Menachot 109

ואמאי ליחזי היידן נפל היידן מת

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.

לוקח קא אמרת שאני לוקח דיד בעל השטר על התחתונה

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.

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא עלייה דגריעה יד בעל השטר על התחתונה

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.

מתני׳ הרי עלי עולה יקריבנה במקדש ואם הקריבה בבית חוניו לא יצא הרי עלי עולה שאקריבנה בבית חוניו יקריבנה במקדש ואם הקריבה בבית חוניו יצא רבי שמעון אומר אין זו עולה

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.

הריני נזיר יגלח במקדש ואם גלח בבית חוניו לא יצא הריני נזיר שאגלח בבית חוניו יגלח במקדש ואם גלח בבית חוניו יצא רבי שמעון אומר אין זה נזיר

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.

גמ׳ יצא הא מקטל קטלה

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?

אמר רב המנונא נעשה כאומר הרי עלי עולה על מנת שלא אתחייב באחריותה

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.

אמר ליה רבא אלא מעתה סיפא דקתני הריני נזיר שאגלח בבית חוניו יגלח במקדש ואם גילח בבית חוניו יצא הכי נמי דנעשה כאומר הריני נזיר על מנת שלא אתחייב באחריות קרבנותיו נזיר כמה דלא מייתי קרבנותיו לא מתכשר

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.

אלא אמר רבא אדם זה לדורון נתכוין אמר אי סגיא בבית חוניו טרחנא טפי לא מצינא לאיצטעורי

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.

נזיר נמי האי גברא לצעורי נפשיה קא מיכוין אמר אי סגיא בבית חוניו טרחנא טפי לא מצינא לאיצטעורי

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.

ורב המנונא אמר לך נזיר כדקאמרת עולה על מנת שלא אתחייב באחריותה קאמר

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.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב המנונא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הרי עלי עולה שאקריבנה בבית חוניו והקריבה בארץ ישראל יצא וענוש כרת

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.

תניא נמי הכי הרי עלי עולה שאקריבנה במדבר והקריבה בעבר הירדן יצא וענוש כרת

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.

מתני׳ הכהנים ששמשו בבית חוניו לא ישמשו במקדש שבירושלים ואין צריך לומר לדבר אחר שנאמר אך לא יעלו כהני הבמות אל מזבח ה׳ בירושלם כי אם אכלו מצות בקרב אחיהם הרי אלו כבעלי מומין חולקין ואוכלין ולא מקריבין

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה כהן ששחט לעבודה זרה קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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.

אמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי מאי קראה יען אשר ישרתו אותם לפני גלוליהם והיו לבית ישראל למכשול עון על כן נשאתי ידי עליהם נאם ה׳ אלהים ונשאו עונם וכתיב בתריה ולא יגשו אלי לכהן לי אי עבד שירות אין שחיטה לאו שירות הוא

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.

איתמר שגג בזריקה רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח רב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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.

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דכתיב והיו לבית ישראל למכשול עון מאי לאו או מכשול או עון ומכשול שוגג ועון מזיד

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.

ורב נחמן מכשול דעון

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.

אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתניא וכפר הכהן על הנפש השגגת בחטאה בשגגה מלמד שכהן מתכפר על ידי עצמו

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.

במאי אילימא בשחיטה מאי איריא שוגג אפילו מזיד נמי אלא לאו בזריקה

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.

ורב ששת אמר לך לעולם בשחיטה ובמזיד לא נעשה משרת לעבודה זרה

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?

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאתמר הזיד בשחיטה רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח ורב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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.

רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח דלא עבד שירות רב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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,

נעשה משרת לעבודה זרה

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

אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתניא כהן שעבד עבודה זרה ושב קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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.

במאי אילימא בשוגג מאי ושב שב ועומד הוא אלא פשיטא במזיד ואי בזריקה כי שב מאי הוי הא עבד לה שירות אלא לאו בשחיטה

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.

ורב ששת אמר לך לעולם בשוגג והכי קאמר אם שב מעיקרו דכי עבד בשוגג עבד קרבנו ריח ניחוח ואם לאו אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

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.

השתחוה לעבודה זרה רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח ורב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח הודה לעבודה זרה רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח ורב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

§ 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.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא בההיא קאמר רב ששת משום דעבד ליה שירות אבל שחיטה דלא עבד ליה שירות אימא מודה ליה לרב נחמן

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.

ואי אשמעינן שחיטה משום דעבד ליה עבודה אבל השתחוה דלא עבד ליה עבודה אימא לא צריכא

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.

ואי אשמעינן השתחואה משום דעביד ליה מעשה אבל הודה דדיבורא בעלמא אימא לא צריכא

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.

ואין צריך לומר דבר אחר [וכו׳] מדקאמר אין צריך לומר דבר אחר מכלל דבית חוניו לאו עבודה זרה הוא

§ 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.

תניא כמאן דאמר בית חוניו לאו עבודה זרה הוא דתניא אותה שנה שמת שמעון הצדיק אמר להן שנה זו הוא מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע

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?

אמר להן כל יום הכפורים נזדמן לי זקן אחד לבוש לבנים ונתעטף לבנים ונכנס עמי ויצא עמי שנה זו נזדמן לי זקן אחד לבוש שחורים ונתעטף שחורים ונכנס עמי ולא יצא עמי

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.

לאחר הרגל חלה שבעת ימים ומת ונמנעו אחיו הכהנים מלברך בשם

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.

בשעת פטירתו אמר להם חוניו בני ישמש תחתי נתקנא בו שמעי אחיו שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה אמר לו בא ואלמדך סדר עבודה הלבישו באונקלי וחגרו בצילצול העמידו אצל המזבח אמר להם לאחיו הכהנים ראו מה נדר זה וקיים לאהובתו אותו היום שאשתמש בכהונה גדולה אלבוש באונקלי שליכי ואחגור בצילצול שליכי

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.

בקשו אחיו הכהנים להרגו רץ מפניהם ורצו אחריו הלך לאלכסנדריא של מצרים ובנה שם מזבח והעלה עליו לשום עבודה זרה וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו מה זה שלא ירד לה כך היורד לה על אחת כמה וכמה דברי רבי מאיר

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.

אמר לו רבי יהודה לא כך היה מעשה אלא לא קיבל עליו חוניו שהיה שמעי אחיו גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה ואף על פי כן נתקנא בו חוניו בשמעי אחיו אמר לו בא ואלמדך סדר עבודה והלבישו באונקלי וחגרו בצילצול והעמידו אצל המזבח אמר להם לאחיו הכהנים ראו מה נדר זה וקיים לאהובתו אותו היום שישתמש בכהונה גדולה אלבוש באונקלי שליכי ואחגור בצילצול שליכי

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.

בקשו אחיו הכהנים להרגו סח להם כל המאורע בקשו להרוג את חוניו רץ מפניהם ורצו אחריו רץ לבית המלך ורצו אחריו כל הרואה אותו אומר זה הוא זה הוא הלך לאלכסנדריא של מצרים ובנה שם מזבח והעלה עליו לשם שמים שנאמר (והיה) ביום ההוא יהיה מזבח לה׳ בתוך ארץ מצרים ומצבה אצל גבולה לה׳

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.

וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו ומה זה שברח ממנה כך המבקש לירד לה על אחת כמה וכמה

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.

תניא אמר רבי יהושע בן פרחיה בתחלה כל האומר עלה לה אני כופתו ונותנו לפני הארי עתה כל האומר לי לירד ממנה אני מטיל עליו קומקום של חמין

§ 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.

שהרי שאול ברח ממנה וכשעלה בקש להרוג את דוד

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).

אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לאביי רבי מאיר האי קרא דרבי יהודה מאי עביד ליה

§ 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?

לכדתניא לאחר מפלתו של סנחריב יצא חזקיה ומצא בני מלכים שהיו יושבין בקרונות של זהב הדירן שלא לעבוד עבודה זרה שנאמר ביום ההוא יהיו חמש ערים בארץ מצרים מדברות שפת כנען

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