Megillah 9b — the Talmud in English

11. They wrote for him concerning the dispute of Korah: “And it greatly angered Moses, and he said to the Lord, etc.

I did not take the desire of any one of them

and I did not wrong any one of them.” And they did not write: “I did not take the donkey of any one of them.” For he might say: Indeed, Moses did not take a donkey from them, but something else—he took [from them].

12. They wrote for him: “Lest you raise your eyes heavenward and see the sun and the moon, etc., and bow down to them and worship them,

which the Lord your God apportioned to illuminate for all the nations.”

For in the verse “to illuminate” is not written. And they wrote this for him, lest Ptolemy say: If so, that the Lord apportioned the sun and the moon to all the nations in order for them to worship them, it is permitted for a Noahide to worship idolatry! [And its midrashic interpretation is: He made them smooth for the nations of the world with words, and did not prevent them from idolatry, in order to drive them from the world].

And likewise they wrote for him:

“And he went and worshipped other gods, which I did not command them to worship.”

And in the verse “to worship them” is not written. And they wrote this for him, lest he say that this is the meaning of the verse: “which the Lord did not command to be those other gods”; if so, they were necessarily created against His will, and they are deities!

13. And likewise, in the enumeration of the impure animals,

they wrote for him: “the short-legged one,” and they did not write for him: “and the hare”

[and they called the hare “the short-legged one,” because its forelegs are shorter and smaller than its hind legs ],

because Ptolemy’s wife

Hare

was

her name, lest

Ptolemy

say: “The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name into the Torah

among the impure animals

! We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even in books they did not permit that they be written

except in Greek.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel .

.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

For

the verse says: “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.”

And we interpret:

The words of Japheth,

that is, his language—

shall be in the tents of Shem,

and Greece was the son of Japheth; therefore they permitted writing them in Greek.

And we raise an objection:

But say

in the language of

Gomer and Magog,

who were also sons of Japheth; and why did they permit writing specifically in the language of Greece?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: This is the reason: as it is written, “God shall enlarge Japheth.”

And we interpret:

The beauty of Japheth—

shall be in the tents of Shem,

and the Greek language is more beautiful than the language of the other sons of Japheth.

Mishna:

There is no

distinction

between a koen

the great

anointed with the anointing oil, and

a koen

who is extensive in garments,

that is, a koen gadol from the time when the anointing oil made by Moses our teacher was hidden [in the days of Josiah, in the days of the First Temple. And he was called “extensive in garments” because he differed from an ordinary koen only through the greater number of garments. This is not so with an anointed koen, who also differed in that he was anointed with the anointing oil]— except

the bull brought for all the mitzvot.

For an anointed koen brings it if he ruled something permitted in a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet, and he acted according to his ruling. But one who is extensive in garments did not bring it.

And likewise,

there is no

distinction

between a serving koen,

that is, a koen in whom a disqualification occurred, and they appointed another koen in his place, and the disqualification of the first passed—and he returned to his service,

and the koen

the second

who had passed

from his service after the disqualification of the first had passed —

except the bull of Yom Kippur

of the koen gadol, for it is impossible to bring two.

And

likewise

the tenth of an ephah

of the pan-offering of the koen gadol, which he brings every day, for it is impossible to bring two. And only the serving koen brings them.

Gemara:

It is implied:

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth

of an ephah, this one and that one,

the anointed koen and the koen extensive in garments—

are equal.

The Mishna

that we learned, that a koen extensive in garments does not bring the bull brought for all the mitzvot—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

For if it were Rabbi Meir, is it not taught:

A koen

extensive in garments brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot—

the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: He does not bring.

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir?

For it is taught:

It is written concerning the passage of the bull brought for all the mitzvot: “the

anointed one.” I have only [that this refers to] one anointed with the anointing oil; from where [do I derive that it includes] one extensive in garments? The verse states “the anointed one,”

for from the extra letter heh we include one extensive in garments.

And we raise an objection:

On what basis did we establish

the Mishna

as not being in accordance with Rabbi Meir!?

Say its latter clause: There is no distinction between a serving koen and a koen who had passed, except the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah.

It is implied:

with regard to all

other

matters,

such as that he must serve in eight garments,

this one and that one are equal.

Here,

we have arrived with this

matter

at Rabbi Meir!?

For it is taught:

If

a disqualification occurred in him,

in the koen gadol,

and they appointed another koen in his place, the first returns to his service

when his disqualification has passed . But the

second

koen, whom they appointed in his place,

all the mitzvot of the koen gadol

such as serving in eight garments; not letting his hair grow wild; not tearing his garment over the dead; being commanded to marry specifically a virgin; being forbidden to marry a widow; and offering the sacrifice while an onen—are imposed

upon him, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service,

whereas

the second is fit neither to be a

[koen]

gadol nor to be a

[koen]

ordinary koen .

And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yosef ben Ulam of Sepphoris, in whom a disqualification occurred in the koen gadol

who lived in his time,

and they appointed him,

Rabbi Yosef ben Ulam,

in his place. And the matter came before the Sages, and they said:

The

first koen—

returns to his service.

Whereas the

second—

is fit neither to be a koen gadol nor to be an ordinary koen.

What is the reason?

A

koen gadol

is not fit—

because

we are concerned lest there be

animosity

between him and the first koen, if both of them serve at the same time.

And an

ordinary koen

is likewise not fit—

because of “One elevates in holiness and does not lower.”

And therefore it is impossible to lower him to the rank of an ordinary koen, since he had already been at a higher rank.

If so, then

the first clause

comes in accordance with

the Sages, and the latter clause with Rabbi Meir?

Rav Hisda said: Yes! The first clause is the Sages, and the latter clause is Rabbi Meir.

Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna is the words of

Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi], and he adopted it in accordance with the views of different Tannaim.

For with regard to one extensive in garments, he holds in accordance with the Sages, and with regard to a koen who had passed, he holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Mishna:

There is no distinction between the great altar,

that is, the altar of Moses, when it was in Nob and Gibeon,

and the small altar

that each person would make for himself, during the period when the altars were permitted [as explained in tractate Zevahim 112b. See there]—

except for Paschal offerings,

which were offered only on the great altar.

This is the principle: Every

sacrifice

that is vowed or donated

[that comes through a vow or a donation]—

is offered on a

small altar.

And anything that is neither vowed nor donated—

is not offered on a

small altar.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection: Is it so that there is no distinction between the great and the small [altar] except

Paschal offerings, and nothing else?

But it is taught in the latter clause that every sacrifice that is neither vowed nor donated, such as the daily offerings and the additional offerings, is not offered on a small altar, but only on the great one!?

And we answer:

Say

this: There is no distinction between a small altar and a great one except specifically anything that is

like Paschal offerings ,

that is, which is neither vowed nor donated and also has a fixed time.

And therefore it teaches in the Mishna that Paschal offerings are among the distinctions between them, to say that specifically sacrifices analogous to Paschal offerings, whose time is fixed, are offered on the great altar. This excludes communal sacrifices whose time is not fixed, such as the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for idolatry, which are not offered even on the great altar.

And the Mishna—

whose view is it? It is Rabbi Shimon’s.

For it is taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Even the community offered no sacrifices

on the great altar

except Paschal offerings and other obligatory offerings

that

have a fixed time. But obligatory offerings whose time is not fixed,

whether

here,

on the great altar,

or

whether

here,

on the small altar—

were not offered [

and the Sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon in tractate Zevahim [117], and hold that even communal sacrifices whose time is not fixed are offered on the great altar].

Mishna:

There is no distinction between

the sanctity of

Shiloh,

where the Tabernacle was when they entered the Land [which served after the fourteen years of conquering and dividing the Land. It was a stone structure, but it had no roof; rather, the curtains of the Tabernacle were spread over it]—

and

the Sanctuary in

Jerusalem, except that in Shiloh—

one eats lesser sacred offerings

and second tithe wherever it can be seen ,

that is, in every place from which one can see Shiloh,

whereas

in

Jerusalem,

one eats specifically

within the wall.

And

between

here,

in Shiloh,

and

between

here,

in Jerusalem—

most holy offerings are eaten

specifically

within the curtains]

the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in Shiloh. And in the Sanctuary in Jerusalem—this means within the wall of the Temple courtyard.

And after they were destroyed—the Tabernacle in Shiloh and the Temple in Jerusalem—there is a distinction between them: