Menachot 109b (קט:) — the Talmud in English

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

because in any event

he became a minister serving idolatry.

Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say this

that one who slaughters, even intentionally, is not disqualified? From this,

as it is taught:

A koen who served idolatry and repented

in repentance, his

offering is a pleasing fragrance.

And

with what

does the beraita deal?

If you say that it deals with an unintentional act,

and that is why his offering is a pleasing fragrance, this cannot be said, for:

If so,

what is the meaning of

“and repented”,

but

he is continually repentant—since from the outset he did not sin intentionally, but acted unintentionally?

—

Rather, it is obvious that the beraita deals

with one who served it

intentionally.

And if

the beraita deals with a case in which he served it

by the sacrificial sprinkling,

this too cannot be said, for:

If so,

what does it matter that he repented? He had performed a service for it

and is disqualified.

Rather, is it not the case that the beraita necessarily deals with one who served it

by slaughtering,

and intentionally; nevertheless, he is fit. We have therefore learned that one who slaughters is fit even when he acted intentionally.

And Rav Sheshet can say to you

to reject the proof:

Actually,

the beraita deals with a case in which he slaughtered

unintentionally, and

as for what troubles you—what is the meaning of “and repented”? Do not be troubled, for

this is what it is saying:

If he repented from the outset, for when he served it, he did so unintentionally,

then

his offering is a pleasing fragrance; but if not,

that is, if he slaughtered intentionally,

his offering is not a pleasing fragrance.

The third dispute:

One who prostrated himself before idolatry

but did not offer sacrifices to it:

Rav Naḥman said: His offering is a pleasing fragrance.

And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not a pleasing fragrance.

The fourth dispute:

One who acknowledged idolatry

and said to it, “You are my god.”

Rav Naḥman said: His offering is a pleasing fragrance.

And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not a pleasing fragrance.

The Gemara requires all four disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet to be stated: one who acted unintentionally in the sprinkling, one who acted intentionally in slaughtering, one who prostrated himself, and one who acknowledged it—for according to Rav Naḥman, his offering is a pleasing fragrance, while according to Rav Sheshet, his offering is not a pleasing fragrance:

It is necessary

for Rav Sheshet to teach us in all four of the aforementioned cases that the offering is not a pleasing fragrance:

For had he taught us only the first one,

[had Rav Sheshet taught us only that one who acts unintentionally in sprinkling produces an offering that is not a pleasing fragrance], I would have said:

Only

in that case did Rav Sheshet say so, because

ultimately,

he performed a service for it; but with regard to slaughtering, in which he did not perform a service for it, say that he agrees with Rav Naḥman

that even when he acts intentionally his offering is a pleasing fragrance. Therefore, he teaches us otherwise.

And had he taught us

that Rav Sheshet said only that one who acts intentionally in

slaughtering

produces an offering that is not a pleasing fragrance, I would have said

it is because he performed a sacrificial service for it

with the offerings,

but with regard to one who prostrated himself, since he did not perform a service for it, say that it does not

become disqualified even when he acts intentionally—

It is necessary.

And had Rav Sheshet taught us

only that

prostration

disqualifies him, I would have said that it is

because he performed an act for it, but with regard to acknowledging it, which is merely speech

alone,

say that he does not

become disqualified—

Therefore,

it is necessary.

We learned in the Mishna: The kohanim who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem,

and needless to say, they may not serve in another place:

The Gemara infers:

From the fact that it says,

“and needless to say, they may not serve in another place,”

namely, kohanim who served idolatry,

by inference, the temple of Onias—

mentioned in the first clause—

is not a place of idolatry.

If so,

it is taught

in our Mishna

in accordance with the one who says

in the following beraita:

The temple of Onias is not a place of idolatry, as it is taught,

for Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disputed the matter:

In the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died,

who had been the High Priest,

he said to them—

Shimon HaTzaddik said:

This year

[he was referring to himself]

I will die!

They said to him: From where do you know?

He said to them: Every Yom Kippur,

when I came as High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies,

there would appear

[he would appear]

to me an old man dressed in white, wrapped in white, who would enter with me and leave with me;

but

this year an old man dressed in black appeared to me, wrapped in black; he entered with me but did not leave with me.

After the Festival

[Sukkot of that year],

Shimon HaTzaddik became ill

for

seven days and died.

And

from then on

his fellow kohanim refrained from blessing with the Explicit Name

even in the Temple.

At the time of his death he said to them,

Shimon HaTzaddik:

My son Onias shall serve in my place

as High Priest!

His brother Shimi became jealous of him,

Onias, the son of Shimon HaTzaddik, because

he was older than him

[than Onias]

by two and a half years,

and he thought that the High Priesthood under his father rightly belonged to him.

What did he do?

He said to him,

Shimi said to Onias:

Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service; he dressed him

—Shimi dressed Onias—

in an onkeli

[a leather garment]

and girded him with a tzelatzul

[a belt], and

stood him beside the altar.

While Onias was standing on the altar in his unusual garments, Shimi went and

said to his fellow kohanim:

See what vow this man

[Onias]

made and fulfilled for his beloved: “

On the day that I serve as High Priest, I will wear your onkeli and gird myself with your tzelatzul.”

They believed him, and

his fellow kohanim sought to kill

Onias;

and

Onias

fled from them, and they pursued him.

He went

Onias

to Alexandria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered upon it for the sake of idolatry.

And when the Sages heard of the matter,

that Shimi had falsely accused Onias,

they said: What will this man

[Shimi]

who did not descend to it

[to the priesthood]

do

in such circumstances?

How much more so one who has descended to it;

that is, if Shimi, who had not been appointed High Priest, became so jealous that he did this to his brother, then one who has already descended to that position, and whom we are attempting to remove from it, would all the more do so; therefore, we should not do this, so that he will not corrupt himself.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him,

to Rabbi Meir:

The incident did not happen that way,

with Onias being appointed, Shimi acting corruptly, and Onias building a temple for idolatry,

rather:

Onias did not accept upon himself

[he was not willing]

Onias

to be appointed High Priest, since

his brother Shimi was older than him by two and a half years; and nevertheless—

although he had initially yielded to his brother—

Onias became jealous of his brother Shimi

and sought to kill him.

What did he do?

He said to him,

Onias, who was more learned than Shimi [and for that reason his father had instructed that he be appointed instead of Shimi]:

Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service;

and

he dressed him

—Onias dressed Shimi—

in an onkeli

[a leather garment],

and girded him with a tzelatzul

[a belt], and

stood him beside the altar.

While Shimi was standing on the altar in his unusual garments, Onias went and

said to his fellow kohanim:

See what vow this man

[Shimi]

made and fulfilled for his beloved: “

On the day that I serve as High Priest, I will wear your onkeli and gird myself with your tzelatzul.”

They believed him, and

his fellow kohanim sought to kill

Shimi,

and he told them

Shimi

the entire incident,

namely, that Onias had incited him to do so.

And when they heard this,

they sought to kill Onias, and he fled from them, and they pursued him; Onias ran to the king’s palace, and they pursued him; everyone who saw him said, “

This is he

who is liable for the matter, and not Shimi who did it.” “

This is he.”

Onias went

Onias

to Alexandria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered upon it for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: “

On that day there shall be an altar to the Lord

in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a monument beside its border to the Lord.”

And when the Sages heard of the matter, they said: How much more so this man

[Onias]

who fled from it

[from the priesthood] initially,

did so

that

one who seeks to descend to it would all the more so do so.

It is taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said,

who had been the Nasi:

At first,

before I was appointed,

anyone who said to me, “

Rise

to greatness,”

I would bind him and place him before a lion.

Now,

since I have already risen to greatness,

anyone who says to me, ‘Descend from it,’ I will pour a kettle of boiling water over him—

For Saul,

the king,

fled from it

[from greatness, because he did not wish to be king],

but when he rose

to greatness and was appointed king,

he sought to kill David

who had come to take the kingship from him.

He said—

the following objection was raised by

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, to Abaye:

Rabbi Meir—

who holds that Onias built the temple for idolatry—

this verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda—

who teaches that there would be a temple built for the Lord in Egypt—

what does he do with it

[how does he interpret it]?

And we explain: This verse comes

to teach as it is taught:

After the downfall of Sennacherib, Hezekiah went out and found princes

of the nations

sitting in golden chariots, and he made them take an oath

[he caused them to accept upon themselves by vow]

not to worship idolatry—