Menachot 109a — the Talmud in English

And

it is difficult for Rabba bar Avuha:

why

does he show him one that has fallen and died

—let him see which one fell and which one died

[that is, he cannot show him the fallen and dead one, unless the larger one is the one that fell and the one that died]!?

The Gemara resolves this by way of astonishment:

“The purchaser”—

“an ox among my oxen,” or “a house among my houses,” or “a slave among my slaves”—

you are saying

[and are you coming to raise a difficulty against the consecrated property from a purchaser]!?

It is different with a purchaser, for the holder of the document

[he is the purchaser]

has the lower hand—

and the burden of proof is upon him that he sold him the large house or the large slave, for it is a general principle that the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof, and the seller is considered to be in possession.

The Gemara adds:

Now that you have arrived at this

The Gemara adds:

Now that you have arrived at this,

since we have pointed out concerning a purchaser that his hand is lower,

you may even say

in explaining the words of Ulla, who said, “I sell you a house among my houses; I show you an upper story,” that this is according to its simple meaning, that he shows him

an inferior upper story

[his inferior upper story]—there is no difficulty for Rabba bar Avuha as to why he does not give him the superior one among his properties [as we asked above], because

the holder of the document has the lower hand.

Mishna:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering”:

he shall offer it in the Temple, and if he offered it in the Temple of Onias

[a likeness of the Temple that Onias, the son of Shimon the Just, built in Egypt, and it has no sanctity at all] —

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

“It is incumbent upon me to offer an olah that I will offer in the Temple of Onias”:

And if he said, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering that I shall offer in the Temple of Onias”:

nevertheless,

he shall offer it in the Temple,

for it is an elevation-offering.

And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias—

he has fulfilled his obligation,

as the Gemara explains: that is, he need not bring another one, and although everyone who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering,” thereby assumes liability for it, the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since, at the time of his vow, he said, “that I shall offer it in the Temple of Onias,”

this is not

an obligation to bring an

elevation-offering at all, and he need not bring anything.

A nazirite whose days of naziriteship have been completed brings the offerings specified in the Torah in the section of Naso, and he also cuts his hair; and everything that the nazirite does is called “cutting.”

One who says, “

I am hereby a nazirite,”

he shall

cut his hair

[bring his offerings]

in the Temple, and if he cut his hair in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And if he said: “

I am hereby a nazirite who shall cut his hair in the Temple of Onias”—

he shall cut his hair in the Temple.

And if he cut his hair in the Temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation—

it will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since he said, “that I shall cut my hair in the Temple of Onias,”

he is not a nazirite

at all.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering that I shall offer in the Temple of Onias . . . if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation”:

And we were astonished at it:

“He has fulfilled his obligation”!?

Does this one fulfill his vow by offering it in the Temple of Onias

!? He has killed it

[for he killed it and did not offer it], since the Temple of Onias is nothing, and how can you say that he fulfilled his vow!?

and explained

Rav Hamnuna

said and explained: When we learned “he has fulfilled his obligation,” the intention is not to say that he fulfilled his vow, but that he need not bring another one. And although he said, “It is incumbent upon me,” and seemingly assumed liability for it, this is because

he is treated as one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering, on the condition that I shall not assume liability for it

even if it dies in the Temple of Onias,” so that he does not assume liability for it.

Rava said

and challenged

him: “If that is so,”

but concerning

the latter clause, which teaches:

Rava said

and challenged

him, “But from now

on, when the latter clause teaches, “I am hereby a nazirite who shall cut his hair in the Temple of Onias; he shall cut his hair in the Temple, and if he cut his hair in the Temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation,”

is it also

so

that you should explain the reason as being

that he is treated as one who says, “

I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I shall not assume liability for its offerings”!?

And even if he were to say this explicitly, it would not help him, for

a nazirite, so long as he has not brought his offerings, is not made fit

[his naziriteship does not depart from him until he brings his offerings].

Rather, Rava said: This man intended merely as a gift,

he said:

If it is sufficient at the Temple of Onias, I will trouble myself,

but I cannot trouble myself any further [this man intended to bring merely a gift, and the designation of an elevation-offering did not take effect upon it. He thought as follows: If it is sufficient for me to bring it in the Temple of Onias—which is near my place of residence—that is well; but if not, I do not wish to trouble myself further].

a nazirite as well,

the reason is likewise that

this man intends to afflict himself

[by abstaining from drinking wine].

And

with a nazirite as well

the reason is likewise that

this man intends to afflict himself

[to afflict himself by refraining from drinking wine];

he said: If it is sufficient at the Temple of Onias, I will trouble myself; I cannot trouble myself any further.

a nazirite, the reason is indeed

And Rav Hamnuna—

who above did not explain it in this way, and Rava challenged him concerning the nazirite—

can say to you:

Regarding a

nazirite, indeed the reason is

as you said. But regarding an

elevation-offering, this is not the reason; rather, it is because

“

he said, ‘on the condition that I shall not assume liability for it.’”

And Rabbi Yohanan also held this view of Rav Hamnuna, that concerning an elevation-offering the reason is that he made a condition not to assume liability!

For Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering that I shall offer in the Temple of Onias,”

and he offered it in the Land of Israel,

he has fulfilled his obligation, but

he is liable to excision

for slaughtering outside [the Temple precincts]. This shows that the consecration takes effect, and therefore he is liable because of slaughtering outside [the Temple precincts], whereas according to Rava he is not liable because of slaughtering outside [the Temple precincts], since it is not consecrated at all.

It was taught likewise

according to Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yohanan:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring an elevation-offering that I shall offer in the wilderness

[because he thought that the wilderness itself was sacred, since the Tabernacle was there],”

and he offered it in Transjordan

[that is, in the Land of Israel, outside Jerusalem],

he has fulfilled his obligation, but he is liable to excision

for slaughtering outside [the Temple precincts].

Mishna:

The priests who served in the Temple of Onias shall not serve

in the Temple

in Jerusalem,

even if they repented.

And there is no need to say

that they are unfit if they served

for another matter

[for idolatry], because

it is stated

[II Kings 23]: “

But the priests of the high places shall not ascend

to the altar of the Lord’

in Jerusalem, but they shall eat unleavened bread

[that is, they shall eat the remnants of meal-offerings, which are eaten unleavened and are forbidden to become leavened]

among their brethren

[the priests]”; and we learn:

These are like priests with physical blemishes,

who

take a portion

of consecrated offerings

These are like blemished persons,

for they

divide

the consecrated offerings and

eat even consecrated offerings that are eaten only by priests, as the verse says, “but they shall eat unleavened bread among their brethren,”

but

they

do not offer.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The priests who served in the Temple of Onias shall not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem, and there is no need to say [that they are disqualified if they served] for another matter”:

Rav Judah said: A priest who slaughtered

but did not offer

for idolatry,

and repented, his

offering—

which he offered in the Temple as a priest—ascends before the Lord as a pleasing odor,

that is, he is fit for service in the Temple, since he offered only by slaughtering and did not perform anything else.

Because it is stated [Ezekiel 44]: “So says the Lord God: No one uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh shall enter My Sanctuary, nor any foreigner among the children of Israel. Rather [this is what you shall do to them]: the Levites who distanced themselves from Me when Israel went astray, who strayed from Me after their idols, and they shall bear their iniquity ...

Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said: What is the verse

[from where is this matter learned]?

Because it is stated [Ezekiel 44]: “Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My Sanctuary, any foreigner who is among the children of Israel. Rather [so shall you do to them]: the Levites who withdrew from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, and they bore their iniquity . . .

because they served them before their idols, and they became a stumbling-block of iniquity to the House of Israel; therefore I lifted My hand

against them, declares the Lord

God, and they shall bear their iniquity.”

And it is written afterward

[in the following verse], “

And they shall not approach Me to serve Me as priests . . .”

And we learn from the wording of the verse, “who served them before their idols”:

if he performed service

before idolatry,

he does not, indeed, approach Me to serve Me as a priest; but

slaughtering is not service [slaughtering is not Temple service], and through this he is not disqualified from serving as a priest before Him. The Gemara brings here four disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet concerning the laws of a kohen who performed service for idolatry:

The first dispute:

It was stated: If he acted unwittingly

a person

in the throwing

of an offering for idolatry, what is his status with regard to being a kohen before the Lord:

Rav Naḥman said: His offering

which he offers before the Lord

is a pleasing fragrance,

since he acted unwittingly.

Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not a pleasing fragrance,

even though he acted unwittingly.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this,

that even when he acted unwittingly he is disqualified from ministering before Him?

Because

it is written

[in the verse above]: “For the reason that they minister...

and they shall be a stumbling-block of iniquity for the house of Israel,”

what, is it not either a stumbling-block or iniquity,

in either case he is disqualified from ministering,

and a stumbling-block

is, after all,

unwitting, and

if

deliberate iniquity

is involved, and Scripture disqualified both this one and that one from ministering.

And Rav Naḥman,

who holds that one who acted unwittingly with idolatry is not disqualified, does so because he interprets

“a stumbling-block of iniquity”

as meaning that he is disqualified, but one who acted unwittingly alone is not disqualified.

Rav

Naḥman

said: From where do I say this,

that one who acted unwittingly with idolatry is not disqualified:

Because

it was taught

concerning the verse [Numbers 15] in the passage of the sin-offering brought by one who performs idolatry: “

And the kohen shall make atonement for the person who acts unwittingly in his sin, through unwittingness,”

this teaches that a kohen—

who performed idolatry unwittingly—

makes atonement through himself,

bringing his offering himself, since his sin was unwitting. And in

what

case is the verse occupied?

If you say, with slaughter,

that this kohen slaughtered unwittingly for idolatry, and Scripture permitted him because he sinned unwittingly, then

why specifically unwittingly,

when

even deliberately as well

he is fit to be a kohen, and in accordance with the words of Rav Yehuda above—

Rather, is it not with throwing

that the verse is occupied: a kohen threw unwittingly for idolatry, and this one makes atonement through himself since he sinned unwittingly.

And Rav Sheshet—

who holds: if he acted unwittingly in throwing, he is disqualified—

can say to you

to reject the proof from the verse:

In fact,

the verse is occupied

with slaughter,

with the unwitting act of the kohen who brings atonement,

and

because one who slaughters

deliberately does not become one who ministers for idolatry!?

That is to say, Rav Yehuda said only this much: that slaughter performed unwittingly is valid, but deliberately, he too is considered to have fulfilled “they minister to them before their idols”—and is disqualified.

And

Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet

followed their respective positions!

The second dispute:

For it was stated: If he acted deliberately in slaughter

for idolatry:

Rav Naḥman said: His offering is a pleasing fragrance;

and according to his position, it is necessary that the permission of Scripture for a kohen who sinned unwittingly to make atonement through himself refers to when he acted unwittingly in throwing, for if it referred to slaughter, even deliberately he is fit to be a kohen.

And Rav Sheshet said:

Since he acted deliberately,

his offering is not a pleasing fragrance,

and what Scripture permitted with the words “in his sin, through unwittingness” must be interpreted as referring only to slaughter.

And their reasons:

Rav Naḥman said: His offering is a pleasing fragrance,

since

he did not perform a service,

for slaughter is not a service.