ΄. אִי Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ – ΧΦ΄Χ™ΧŸ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ” ΧœΦΈΧΧ• שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ הוּא.

Rav YitzαΈ₯ak bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: β€œBecause 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: β€œAnd 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.

אִיΧͺְּמַר: שָׁגַג Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ–Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΈΧ”, Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ אָמַר: Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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.

אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ: מְנָא ΧΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ, Χ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ›Φ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χ‘: Χ΄Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΈΧ™Χ•ΦΌ ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ™Φ΄Χ©Φ°Χ‚Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ ΧœΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧœ Χ’ΦΈΧ•ΦΉΧŸΧ΄, ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ ΧœΦΈΧΧ• – אוֹ ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧœ אוֹ Χ’ΦΈΧ•ΦΉΧŸ, Χ•ΦΌΧ΄ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧœΧ΄ – שׁוֹג֡ג, Χ•Φ°Χ΄Χ’ΦΈΧ•ΦΉΧŸΧ΄ – ΧžΦ΅Χ–Φ΄Χ™Χ“.

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: β€œAnd 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 β€œstumbling block” is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term β€œiniquity” is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.

Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ – Χ΄ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧœΧ΄ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ΄Χ’ΦΈΧ•ΦΉΧŸΧ΄.

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.

אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ: מְנָא ΧΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧͺַנְיָא: Χ΄Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ΄Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ Χ”Φ·Χ›ΦΉΦΌΧ”Φ΅ΧŸ גַל הַנּ֢׀֢שׁ הַשֹּׁג֢ג֢Χͺ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ—ΦΆΧ˜Φ°ΧΦΈΧ” בִשְׁגָגָה״, ΧžΦ°ΧœΦ·ΧžΦ΅ΦΌΧ“ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ›ΦΉΦΌΧ”Φ΅ΧŸ מִΧͺΦ°Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨ גַל Χ™Φ°Χ“Φ΅Χ™ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧžΧ•ΦΉ.

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: β€œAnd 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: β€œFor the soul that errs unwittingly” teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.

Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧžΦ·ΧΧ™? ΧΦ΄Χ™ΧœΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ” – ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ אִירְיָא שׁוֹג֡ג? ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦΌΧ•ΦΌ ΧžΦ΅Χ–Φ΄Χ™Χ“ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™! א֢לָּא ΧœΦΈΧΧ• Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ–Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ§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.

Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר לָךְ: ΧœΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ”, Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧžΦ΅Χ–Φ΄Χ™Χ“ – לֹא Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧ‚Χ” Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧžΦΆΧ¨ ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨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 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 ΧœΦ°Χ˜Φ·Χ’Φ°ΧžΦ·Χ™Φ°Χ™Χ”Χ•ΦΌ, דְּאִΧͺְּמַר: Χ”Φ΅Χ–Φ΄Χ™Χ“ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ” – Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ אָמַר: Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ אָמַר: Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧœΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ. Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·,

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©ΦΈΧ‚Χ” Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧžΦΆΧ¨ ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ”.

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

אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ: מְנָא ΧΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ? Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧͺַנְיָא: Χ›ΦΉΦΌΧ”Φ΅ΧŸ שׁ֢גָבַד Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ”, וְשָׁב, Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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.

Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧžΦ·ΧΧ™? ΧΦ΄Χ™ΧœΦ΅ΦΌΧ™ΧžΦΈΧ בְּשׁוֹג֡ג – ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ ״וְשָׁב״? שָׁב Χ•Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ“ הוּא! א֢לָּא Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧžΦ΅Χ–Φ΄Χ™Χ“, וְאִי Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ–Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΈΧ” – Χ›Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ שָׁב ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ Χ”ΦΈΧ•Φ΅Χ™? הָא Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ”ΦΌ שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ! א֢לָּא ΧœΦΈΧΧ• Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ”.

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? 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.

Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר לָךְ, ΧœΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ בְּשׁוֹג֡ג, Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™ קָאָמַר: אִם שָׁב ΧžΦ΅Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Χ•ΦΉ, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ›Φ΄Χ™ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ בְּשׁוֹג֡ג Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ – Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, וְאִם ΧœΦΈΧΧ• – ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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.

הִשְׁΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ—Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ” ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ” – Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ אָמַר: Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·. Χ”Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ” – Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ אָמַר: Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·, Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ אָמַר: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ—Φ· Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ—Φ·.

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.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ Χ”ΦΈΧšΦ° Χ§Φ·ΧžΦ·ΦΌΧ™Φ°Χ™Χͺָא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ“Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ, ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧœ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ” Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧœΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ שׁ֡ירוּΧͺ – ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΆΧ” ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ.

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 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 NaαΈ₯man.

וְאִי ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ—Φ΄Χ™Χ˜ΦΈΧ”, ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ”, ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧœ הִשְׁΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ—Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ” Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧœΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” – ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ 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 ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ הִשְׁΧͺַּחֲוָאָה, ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ ΧžΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧ‚Χ”, ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧœ Χ”Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” דְּדִיבּוּרָא Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧœΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ – ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ 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.

Χ•Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨ אַח֡ר [Χ•Φ°Χ›Χ•ΦΌΧ³]. ΧžΦ΄Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨ אַח֡ר, ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧœΦΈΧœ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ ΧœΦΈΧΧ• Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ” הוּא.

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.

Χͺַּנְיָא Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧžΦ·ΧΧŸ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ™Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ ΧœΦΈΧΧ• Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ” הוּא, Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧͺַנְיָא: אוֹΧͺΦΈΧ”ΦΌ שָׁנָה שׁ֢מּ֡Χͺ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧŸ Χ”Φ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ§, אָמַר ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ: שָׁנָה Χ–Χ•ΦΉ הוּא מ֡Χͺ, ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΌ ΧœΧ•ΦΉ: ΧžΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧ™Φ΄ΧŸ אַΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ“Φ΅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?

אָמַר ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ: Χ›Χ‡ΦΌΧœ יוֹם הַכִּ׀ּוּרִים Χ Φ΄Χ–Φ°Χ“Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΅ΦΌΧŸ ΧœΦ΄Χ™ Χ–ΦΈΧ§Φ΅ΧŸ א֢חָד ΧœΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ™Χ, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χͺְגַטּ֡ף ΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ™Χ, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ›Φ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ™ וְיָצָא Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ™. שָׁנָה Χ–Χ•ΦΉ Χ Φ΄Χ–Φ°Χ“Φ·ΦΌΧžΦ΅ΦΌΧŸ ΧœΦ΄Χ™ Χ–ΦΈΧ§Φ΅ΧŸ א֢חָד ΧœΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΌΧ©Χ שְׁחוֹרִים, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χͺְגַטּ֡ף שְׁחוֹרִים, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ›Φ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ יָצָא Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦ΄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.

ΧœΦ°ΧΦ·Χ—Φ·Χ¨ Χ”ΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ’ΦΆΧœ, Χ—ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ” שִׁבְגַΧͺ Χ™ΦΈΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ Χ•ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χͺ, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧžΦ°Χ Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΌ א֢חָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים ΧžΦ΄ΧœΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧšΦ° בַּשּׁ֡ם.

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.

בִּשְׁגַΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ˜Φ΄Χ™Χ¨ΦΈΧͺΧ•ΦΉ, אָמַר ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧ: Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄Χ™ Χ™Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧžΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ—Φ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ™. Χ Φ΄Χͺְקַנּ֡א Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™ אָחִיו, שׁ֢הָיָה Χ’ΦΈΦΌΧ“Χ•ΦΉΧœ ΧžΦ΄ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧ•ΦΌ שְׁΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ™ שָׁנִים Χ•ΦΌΧžΦΆΧ—Φ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ”. אָמַר ΧœΧ•ΦΉ: בֹּא Χ•Φ·ΧΦ²ΧœΦ·ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ“Φ°ΧšΦΈ Χ‘Φ΅Χ“ΦΆΧ¨ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ”. Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™, Χ•Φ·Χ—Φ²Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Χ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦ°Χ¦Χ•ΦΉΧœ, (Χ”Χ’ΧžΧ™Χ“Χ•) [Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ“Χ•ΦΉ] א֡צ֢ל Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ–Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ·. אָמַר ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧ ΧœΦ°ΧΦΆΧ—ΦΈΧ™Χ• הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ ΧžΦΈΧ” Χ ΦΈΧ“Φ·Χ¨ Χ–ΦΆΧ” וְקִיּ֡ים ΧœΦ·ΧΦ²Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧͺΧ•ΦΉ: ״אוֹΧͺΧ•ΦΉ הַיּוֹם שׁ֢א֢שְׁΧͺַּמּ֡שׁ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ’Φ°ΦΌΧ“Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” ΧΦΆΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™ Χ©ΦΆΧΧœΦ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ›Φ΄Χ™ וְא֢חְגּוֹר Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦ°Χ¦Χ•ΦΉΧœ Χ©ΦΆΧΧœΦ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ›Φ΄Χ™Χ΄.

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 א֢חָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉ, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧžΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧ, Χ•Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦Χ•ΦΌ אַחֲרָיו. Χ”ΦΈΧœΦ·ΧšΦ° ΧœΦ·ΧΦ²ΧœΦΆΧ›Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Φ°Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΦΈΦΌΧ שׁ֢ל ΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ™Φ΄Χ, Χ•ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ” שָׁם ΧžΦ΄Χ–Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ·, Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧœΦΈΧ” Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ™Χ• ΧœΦ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ”. Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΌ Χ—Φ²Χ›ΦΈΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΌ: ΧžΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΆΧ” שׁ֢לֹּא Χ™ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ“ ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ – Χ›ΦΈΦΌΧšΦ°, Χ”Φ·Χ™ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ“ ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ – גַל אַחַΧͺ Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧžΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ·ΧžΦΈΦΌΧ”. Χ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ ΧžΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ¨.

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 ΧœΧ•ΦΉ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ”: לֹא Χ›ΦΈΦΌΧšΦ° Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧ‚Χ”, א֢לָּא לֹא Χ§Φ΄Χ™Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧœ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ™Χ• Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ, שׁ֢הָיָה Χ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™ אָחִיו Χ’ΦΈΦΌΧ“Χ•ΦΉΧœ ΧžΦ΄ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧ•ΦΌ שְׁΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ™ שָׁנִים Χ•ΦΌΧžΦΆΧ—Φ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ”, וְאַף גַל Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ›Φ΅ΧŸ Χ Φ΄Χͺְקַנּ֡א Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧžΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™ אָחִיו. אָמַר ΧœΧ•ΦΉ: בֹּא Χ•Φ·ΧΦ²ΧœΦ·ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ“Φ°ΧšΦΈ Χ‘Φ΅Χ“ΦΆΧ¨ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ”, Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™, Χ•Φ·Χ—Φ²Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Χ•ΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦ°Χ¦Χ•ΦΉΧœ, Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ“Χ•ΦΉ א֡צ֢ל Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ–Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ·. אָמַר ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧ ΧœΦ°ΧΦΆΧ—ΦΈΧ™Χ• הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ ΧžΦΈΧ” Χ ΦΈΧ“Φ·Χ¨ Χ–ΦΆΧ” וְקִיּ֡ים ΧœΦ·ΧΦ²Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧͺΧ•ΦΉ ״אוֹΧͺΧ•ΦΉ הַיּוֹם שׁ֢יִּשְׁΧͺַּמּ֡שׁ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ’Φ°ΦΌΧ“Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ” ΧΦΆΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™ Χ©ΦΆΧΧœΦ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ›Φ΄Χ™ וְא֢חְגּוֹר Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦ°Χ¦Χ•ΦΉΧœ Χ©ΦΆΧΧœΦ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ›Φ΄Χ™Χ΄.

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 א֢חָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉ, Χ‘ΦΈΧ— ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧ Χ›Χ‡ΦΌΧœ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ°ΧΧ•ΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’, בִּקְּשׁוּ ΧœΦ·Χ”Φ²Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ א֢Χͺ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉ, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧžΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧ, Χ•Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦Χ•ΦΌ אַחֲרָיו, Χ¨ΦΈΧ₯ ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ·ΧžΦΆΦΌΧœΦΆΧšΦ°, Χ•Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦Χ•ΦΌ אַחֲרָיו, Χ›Χ‡ΦΌΧœ הָרוֹא֢ה אוֹΧͺΧ•ΦΉ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨: Χ–ΦΆΧ” הוּא, Χ–ΦΆΧ” הוּא, Χ”ΦΈΧœΦ·ΧšΦ° ΧœΦ·ΧΦ²ΧœΦΆΧ›Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Φ°Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΦΈΦΌΧ שׁ֢ל ΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ™Φ΄Χ, Χ•ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ” שָׁם ΧžΦ΄Χ–Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ·, Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧœΦΈΧ” Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ™Χ• לְשׁ֡ם Χ©ΦΈΧΧžΦ·Χ™Φ΄Χ, שׁ֢נּ֢אֱמַר: Χ΄(Χ•Φ°Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧ”) בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא Χ™Φ΄Χ”Φ°Χ™ΦΆΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ–Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ—Φ· ΧœΦ·Χ”Χ³ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧͺΧ•ΦΉΧšΦ° א֢ר֢Χ₯ ΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ™Φ΄Χ Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ·Χ¦Φ΅ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ” א֡צ֢ל Χ’Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Χ•ΦΌΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ ΧœΦ·Χ”Χ³Χ΄.

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: β€œIn 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.

Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΌ Χ—Φ²Χ›ΦΈΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΌ: Χ•ΦΌΧžΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΆΧ” שׁ֢בָּרַח ΧžΦ΄ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ›ΦΈΦΌΧšΦ°, Χ”Φ·ΧžΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ¨Φ΅Χ“ ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ – גַל אַחַΧͺ Χ›Φ·ΦΌΧžΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ·ΧžΦΈΦΌΧ”.

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.

Χͺַּנְיָא, אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ יְהוֹשֻׁגַ Χ‘ΦΆΦΌΧŸ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ—Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ”: Χ‘Φ·ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ—Φ΄ΧœΦΈΦΌΧ”, Χ›Χ‡ΦΌΧœ Χ”ΦΈΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΅Χ” ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌΧ΄ – אֲנִי Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ€Φ°ΧͺΧ•ΦΉ Χ•Φ°Χ Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΉ ΧœΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ הָאֲרִי; Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ”, Χ›Χ‡ΦΌΧœ Χ”ΦΈΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ΅Χ¨ ΧœΦ΄Χ™ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ¨Φ΅Χ“ ΧžΦ΄ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ” – אֲנִי ΧžΦ΅Χ˜Φ΄Χ™Χœ Χ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ™Χ• Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧ שׁ֢ל Χ—Φ·ΧžΦ΄ΦΌΧ™ΧŸ.

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.

שׁ֢הֲר֡י Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ•ΦΌΧœ Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ— ΧžΦ΄ΧžΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ”, Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ” בִּקּ֡שׁ ΧœΦ·Χ”Φ²Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ א֢Χͺ Χ“ΦΈΦΌΧ•Φ΄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: β€œWhen 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 ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ‘ חִבְדָּא ΧœΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ™Φ΅Χ™: Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ ΧžΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ¨, הַאי קְרָא Χ“Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ™ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ“ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ?

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?

ΧœΦ°Χ›Φ΄Χ“Φ°Χͺַנְיָא: ΧœΦ°ΧΦ·Χ—Φ·Χ¨ מַ׀ַּלְΧͺΦΌΧ•ΦΉ שׁ֢ל Χ‘Φ·Χ Φ°Χ—Φ΅Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ‘, יָצָא Χ—Φ΄Χ–Φ°Χ§Φ΄Χ™ΦΈΦΌΧ” Χ•ΦΌΧžΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ™ ΧžΦ°ΧœΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™Χ שׁ֢הָיוּ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ©Φ°ΧΧ‘Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ Χ•ΦΉΧͺ שׁ֢ל Χ–ΦΈΧ”ΦΈΧ‘, Χ”Φ΄Χ“Φ΄ΦΌΧ™Χ¨ΦΈΧŸ שׁ֢לֹּא ΧœΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ Χ’Φ²Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ–ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ”, שׁ֢נּ֢אֱמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא Χ™Φ΄Χ”Φ°Χ™Χ•ΦΌ Χ—ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ©Χ גָרִים בְּא֢ר֢Χ₯ ΧžΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ™Φ΄Χ ΧžΦ°Χ“Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Χ•ΦΉΧͺ Χ©Φ°Χ‚Χ€Φ·Χͺ Χ›Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ’Φ·ΧŸ

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: β€œIn that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete