מנחות 109 — Soncino English Talmud

¹But why? Let us rather see which [house] it was that fell down, or which [slave] it was that died! — You are speaking, are you not, of a purchaser? But it is quite a different matter in the case of a purchaser, for the holder of a deed is always at a disadvantage. And now that you have arrived at this answer, you may even say that ‘aliyyah [means the attic, and] the worst [room was meant], for the reason that the holder of a deed is always at a disadvantage. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER A BURNT-OFFERING, HE MUST OFFER IT IN THE TEMPLE; AND IF HE OFFERED IT IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER A BURNT-OFFERING BUT I WILL OFFER IT IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS’. HE MUST OFFER IT IN THE TEMPLE, YET IF HE OFFERED IT IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. R. SIMEON SAYS, SUCH IS NO BURNT-OFFERING. [IF A MAN SAID.] ‘I WILL BE A NAZIRITE’. HE MUST BRING HIS OFFERINGS IN THE TEMPLE; AND IF HE BROUGHT THEM IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. [IF HE SAID,] I WILL BE A NAZIRITE BUT I WILL BRING MY OFFERINGS IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS’. HE MUST BRING THEM IN THE TEMPLE, YET IF HE BROUGHT THEM IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. R. SIMEON SAYS, SUCH A ONE IS NOT A NAZIRITE. GEMARA. [YET IF HE OFFERED IT IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS] HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. But he has only killed the offering [and not sacrificed it]! — R. Hamnuna answered, It is regarded as though he said, ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering on the condition that I shall not be held responsible for it. Whereupon Raba said to him, In that case will you also say the same of the final clause which reads: [IF HE SAID,] ‘I WILL BE A NAZIRITE BUT I WILL BRING MY OFFERINGS IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS, HE MUST BRING THEM IN THE TEMPLE, YET IF HE BROUGHT THEM IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION, namely, that it is regarded as though he said, ‘I will be a Nazirite on the condition that I shall not be held responsible for the offerings’? But surely a Nazirite is not released [from his vow] until he has brought his offerings! — The fact is, said Raba, that this man merely intended to offer a gift [to God], saying to himself, ‘If the Temple of Onias can serve my purpose, I will take the trouble [and offer it there]; but further than that I cannot put myself out’. And with regard to the Nazirite vow, too, this man merely intended to exercise self-denial, saying to himself, ‘If the Temple of Onias can serve my purpose, I will take the trouble [and bring the offerings there]; but further than that I cannot put myself out’. R. Hamnuna, however, says, With regard to the Nazirite it is as you say, but in the case of the burnt-offering his vow was intended to imply: ‘I will not be held responsible for it’. R. Johanan is also of the same opinion as R. Hamnuna; for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, [If a man said,] ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias’, and he offered it in the Land of Israel, he has fulfilled his obligation but he has incurred the penalty of kareth. There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to the same effect: [If a man said,] ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering but I will offer it in the wilderness’, and he offered it beyond the Jordan, he has fulfilled his obligation but he has incurred the penalty of kareth. MISHNAH. THE PRIESTS WHO MINISTERED IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS MAY NOT MINISTER IN THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM; AND NEEDLESS TO SAY [THIS IS SO OF PRIESTS WHO MINISTERED TO] ANOTHER MATTER; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NEVERTHELESS THE PRIESTS OF THE HIGH PLACES CAME NOT UP TO THE ALTAR OF THE LORD IN JERUSALEM. BUT THEY DID EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD AMONG THEIR BRETHREN. THUS THEY ARE LIKE THOSE THAT HAD A BLEMISH: THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SHARE AND EAT [OF THE HOLY THINGS]. BUT THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO OFFER SACRIFICES. GEMARA. Rab Judah said, If a priest had slaughtered an animal to an idol, his offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour. R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, Where is there Scriptural proof for this? It is written, Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and became a stumblingblock of iniquity unto the house of Israel; therefore have I lifted up My hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity, and immediately afterwards it is written, And they shall not come near unto Me, to minister unto Me in the priest's office. Thus only if they performed service [unto idols are they disqualified], but slaughtering is no service. It was stated: [If a priest had] inadvertently sprinkled blood [to an idol]. R. Nahman says, His offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; but R. Shesheth says, His offering is not a sweet savour. R. Shesheth said, Whence do I derive my view? It is written, ‘And became a stumblingblock of iniquity unto the house of Israel’. Now this surely means either through stumbling or through iniquity; and ‘stumblingblock’ signifies an inadvertent act, and ‘iniquity’ a deliberate act! R. Nahman, however, says, It means a stumblingblock of iniquity. R. Nahman said, Whence do I derive my view? From the following Baraitha which was taught: It is written, And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth in error: this teaches us that the priest may make atonement for himself by his own sacrifice. Now how [did he minister unto the idol]? Will you say, by slaughtering before it? Then why does the verse speak of sinning in error? It is the same even though he sinned deliberately! It can only be that he ministered unto the idol by sprinkling before it. R. Shesheth, however, can say. I still say by slaughtering before it, but it is not the same if he did so deliberately for he then became a priest to the idol. They have indeed followed up these principles of theirs, for it has been stated: If a priest had deliberately slaughtered [an animal to an idol]. R. Nahman said, His offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; but R. Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour. ‘R. Nahman said, His offering is a sweet savour — for he had not performed a service [before the idol]. ‘R. Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour’ —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:And if it was the best house that fell down or the best slave that died, only then should the purchaser suffer the loss, but not if it was not the best, for according to R. Nahman the terms of the transaction implied that the best was being sold.
^ᵇnote:It is for the purchaser who has the deed of sale in his possession to prove that nothing but the best was the subject of the sale, otherwise it will be assumed that the worst was sold. With regard to offerings for the altar, however, it will always be assumed that the best was intended.
^ᶜnote:In the case stated by R. Huna b. Hiyya in the name of ‘Ulla, supra p. 670.
^ᵈnote:At Jerusalem.
^ᵉnote:The Temple erected in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis in Egypt by Onias IV. who had fled from Palestine 164 B.C.E. It was modelled on the Temple in Jerusalem, and the regular system of sacrifices was established there. It was despoiled and suppressed by the Emperor Vespasian about the same time as the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple; v. Josephus Antiquities. XIII, 3ff.
^ᶠnote:For by his opening words ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering’ there rests upon him an obligation to bring a burnt-offering.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘he must shave’. This expression is used throughout for the offerings which the Nazirite brings on the completion of his vow when he shaves ‘his consecrated head’. V. Num. VI. 18.
^ʰnote:For what is slaughtered outside the Temple is not regarded as the sacrifice of the offering, consequently apart from the liability that is incurred for slaughtering outside the Temple he does not thereby fulfil the obligation of his vow.
^ⁱnote:Since the Temple of Onias is not different from any other place outside the Temple, his saying ‘I will offer it in the Temple of Onias’ clearly implied that wherever the animal was slaughtered that was the fulfilment of his obligation. He is, of course, liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple.
^ʲnote:And he did not pledge himself to offer a burnt-offering at all; accordingly there does not arise here the prohibition of slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple.
^ᵏnote:I.e., to have to bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem. We must suppose that he was living far from the Land of Israel but near to the Temple of Onias.
^ˡnote:But there was no Nazirite vow at all.
^ᵐnote:And consequently he is in this case culpable for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple.
^ⁿnote:In Palestine, but not at the Temple in Jerusalem.
^ᵒnote:For slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple. For kareth v. Glos. He has, however, fulfilled his obligation and need not bring another burnt-offering to the Temple, for by his saying, ‘I will offer it in the Temple of Onias’ he implied that wheresoever the animal would be slaughtered that would be the fulfilment of his obligation. V. supra p. 672, n. 2.
^ᵖnote:In which the Israelites journeyed and where the Tabernacle was erected by Moses.
^ᵠnote:A euphemism for idolatry.
^ʳnote:II Kings XXIII, 9.
^ˢnote:Cf. Lev. XXI, 17ff.
^ᵗnote:And he afterwards repented.
^ᵘnote:Ezek. XLIV, 12.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. 13.
^ʷnote:For even in the Temple it may be performed by non-priests.
^ˣnote:This is, of course, an act of service.
^ʸnote:On a subsequent occasion.
^ᶻnote:Thus whether the service in honour of the idol was performed inadvertently (through stumbling) or deliberately (through iniquity) the priest is debarred for all time from offering sacrifices in the Temple.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., a deliberate act of service.
^ᵃᵇnote:Num. XV, 28. The apparently superfluous expression ‘when he sinneth in error’ is interpreted as referring to a priest who, having sinned by ministering to idols, is now offering his own sacrifice and making atonement for himself (for the whole passage refers to the sin of idolatry).
^ᵃᶜnote:For slaughtering is no service.
^ᵃᵈnote:And as he did so in error he may minister in the Temple. for the Baraitha teaches that he may offer his own sacrifice; thus in accord with R. Nahman's view.
^ᵃᵉnote:Notwithstanding that slaughtering is no service.
^ᵃᶠnote:R. Nahman and R. Shesheth.
^ᵃᵍnote:For slaughtering is no service.

²for he had become a priest to idols. R. Nahman said, Whence do I derive my view? From the following which was taught: If a priest ministered before idols and repented, his offering is a sweet savour. In what circumstances [did he minister]? Will you say, inadvertently? Then what is the point of ‘and repented’? He has always been repentant! It must obviously be [that he ministered] deliberately. And further, if by sprinkling, then even though he repented it avails nought, for he had performed a service [before the idol]! It can only be by slaughtering [before it]. R. Shesheth, however, will say, I still maintain that he ministered inadvertently, and [the Baraitha] means to say as follows: If he had always been repentant, that is to say, when he ministered [before the idol] he ministered inadvertently, his offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; otherwise his offering is not a sweet savour. If a priest had prostrated himself before an idol, R. Nahman said, His offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; and R. Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour. If he had acknowledged an idol, R. Nahman said, His offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; and R. Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour. Now all these disputes had to be stated. For if only the first had been stated, I would have said that only there did R. Shesheth say [that his offering was not a sweet savour] since he had performed a service [before the idol], but where he had slaughtered [before the idol], since that was no service, I would have said that he agreed with R. Nahman. [Hence the latter dispute had to be stated.] And if the dispute regarding slaughtering had only been stated, [I would have said that only there did R. Shesheth say that his offering was not a sweet savour] since he had performed some service [before the idol], but not where he had prostrated himself before the idol, for that was no service. Hence the latter had to be stated. And if the dispute regarding prostrating [before the idol] had only been stated, [I would have said that only there did R. Shesheth say that his offering was not a sweet savour] since he had done some act [before the idol], but not where he had merely acknowledged the idol, for that was a mere matter of words. Therefore all had to be stated. NEEDLESS TO SAY [THIS IS SO OF PRIESTS WHO MINISTERED TO] ANOTHER MATTER. Since it says here, NEEDLESS TO SAY [THIS IS SO OF PRIESTS WHO MINISTERED TO] ANOTHER MATTER, it follows that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. Our Tanna thus concurs with the view of him who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. For it was taught: In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he foretold them that he would die. They said to him, ‘Whence do you know it?’ He replied. ‘Every Day of Atonement there met me an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, who entered with me [into the Holy of Holies] and left with me; but this year there met me an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, who entered with me but did not leave with me’. After the Festival [of Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days and then died. Thereafter his brethren the priests forbore to pronounce the Name in the priestly benediction. In the hour of his departure [from this life], he said to them, ‘My son Onias shall assume the office [of High Priest] after me’. His brother Shime'i, who was two years and a half older than he, was jealous of him and said to him, ‘Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service. He thereupon put upon him a gown, girded him with a girdle, placed him near the altar, and said to his brethren the priests. ‘See what this man promised his beloved and has now fulfilled: "On the day in which I will assume the office of High Priest I will put on your gown and gird myself with your girdle".’ At this his brethren the priests sought to kill him. He fled from them but they pursued him. He then went to Alexandria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in honour of idols. When the Sages heard of this they said, If this is what happened [through the jealousy] of one who had never assumed the honour, what would happen [through the jealousy] of one who had once assumed the honour [and had been ousted from it]! This is the view of the events according to R. Meir. R. Judah said to him, That was not what happened, but the fact was that Onias did not accept the office of High Priest because his brother Shime'i was two years and a half older than he. For all that Onias was jealous of his brother Shime'i and he said to him, ‘Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service’. He thereupon put on him a gown, girded him with a girdle, placed him near the altar, and said to his brethren the priests, ‘See what this man promised his beloved and has now fulfilled: "On the day that I will assume the office of High Priest I will put on your gown and gird myself with your girdle".’ At this his brethren the priests sought to kill him, but he explained to them all that occurred. They thereupon sought to kill Onias; he fled from them but they pursued him. He fled to the King's palace, but they pursued him there; and whoever saw him cried out, There he is, there he is. He thereupon went to Alexandria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in honour of God; for so it is written, In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. When the Sages heard of this they said, If this is what happened [through the jealousy] of one who had [at first] shunned the honour, what would happen [through the jealousy] of one who seeks the honour! It was taught: R. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first whoever were to say to me ‘Take up the honour’, I would bind him and put him in front of a lion; but now whoever were to say to me, ‘Give up the honour’, I would pour over him a kettle of boiling water. For [we see that] Saul [at first] shunned [the throne], but after he had taken it he sought to kill David. Mar Kashisha son of R. Hisda said to Abaye. How does R. Meir interpret that verse adduced by R. Judah? — As in the following [Baraitha] which was taught: After the downfall of Sennacherib Hezekiah went out and found princes sitting in their golden carriages. He adjured them not to serve idols, as it is written, In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan,^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ

^ᵃʰnote:For one who sinned in error has not transgressed the law that he should stand in need of repentance.
^ᵃⁱnote:Where the priest had sprinkled blood before the idol.
^ᵃʲnote:Slaughtering, although not a priestly service, is indeed an essential service with regard to the offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc. idolatry.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Tosaf. Sot. 38a. s.v. hrv; and Yoma (Sonc. ed.) p. 196 n. 1.
^ᵃᵐnote:Shime'i.
^ᵃⁿnote:A light garment. ‘The easy dress worn in the house and, under the cloak, in the street, but in which it was unbecoming to appear in public’ (Jast.). According to Rashi: a leather gown.
^ᵃᵒnote:His wife.
^ᵃᵖnote:Onias.
^ᵃᵠnote:Of the High Priesthood. Lit., ‘went down to it’.
^ᵃʳnote:The King's Mount, Har ha-Melek (Tur Malka) v. Git. (Sonc. ed.) p. 254, n. 4.
^ᵃˢnote:Isa. XIX, 19.
^ᵃᵗnote:Onias.
^ᵃᵘnote:The translation of this passage follows the text as found in cur. edd. and as established by R. Kalonymos the father of R. Meshullam. There is, however, another text found in MS.M. and quoted by R. Gershom, Rashi and Tosaf. which reads: ihnj ka ouenue uhkg khyn hbt vjbn ut vkug rnutv kf vkhj,c: Whosoever pledges a burnt-offering or a meal-offering first (i.e., without having first set apart the animal or the flour for the purpose). I would pour over him a kettle of boiling water. The reason for this denunciation is that later this man might not find an animal or flour available for his purpose and his vow will therefore be left unfulfilled. This subject, however, is entirely out of place here.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘go up to it’.
^ᵃʷnote:Having taken a position of honour. R. Joshua b. Perahiah had been appointed to the position of Nasi, or President of the Sanhedrin, cf. Hag, 16a; he fled to Alexandria owing to Sadducee hostility but was recalled later by Simeon b. Shetah; v. Sot. 47a.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘go down from it’.
^ᵃʸnote:Who considers the Temple of Onias to have been an idolatrous shrine.
^ᵃᶻnote:Sc. the Hebrew tongue spoken in the land of Canaan.