Menachot

But why? Let us rather see which [house] it was that fell down, or which [slave] it was that died!1 — 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.2 And now that you have arrived at this answer, you may even say that ‘aliyyah3 [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;4 AND IF HE OFFERED IT IN THE TEMPLE OF ONIAS,5 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,6 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 OFFERINGS7 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]!8 — 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.9 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 gift10 [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 that11 I cannot put myself out’. And with regard to the Nazirite vow, too, this man merely intended to exercise self-denial,12 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’.13 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,14 he has fulfilled his obligation but he has incurred the penalty of kareth.15 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’,16 and he offered it beyond the Jordan,14 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;17 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.18 THUS THEY ARE LIKE THOSE THAT HAD A BLEMISH:19 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,20 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,21 and immediately afterwards it is written, And they shall not come near unto Me, to minister unto Me in the priest's office.22 Thus only if they performed service [unto idols are they disqualified], but slaughtering is no service. 23 It was stated: [If a priest had] inadvertently sprinkled blood24 [to an idol]. R. Nahman says, His offering [in the Temple]25 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!26 R. Nahman, however, says, It means a stumblingblock of iniquity.27 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:28 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!29 It can only be that he ministered unto the idol by sprinkling before it.30 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. 31 They32 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].33 ‘R. Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour’ — 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. 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. 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. burnt-offering. completion of his vow when he shaves ‘his consecrated head’. V. Num. VI. 18. the liability that is incurred for slaughtering outside the Temple he does not thereby fulfil the obligation of his vow. 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. of slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple. but near to the Temple of Onias. 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. (through iniquity) the priest is debarred for all time from offering sacrifices in the Temple. 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). sacrifice; thus in accord with R. Nahman's view.