Menachot 109b — the Talmud in English

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

because in any event

he became a minister for idolatry.

Rav Nahman said: From where do I say this

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

as it was taught:

A priest who served idolatry, and repented,

through repentance, his

sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance.

And

with what

does the beraita deal?

If you say, unintentionally,

and therefore his sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance, this cannot be said, for:

If so,

what is the meaning of “

and repented”?

But

he is one who repented and remained so,

for initially he was not wicked, but acted unintentionally.

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita deals

with an intentional act.

And if

the beraita deals with a case in which he served it

by sprinkling,

this cannot be said, for:

If so,

when he repented, what difference did it make? He had performed a service for it,

and he is disqualified.

Rather, is it not so that the beraita necessarily deals with a case in which he served it

by slaughtering,

and intentionally, and 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 to what is difficult for you, what is the meaning of “and repented,” do not find it difficult, for

this is what it is saying:

If he repented from the outset, for when he acted, he acted unintentionally,

then

his sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance; but if not,

that is, he slaughtered intentionally—

his sacrifice is not a pleasing fragrance.

The third dispute:

he bowed down to idolatry

but did not offer sacrifices to it:

Rav Nahman said: His sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance.

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

The fourth dispute:

he acknowledged idolatry

and said to it, “You are my god.”

Rav Nahman said: His sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance.

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

The Gemara requires the four disputes between Rav Nahman and Rav Sheshet: when he acted unintentionally in sprinkling, acted intentionally in slaughtering, bowed down, and acknowledged—that according to Rav Nahman his sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance, while according to Rav Sheshet his sacrifice is not a pleasing fragrance:

And it is necessary

for Rav Sheshet to inform us in all four of the aforementioned cases that his sacrifice is not a pleasing fragrance:

For had he informed us of this first one, [that Rav Sheshet had informed us only that one who acts unintentionally in sprinkling has a sacrifice that is not a pleasing fragrance,] I would say:

[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

in the end,

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

that even when he acts intentionally his sacrifice is a pleasing fragrance. Therefore, it teaches us [otherwise].

And had he informed us

that Rav Sheshet said only that one who acted intentionally in

slaughtering

has a sacrifice that is not a pleasing fragrance, I would say

because he performed a [idolatrous] act of worship

with sacrifices,

but as for one who bowed down, since he did not perform an act of worship, say no,

that he should be disqualified even when he acted intentionally—

It is necessary.

And had he informed us

that Rav Sheshet said only

bowing down,

that through it he is disqualified, I would say that it is

because he performs an act for it, but as for acknowledging, which is merely speech,

it is,

say no,

that he is disqualified—

Therefore,

it is necessary.

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, in [the service of] another matter:

The Gemara infers:

From the fact that it says, “

and there is no need to say, in [the service of] another matter,”

namely, priests who served idolatry,

by inference, the temple of Onias—

mentioned at the beginning—

is not idolatry.

And if so,

it was taught

in our Mishna

in accordance with the one who says

in the following beraita:

The temple of Onias is not idolatry; as it was taught,

that Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir disagreed about the matter:

In the year in which Shimon the Righteous died,

who had been the High Priest,

he said to them

Shimon the Righteous:

This year [he said it about himself]

[he was referring to himself]

he 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]

[he would appear]

to me one old man dressed in white, and wrapped in white, and he would enter with me and depart with me;

but

this year one old man dressed in black would appear to me, and wrapped in black, and he would enter with me but would not depart with me.

After the Festival [Sukkot of that year],

[Sukkot of that year],

Shimon the Righteous became ill

Shimon the Righteous

for seven days, and died.

And

from then on

his brother priests refrained from blessing with the Explicit Name

even in the Temple.

At the time of his death he said to them

Shimon the Righteous:

My son Onias shall serve in my place

as High Priest!

His brother Shimi became jealous of him,

the son of Shimon the Righteous’s son Onias, because

he was older than him [than Onias]

[than Onias]

by two and a half years,

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

What did he do?

He said to him

Shimi to Onias:

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

Shimi dressed Onias

in an onkeli [a leather garment]

[a leather garment]

and girded him with a bell [a belt], and

[a belt], and

stood him beside the altar.

While Onias was standing atop the altar in his strange garments, Shimi went and

said to his brother priests:

See what vow this man [Onias]

[Onias]

made and fulfilled for his beloved: “

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

They believed him, and

his brother priests sought to kill him

Onias, and

he ran

Onias

from before them, and they ran after him.

Onias went

Onias

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

And when the Sages heard about the matter,

that Shimi had falsely accused Onias,

they said: What is this man [Shimi]

[Shimi]

who did not descend to it [to the priesthood]

[to the priesthood]

thus

did,

the one who descends to it, all the more so;

that is, if Shimi, who was not appointed High Priest, became so jealous that he did this to his brother, then one who has already descended, and we are coming to demote him, how much more so would he do this, and therefore we should not do so, so that he not ruin himself.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah said to him

to Rabbi Meir:

The event did not happen that way,

that Onias was appointed and Shimi ruined matters, and Onias built a temple for idolatry,

but:

Onias did not accept upon himself [he was not willing]

[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 initially he 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 this reason his father commanded that he be appointed], to Shimi:

Come and I shall teach you the order of the service;

and

he dressed him

Onias [dressed] Shimi

in an onkeli [a leather garment],

[a leather garment],

and girded him with a bell [a belt], and

[a belt], and

stood him beside the altar.

While Shimi was standing atop the altar in his strange garments, Onias went and

said to his brother priests:

See what vow this man [Shimi]

[Shimi]

made and fulfilled for his beloved: “

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

They believed him, and

his brother priests sought to kill him

Shimi,

and Shimi related to them

Shimi

the entire incident,

namely, that Onias had incited him to this.

And when they heard this,

they sought to kill Onias, and he ran from before them, and they ran after him; Onias ran to the king’s palace and they ran after him. Everyone who saw him said, “

This is he

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

This is he.”

Onias went

Onias

to Alexandria of Egypt and 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 about the matter, they said: And what is this man [Onias]

[Onias]

who fled from it [from the priesthood]

at the outset,

thus

did; surely

one who seeks to descend to it, all the more so.

It was taught: Rabbi Joshua ben Perahya said,

who was 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,

once I have already risen to greatness,

anyone who says to me to descend from it, I cast a kettle of hot water upon him—

for behold, Saul,

the king,

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

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

and 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

[and raised a difficulty]

to him, Mar Kashisha son of Rav Hisda, to Abaye:

Rabbi Meir—

who holds that Onias built the structure for idolatry—

this verse of Rabbi Judah—

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

what does he do with it [how does he interpret it]!?

[how does he interpret it]?

And we explain: This verse comes

for that which was taught:

After Sennacherib’s defeat, Hezekiah went out and found royal sons

of the nations

who were sitting in golden carriages; he caused them to accept [he made them accept upon themselves by a vow]

[he caused them to accept upon themselves by vow]

not to serve idolatry—