Menachot Daf 109 (מנחות דף ק״ט)
Daf: 109 | Amudim: 109a – 109b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (109a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge on a Baraita)
Continuation of a challenge from the previous daf about a baraita involving sale of property
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי? לִיחְזֵי הֵיידֵן נְפַל, הֵיידֵן מֵת!
English Translation:
But according to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, why can the seller automatically give the purchaser the fallen house or the dead slave? Let him see which house fell, or which slave died, as according to Rabba bar Avuh, the sale should apply to the house or slave that was the most valuable at the time of the sale.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses a leftover difficulty from the previous daf: Rabba bar Avuh held that when a seller commits to transferring “one of” a class of items, we default to the most valuable. If so, the baraita’s ruling — that the seller can simply hand over whichever house happened to fall or whichever slave died — seems to contradict that principle; the buyer should be entitled to the best surviving property.
Key Terms:
- הֵיידֵן (heidan) = which one (Aramaic demonstrative used in clarifying which of several items is meant)
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (Resolution via Halachic Principle)
The Gemara resolves the challenge by invoking the interpretive rule governing contracts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לוֹקֵחַ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי לוֹקֵחַ, דְּיַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Are you saying that the statement of Rabba bar Avuh applies in the case of a purchaser? A purchaser is different, as there is a principle in the halakhot of commerce that in a case involving a dispute between the seller and the purchaser, the owner of the document of sale, i.e., the purchaser, is at a disadvantage, as a document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible. Therefore, the seller can claim that he has sold the buyer the fallen house or the dead slave.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes between a vow or consecration (where we interpret generously in favor of the beneficiary — Heaven or the designated party) and an ordinary commercial transaction. In contracts, “yad ba’al ha-shtar al ha-taḥtonah” — the holder of the document is at a disadvantage — because the burden of clear drafting falls on the party who claims under an ambiguous document. Rabba bar Avuh’s principle therefore does not apply here: in sale disputes the buyer, as document-holder, receives the weaker reading.
Key Terms:
- יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה (yad ba’al ha-shtar al ha-taḥtonah) = the hand of the document-holder is on the bottom — ambiguity in a contract is resolved against the party claiming under it
- לוֹקֵחַ (lokeaḥ) = the purchaser/buyer
Segment 3
TYPE: מסקנה (Reconsideration of an Earlier Interpretation)
Having introduced the new principle, the Gemara revisits an earlier forced reading
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא עֲלִיָּיה דִּגְרִיעָה – יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the objection posed earlier to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from the statement of Ulla can be rejected easily. Ulla said that if one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, since he did not specify which house he is selling, he can show him an attic [aliyya]. Although this was explained above as referring not to a loft but to the best [me’ula] of his houses, now you may even say that it is referring to a loft, which is the worst of his houses, due to the principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage.
קלאוד על הדף:
Earlier the Gemara had been forced to reread Ulla’s word “aliyya” as me’ula (“the best”), to avoid conflicting with Rabba bar Avuh. Now that we have the independent principle that contracts disadvantage the buyer, we can restore aliyya to its plain sense — a loft, i.e., the least valuable structure — and still uphold the seller’s right to hand it over. The sugya thus closes a loose end from the previous daf before pivoting to the new mishna about Beit Ḥonyo.
Key Terms:
- עֲלִיָּיה (aliyya) = a loft/upper story, typically a less valuable dwelling
- מְעוּלָּה (me’ula) = the best/choicest (the forced earlier reading of the same word)
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
A new mishna on vows of olah that specify Beit Ḥonyo — the schismatic temple in Egypt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זוֹ עוֹלָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem. And if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, must sacrifice it in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, it is not consecrated as a burnt offering; such a statement does not consecrate the animal at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna distinguishes between an unqualified vow of an olah — which must be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem and cannot be redirected — and a vow whose language explicitly names Beit Ḥonyo (the breakaway temple built in Egypt by Onias, described later in the daf). In the second case, Jerusalem remains the proper venue le-khatḥilah, but if one did sacrifice at Beit Ḥonyo he has yatza — a legal concept whose meaning the Gemara will urgently probe, since offering outside the Temple is ordinarily a grave transgression. Rabbi Shimon rejects the entire framework: such a vow fails even to consecrate the animal.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ (Beit Ḥonyo) = the temple of Onias — a shrine built in Alexandria/Leontopolis in Egypt, whose halachic status is the sugya’s central question
- יָצָא (yatza) = he has discharged (his vow) — a technical term the Gemara will parse below
- הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה (harei alai olah) = “it is incumbent on me to bring a burnt offering” — the standard formula of a nedavah/neder for an olah
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה (Parallel Mishna — Nazir)
The mishna’s parallel ruling about a nazir who vows to shave at Beit Ḥonyo
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יְגַלֵּחַ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה נָזִיר.
English Translation:
If one says: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must shave the hair of his head and bring the requisite offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem; and if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem; but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says that one who says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, is not a nazirite at all, as his vow does not take effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna extends the same dual ruling to a nazir who conditions his vow on completing it at Beit Ḥonyo: Jerusalem is the proper venue, but shaving at Beit Ḥonyo still counts as fulfillment. Rabbi Shimon again rejects the premise — he regards the vow itself as defective, so no naziriteship is created. The parallel structure with the olah case sets up the Gemara’s question: what can “fulfilled” possibly mean when the act is intrinsically illicit?
Key Terms:
- תִּגְלַחַת הַנָּזִיר (tiglaḥat ha-nazir) = the nazirite’s shaving, performed at the Temple upon completion of the nazirite term together with three required offerings
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיית הגמרא (Gemara’s Opening Challenge)
The Gemara is incredulous at the mishna’s word “yatza” — fulfilled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ יָצָא? הָא מִקְטָל קַטְלַהּ!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, and sacrifices it in the temple of Onias, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: How has he fulfilled his obligation? By sacrificing it in the temple of Onias, hasn’t he merely killed it without sacrificing it properly?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara voices the obvious objection: sheḥutei ḥutz (slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the Temple) is a capital-level offense punishable by karet. How, then, can the mishna describe such an act as fulfillment? This forces the Amoraim to redefine what “yatza” could possibly mean in this unusual context.
Key Terms:
- מִקְטָל קַטְלַהּ (miktal katlah) = “he has merely killed it” (Aramaic) — emphasizing that the act was slaughter, not a valid sacrifice
Segment 7
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav Hamnuna’s Resolution)
Rav Hamnuna reinterprets “yatza” narrowly — not as discharge, but as release from replacement liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ״.
English Translation:
Rav Hamnuna says: The mishna does not mean that he has fulfilled his vow to bring an offering. Rather, he is rendered like one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand. When the mishna says that he has fulfilled his obligation it simply means that if the animal he consecrated is no longer alive, he does not have to bring another animal in its place.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hamnuna preserves the consecration — the animal WAS hekdesh — but reads the vow as self-limiting: by stipulating “at Beit Ḥonyo,” the vower implicitly exempted himself from aḥrayut (replacement liability) should the animal perish outside the Temple. So “yatza” means only that he need not bring a substitute; it does not mean the Temple obligation was properly discharged (and karet liability still applies to the outside-slaughter itself). This elegantly threads the needle between the animal’s kedushah and the impossibility of treating a sheḥutei ḥutz act as a real korban.
Key Terms:
- אַחְרָיוּת (aḥrayut) = responsibility — here, the obligation to replace a consecrated animal that has died or been lost before being sacrificed properly
- עַל מְנָת (al menat) = “on the condition that” — a formula creating a valid stipulation within a vow
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא (Rava’s Challenge)
Rava attacks Rav Hamnuna’s reading from the parallel nazir clause
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּילַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו״? נָזִיר כַּמָּה דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו – לָא מִתַּכְשַׁר!
English Translation:
Rava said to Rav Hamnuna: If that is so, what about the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple in Jerusalem, but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation? In this case do you also maintain that he is rendered like one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will not be responsible for bringing its offerings if I kill them beforehand? Such a condition cannot exempt a nazirite from bringing his offerings, because as long as he does not bring his offerings, he is not fit to conclude his term of naziriteship and is still bound by all of the restrictions of a nazirite.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava exposes a structural flaw in Rav Hamnuna’s reading. The olah case might tolerate a limited “yatza” (no replacement duty), but for a nazir the whole point of his offerings is to terminate the naziriteship and permit him to drink wine and contract tumah. Without valid korbanot he remains perpetually a nazir — so “yatza” simply cannot mean exemption from aḥrayut. The mishna’s own parallel structure thus refutes Rav Hamnuna’s solution.
Key Terms:
- לָא מִתַּכְשַׁר (la mitkashar) = he is not made fit/ready — specifically, the nazir cannot complete his term and return to ordinary status without the required korbanot
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ רבא (Rava’s Alternative Reading)
Rava offers a radically different reading: the animal was never consecrated at all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָדָם זֶה לְדוֹרוֹן נִתְכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי – לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The animal was never consecrated at all, as this person intended merely to bring the animal as a gift [doron], but not to consecrate it as an offering. He presumably lives closer to the temple of Onias than to the Temple in Jerusalem, and must have said to himself: If it is sufficient to sacrifice this animal in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and bring it. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to bring it to Jerusalem, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that although the person never intended to bring the offering to Jerusalem, ideally, he should sacrifice the animal properly, in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he did not bring it there, but sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation, and is not required to bring any other offering in its place.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rebuilds the case on a psychological reading of the vower’s intent: “at Beit Ḥonyo” signals that he was offering a doron — a voluntary gift of goodwill, not a halachically binding hekdesh. Because the animal was never truly consecrated, there is no karet, no aḥrayut, and the ideal-vs.-bedieved structure of the mishna (“should bring to Jerusalem; if he did it at Beit Ḥonyo, yatza”) reflects purely religious/aspirational status, not formal korban law. This reading requires accepting an umdana — an assessment of what the vower must have meant given his distance from Jerusalem.
Key Terms:
- דּוֹרוֹן (doron) = a gift (Greek loanword) — a voluntary offering without the formal legal status of a consecrated korban
- אוּמְדָּנָא (umdana) = an assessment of a person’s presumed intent, used to interpret ambiguous vows
Segment 10
TYPE: המשך דברי רבא (Rava Extends His Reading to the Nazir Clause)
Rava applies the same umdana to the parallel nazir case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָזִיר נָמֵי, הַאי גַּבְרָא לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי.
English Translation:
This is the explanation of the latter clause of the mishna as well: If one said that he would be a nazirite provided that he will shave in the temple of Onias, this man did not intend to accept upon himself the halakhic status of naziriteship. Rather, he merely intends to practice abstinence by not drinking wine, along with observing the other restrictions of a nazirite. Therefore, he said to himself: If it is sufficient to shave in the temple of Onias, I am prepared to exert myself and do so. But if it is necessary to do more than that, i.e., to go to Jerusalem to shave and bring the required offerings, I am not able to afflict myself. The mishna teaches that ideally, he should go to the Temple in Jerusalem to shave and bring all his offerings. If he shaved and brought his offerings in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his vow and has no further obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s nazir case mirrors his olah reading: the man meant to commit to abstinence (le-tza’arei nafsheih — to afflict himself), not to the formal legal category of nezirut with its korbanot. If Beit Ḥonyo suffices he will go; if not, he is not prepared to travel to Jerusalem. Hence no formal naziriteship was ever created, and “yatza” describes only the exhaustion of his personal commitment, not a halachic termination of nezirut.
Key Terms:
- לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ (le-tza’arei nafsheih) = to afflict himself — a personal ascetic practice rather than the formal legal status of nezirut
Segment 11
TYPE: הסוגיה משיבה (Rav Hamnuna’s Compromise)
Rav Hamnuna partially concedes and partially preserves his reading
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר לָךְ: נָזִיר – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלָה – עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to Rava’s challenge: With regard to the case of one who vowed to become a nazirite on the condition that he would shave and bring his offerings in the temple of Onias, the interpretation of the mishna is as you said. But with regard to one who vows to bring a burnt offering in the temple of Onias, his intent is as I explained, and it is as if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it if I kill it beforehand.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hamnuna accepts Rava’s reading for the nazir — where the le-tza’arei-nafsheih logic is unavoidable — but refuses to surrender the olah clause. For the olah, he maintains his original view: the animal IS consecrated, and “yatza” means exemption from replacement liability. The two mishna clauses thus need not be read in lockstep; each follows the logic appropriate to its domain.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר לָךְ (amar lakh) = “[He] could have said to you” — the Gemara’s standard formula for reconstructing a defended position
Segment 12
TYPE: סיוע (Support for Rav Hamnuna)
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling, transmitted by Rabba bar bar Ḥana, supports Rav Hamnuna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the temple of Onias, and he sacrificed it in Eretz Yisrael but not in the Temple, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet] because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna that the animal is consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara marshals Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching — “yatza ve-anush karet” — as decisive support for Rav Hamnuna. The karet liability proves the animal must have been truly consecrated (since karet for sheḥutei ḥutz applies only to genuine hekdesh); yet “yatza” still attaches. This is exactly Rav Hamnuna’s formulation: kedushah intact, aḥrayut waived, but the ordinary prohibition of outside-slaughter in full force.
Key Terms:
- כָּרֵת (karet) = excision — divine punishment for certain severe violations including offering sacrifices outside the Temple
- שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ (sheḥutei ḥutz) = slaughter outside the Temple of a consecrated animal, punishable by karet per Leviticus 17
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (Supporting Baraita)
A baraita confirms the “yatza ve-anush karet” pattern
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
This explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan is also taught in a baraita: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering on the condition that I will sacrifice it in the wilderness of Sinai, thinking that the wilderness of Sinai still has sanctity since the Tabernacle had been located there, and he sacrificed it on the east bank of the Jordan, he has fulfilled his obligation, but his actions are also punishable by karet because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita parallels the Beit Ḥonyo case with a case involving the Sinai wilderness — a location with historical sanctity (the Mishkan) but no current standing for korbanot. The same dual outcome — yatza (so no replacement needed) yet anush karet (so the animal was consecrated and his outside-slaughter was culpable) — confirms Rav Hamnuna’s and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s framework, and the Gemara cites this tanna’itic support as closing the debate.
Key Terms:
- עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן (ever ha-Yarden) = the east bank of the Jordan, outside the boundaries of the Land proper
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי (tanya nami hakhi) = “it is also taught thus (in a baraita)” — the standard formula introducing tanna’itic support for an amoraic position
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
A second mishna: the status of priests who served at Beit Ḥonyo
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁמְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַךְ לֹא יַעֲלוּ כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֶל מִזְבַּח ה׳ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם כִּי אִם אָכְלוּ מַצּוֹת בְּקֶרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם״. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין וְלֹא מַקְרִיבִין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say, if they served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. As it is stated: “Nevertheless the priests of the private altars did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat matza among their brethren” (II Kings 23:9). The halakhic status of these priests is like that of blemished priests in that they receive a share in the distribution of the meat of the offerings and partake of that meat, but they do not sacrifice offerings or perform any of the sacrificial rites.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna rules that a kohen who served at Beit Ḥonyo is permanently disqualified from Temple service, with a kal va-ḥomer (implied by “al aḥat kamah ve-kamah”) for one who served avodah zara. The halachic model is a ba’al mum — a blemished kohen — who retains kohen-status and shares in terumah and the meat of offerings but may not perform the avodah. The prooftext from II Kings 23:9 describes Josiah’s treatment of the priests of the bamot: they retained priestly perquisites but lost sacrificial privileges. This mishna-tanna evidently views Beit Ḥonyo as bamah-like but not as full-fledged avodah zara.
Key Terms:
- בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין (ba’alei mumin) = blemished priests, disqualified from performing sacrificial service but still entitled to a share in priestly gifts
- דָּבָר אַחֵר (davar aḥer) = “something else” — a euphemism used in Rabbinic language for idolatry
Segment 15
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav Yehuda’s Ruling)
A foundational Amoraic ruling that sets up the ensuing dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׁחַט לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a priest who slaughtered an offering for idol worship and who subsequently repented and came to the Temple in Jerusalem to serve, his offering is acceptable and considered to be an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts from the mishna’s case (service at Beit Ḥonyo, which is non-idolatrous) to the sharper question of a kohen who served outright avodah zara. Rav Yehuda’s starting ruling: a kohen who merely slaughtered for avodah zara — even with intent — can, after repentance, resume Temple service. The next segment will provide the verse-source and the conceptual ground (shechitah is not avodah).
Key Terms:
- רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ (reaḥ niḥoaḥ) = “a pleasing aroma” (Lev. 1:9) — the halachic term for an acceptable/effective offering
- עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה (avodah zara) = idolatry (lit. “foreign service”)
Segment 16
TYPE: מקור מקרא (Scriptural Source)
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi supplies the prooftext for Rav Yehuda’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״יַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ אוֹתָם לִפְנֵי גִלּוּלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן עַל כֵּן נָשָׂאתִי יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם נְאֻם ה׳ אֱלֹהִים וְנָשְׂאוּ עֲוֹנָם״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְלֹא יִגְּשׁוּ אֵלַי לְכַהֵן לִי״. אִי עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת – אִין, שְׁחִיטָה לָאו שֵׁירוּת הוּא.
English Translation:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: “Because they served them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel, therefore I have lifted up My hand against them, says the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity” (Ezekiel 44:12). And it is written afterward: “And they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly role” (Ezekiel 44:13). This indicates that if a priest performed a service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but the slaughter of an offering is not considered service, as it is not considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple and can be performed in the Temple even by a non-priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ezekiel’s double verse establishes a sharp functional test: “they served them” (yesharetu) → “they shall not come near Me to serve Me.” Only acts categorized as shirut — avodah — disqualify. Since shechitah is a preparatory act valid even when performed by a non-priest (a zar), it is not “service” in the technical sense. This derashah becomes the fulcrum of the coming machloket between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet.
Key Terms:
- שֵׁירוּת / שֵׁירוּתָא (sheirut) = avodah — the four principal sacrificial rites (shechitah is excluded because a zar may perform it)
- מִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן (mikhshol avon) = “stumbling block of iniquity” — the phrase whose parsing will be disputed below
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)
The sugya’s central machloket: a kohen who unwittingly sprinkled blood for avodah zara
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: שָׁגַג בִּזְרִיקָה, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
It was stated: If a priest unwittingly performed the sprinkling of the blood of an idolatrous offering and then repented and came to serve in the Temple, Rav Naḥman says that his offering is accepted and is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not a pleasing aroma to the Lord, as he is not fit to serve in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The case sharpens Rav Yehuda’s framework: here the kohen performed zrikah — a real avodah — but unwittingly (shogeg). Rav Naḥman holds that lack of intent saves him: after teshuvah he may serve. Rav Sheshet holds that objectively idolatrous service, even shogeg, creates a permanent stain. The two will soon clash over how to parse the verse “mikhshol avon.”
Key Terms:
- זְרִיקָה (zrikah) = the sprinkling of blood on the altar — one of the four principal sacrificial rites and thus avodah proper
- שׁוֹגֵג (shogeg) = an inadvertent/unwitting transgressor (contrasted with mezid, intentional)
Segment 18
TYPE: ראיית רב ששת (Rav Sheshet’s Proof)
Rav Sheshet parses “mikhshol avon” as two disjoint categories
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן״, מַאי לָאו – אוֹ מִכְשׁוֹל אוֹ עָוֹן, וּ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ – שׁוֹגֵג, וְ״עָוֹן״ – מֵזִיד.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled blood unwittingly for idol worship he cannot serve in the Temple? As it is written: “And they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.” What, is it not referring to one who served in idol worship either as a stumbling block or as an iniquity? Accordingly, neither may perform the service in the Temple. And the term “stumbling block” is a reference to one who sins unwittingly, and the term “iniquity” is a reference to an intentional sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet reads Ezekiel’s phrase “mikhshol avon” as a compound listing: mikhshol (unwitting service, a “stumbling”) OR avon (intentional iniquity). Both categories are covered by the disqualifying verse, so even a shogeg is barred from future Temple service. The derashah rests on the idea that the Torah would not use two synonyms without reason — each must index a distinct class of sinner.
Key Terms:
- מֵזִיד (mezid) = intentional transgressor
- אוֹ… אוֹ (o… o) = “either… or” — the disjunctive structure Rav Sheshet imposes on the phrase
Segment 19
TYPE: דעה נגדית (Rav Naḥman’s Counter-Reading)
Rav Naḥman reads the same phrase as a single construct — “a stumbling of iniquity”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב נַחְמָן – ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ דְּ״עָוֹן״.
English Translation:
And Rav Naḥman interprets the verse to mean a stumbling block of iniquity, i.e., only one who serves in idol worship intentionally is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but not one who serves in idol worship unwittingly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman reads “mikhshol avon” as a single smikhut — a stumbling-of-iniquity, i.e., a stumbling that constitutes full-fledged avon. Only an intentional transgression qualifies; shogeg is not encompassed. Grammatically this is the more natural reading of a construct phrase; Rav Sheshet had to split the words against their ordinary grammar to generate his two-category structure.
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכוּת (smikhut) = construct state — the grammatical structure in which two nouns combine with the meaning “X of Y”
Segment 20
TYPE: ראיית רב נחמן (Rav Naḥman’s Proof)
Rav Naḥman’s counter-proof from a baraita on Numbers 15:28
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכֹּהֵן מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say that if a priest sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly his subsequent offering in the Temple is accepted? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to one who unwittingly committed idolatry: “And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a she-goat in its first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly, before the Lord, to effect atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven” (Numbers 15:27–28). The phrase: “For the soul that errs unwittingly” teaches that a priest who sins unwittingly may receive atonement by sacrificing his sin offering on his own.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman cites a baraita that explicitly allows a priest who unwittingly committed avodah zara to bring and personally officiate at his own chattat. If he were disqualified from avodah on account of his past transgression, he would be unable to offer his own sin-offering — someone else would have to. The fact that he serves proves shogeg does not permanently disqualify.
Key Terms:
- חַטָּאת (ḥattat) = a sin-offering brought for inadvertent transgressions of severe prohibitions
- מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ (mitkapper al yedei atzmo) = achieves atonement through his own performance of the avodah
Segment 21
TYPE: בירור הסוגיה (Rav Naḥman’s Disambiguation)
Rav Naḥman pins down the baraita’s case: it must be zrikah, not shechitah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה – מַאי אִירְיָא שׁוֹגֵג? אֲפִילּוּ מֵזִיד נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּזְרִיקָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman clarifies: In what manner did this priest commit idolatry? If we say he sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering, why does the verse indicate specifically that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly can bring his own sin offering? This is obvious, as even one who did so intentionally may serve in the Temple after repentance. Rather, is it not referring to a priest who committed idolatry by sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering? Accordingly, if he did so unwittingly his subsequent service in the Temple is valid, but if he did so intentionally, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman locks down the proof: the baraita cannot be about shechitah (that would be a trivial chiddush, since per Rav Yehuda even mezid shechitah permits return to service); it must be about zrikah, the real avodah. Hence a shogeg-zrikah kohen serves and brings his own ḥattat — exactly refuting Rav Sheshet’s blanket disqualification of all shogeg service.
Segment 22
TYPE: תגובת רב ששת (Rav Sheshet’s Rejoinder)
Rav Sheshet reinterprets the baraita as about shechitah, and narrows Rav Yehuda’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּבְמֵזִיד – לֹא נַעֲשָׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה?!
English Translation:
And how does Rav Sheshet interpret that baraita? He could have said to you: Actually, the verse is referring to a case where the priest sinned through slaughtering an idolatrous offering. And although Rav Yehuda said that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering may serve in the Temple after repentance, that statement applies only to one who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly. But if he did so intentionally, the priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple. Rav Yehuda’s reasoning is that slaughter is not a sacrificial rite in the Temple; but does one who slaughters an idolatrous offering intentionally not become a servant of idol worship?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet counters that the baraita IS about shechitah — but he reconstrues Rav Yehuda’s ruling as applying only to shogeg shechitah. In Rav Sheshet’s view, mezid shechitah transforms the kohen into a komer — an idolatrous priest — regardless of whether the act itself is avodah. Thus the baraita’s novelty is non-trivial, and the broader rule that mezid disqualifies is preserved.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹמֶר (komer) = an idolatrous priest — a kohen who, through his intentional service, becomes identified with avodah zara
Segment 23
TYPE: אזלי לשיטתייהו (Consistency of the Dispute)
The Gemara notes a second parallel dispute — mezid shechitah — between the same Amoraim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִתְּמַר: הֵזִיד בִּשְׁחִיטָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
And Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet follow their respective lines of reasoning, as it was stated that if a priest acted intentionally in the slaughter of an idolatrous offering and subsequently repented, Rav Naḥman says that his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is not disqualified, and Rav Sheshet says that his offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord, i.e., it is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara confirms that the disagreement is not confined to shogeg zrikah — it extends to mezid shechitah as well, and each Amora rules consistently with his earlier position. Rav Naḥman focuses on the categorical question (is this act avodah?); Rav Sheshet focuses on the personal-identity question (did the kohen become a komer?). The two categories will be further multiplied across four cases below.
Key Terms:
- אָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ (azdu le-ta’amaihu) = “they follow their [respective] reasoning” — the standard formula noting that two Amoraim dispute consistently across multiple cases
Segment 24
TYPE: טעם המחלוקת (Articulating the Rationales)
Brief statements of each Amora’s underlying reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, דְּלָא עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ,
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says that his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord, because he did not perform service for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. And Rav Sheshet says that his offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distills the two positions into their crisp ratios: Rav Naḥman — shechitah is not avodah, hence the kohen never committed disqualifying service. Rav Sheshet — (continues on the next amud: “he became a komer le-avodah zara”). The conceptual distinction is between objective act-classification (Rav Naḥman) and subjective role-transformation (Rav Sheshet).
Amud Bet (109b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת הטעם (Completion of Rav Sheshet’s Rationale)
The daf crosses over — completing the reasoning begun at the end of 109a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נַעֲשָׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
English Translation:
as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet’s rationale is now complete: even though shechitah is not technically an avodah in the Temple, the act of intentional slaughter for avodah zara transforms the kohen into a komer — a functionary of the foreign worship. His identity as a kohen of Hashem is permanently compromised, and no after-the-fact teshuvah can restore his standing for Temple service.
Segment 2
TYPE: ראיית רב נחמן (Rav Naḥman’s Proof)
Rav Naḥman brings a baraita directly supporting his position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְשָׁב, קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say that even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest who served in idol worship and repented, his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman cites a baraita that broadly validates a kohen who served avodah zara and repented (“shav”). The baraita’s unqualified endorsement seems to support his principle that teshuvah restores full kehunah status. But what exact case does “avad avodah zara” describe? The next segment parses this carefully.
Segment 3
TYPE: בירור הראיה (Parsing the Baraita)
Rav Naḥman eliminates alternatives to force the baraita into his needed case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג – מַאי ״וְשָׁב״? שָׁב וְעוֹמֵד הוּא! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּמֵזִיד, וְאִי בִּזְרִיקָה – כִּי שָׁב מַאי הָוֵי? הָא עֲבַד לֵהּ שֵׁירוּת! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman clarifies: In what manner did he serve in idol worship? If we say that he served in idol worship unwittingly, what does the baraita mean when it says: And repented? He is already repentant, as he never intended to sin in the first place. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case of intentional idol worship. And if the baraita is referring to sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering, when he repents, what of it? Hasn’t he performed idolatrous service, thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? Rather, is it not referring to the slaughter of an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman runs a disjunctive argument: the baraita cannot be about shogeg (there is nothing to “repent” from — he is already “shav ve-omed”); it cannot be about zrikah (since on Rav Sheshet’s own view that would be irreparable, and the baraita’s “ve-shav” would make no sense). Therefore it must be mezid shechitah — and the baraita rules for Rav Naḥman’s position.
Key Terms:
- שָׁב וְעוֹמֵד (shav ve-omed) = “already repentant/in-place” — a shogeg’s very definition is non-rebellious, so no separate repentance is meaningful
Segment 4
TYPE: תגובת רב ששת (Rav Sheshet’s Reinterpretation)
Rav Sheshet reframes the baraita’s “ve-shav” as describing a shogeg’s posture from the outset
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ, לְעוֹלָם בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם שָׁב מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, דְּכִי עֲבַד בְּשׁוֹגֵג עֲבַד – קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
And as for Rav Sheshet, he could have said to you that actually the baraita is referring to unwitting slaughter. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the priest is repentant from the outset, as when he served in idol worship he served unwittingly, then his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable. But if not, i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, his subsequent offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet salvages the baraita for his position by reading “ve-shav” not as post-facto repentance but as “repentant from the outset” — a shogeg who never had rebellious intent. Such a kohen’s korban is acceptable. Mezid shechitah, by contrast, turns him into a komer and disqualifies him. The reinterpretation is more strained than Rav Naḥman’s reading, but it rescues Rav Sheshet’s systematic position.
Key Terms:
- שָׁב מֵעִיקָּרוֹ (shav me-ikkaro) = “repentant from the outset” — i.e., he never transgressed with rebellious will, so he was already in a posture of teshuvah
Segment 5
TYPE: הרחבת המחלוקת (Expansion of the Dispute)
Two further test cases: bowing to avodah zara and verbal acknowledgment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ. הוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav Naḥman says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord. In a case where a priest acknowledges an object of idol worship as a divinity, Rav Naḥman says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute is extended to hishtaḥavayah (bowing) — one of the biblical chiyyuvei mitah for avodah zara but not a sacrificial rite — and to hoda’ah (verbal acknowledgement of the idol as divinity), a pure speech-act. Rav Naḥman remains consistent: none of these constitute avodah proper, so teshuvah restores service. Rav Sheshet equally consistently disqualifies: each act suffices to make the kohen a komer. The expansion prepares the ground for the Gemara’s tzricha that follows.
Key Terms:
- הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה (hishtaḥavayah) = bowing/prostration to an idol
- הוֹדָאָה (hoda’ah) = verbal acknowledgment of a deity
Segment 6
TYPE: צריכא (Gemara’s “Necessary” Structure)
Step one of a four-step tzricha justifying why all four disputes need stating
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שֵׁירוּת, אֲבָל שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ שֵׁירוּת – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן.
English Translation:
Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: And it was necessary to teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. As, had the Sages taught us only this first case, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only in that case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, because he performed a service for idolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. But in a case where the priest merely performed slaughter, since he did not perform a service for idolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet concedes to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a standard tzricha argument: why repeat the dispute in four cases when one might suffice? First step: if only the shogeg-zrikah case were stated, we might think Rav Sheshet disqualifies only because zrikah is real avodah — leaving open the possibility that he concedes to Rav Naḥman in mere shechitah. So the Gemara needs to state the shechitah dispute separately.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא (tzricha) = “it is necessary” — a standard Gemara construction demonstrating that each instance of a recurring dispute adds a chiddush
Segment 7
TYPE: המשך צריכותא (Continuation of the Tzricha)
Step two: why bowing needs to be stated separately from shechitah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁחִיטָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבֵד לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה, אֲבָל הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה דְּלָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
And had the Sages taught us only the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing slaughter for an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed a sacrificial rite for idolatry. But if he merely bowed to the idol, since he did not perform a sacrificial rite for idolatry, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Step two of the tzricha: if only mezid-shechitah were stated, we might think Rav Sheshet disqualifies because shechitah is at least a physical component of korban-service (even if not avodah proper). But bowing has no sacrificial character at all, so we might assume Rav Sheshet concedes. Hence the Gemara independently states the bowing dispute.
Segment 8
TYPE: סיום צריכותא (Conclusion of the Tzricha)
Step three: why verbal hoda’ah requires its own statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל הוֹדָה דְּדִיבּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
And had the Sages taught us only the case of a priest bowing to an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed an action for idolatry. But if he only acknowledged the idol as a divinity, which is mere speech, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Final step: even bowing involves a physical ma’aseh (action), whereas verbal acknowledgment is mere dibbur — pure speech. We might have supposed that Rav Sheshet grants Rav Naḥman’s position for speech alone. The Gemara therefore had to state the hoda’ah case independently. The four-fold tzricha shows Rav Sheshet’s principle in its full reach: any act — physical or verbal, avodah or not — that expresses a commitment to avodah zara transforms the kohen into a komer.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֶׂה (ma’aseh) = a physical act
- דִּיבּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא (dibbura be-alma) = “mere speech” — contrasted with a ma’aseh
Segment 9
TYPE: דיוק מן המשנה (Inference from the Mishna)
Returning to the mishna: the phrasing implies Beit Ḥonyo was not avodah zara
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר אַחֵר [וְכוּ׳]. מִדְּקָאָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר אַחֵר, מִכְּלָל דְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: And needless to say, if priests served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: From the fact that it says: Needless to say, if they served for something else, by inference, the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship, but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s kal va-ḥomer language (“needless to say, for davar aḥer”) presupposes a gap between Beit Ḥonyo and actual avodah zara. If Beit Ḥonyo were itself idolatrous there would be no “all the more so.” The Gemara therefore infers that this tanna views Beit Ḥonyo as a sincere but improperly-located worship of Hashem — not an idolatrous shrine. This frames the tannaitic dispute that follows.
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא / אגדתא (Aggadic Baraita — The Shimon HaTzaddik Narrative Begins)
A baraita supporting the mishna’s view launches the famous Shimon HaTzaddik story
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה שֶׁמֵּת שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק, אָמַר לָהֶן: שָׁנָה זוֹ הוּא מֵת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ?
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita like the one who says that the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship. As it is taught: During the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to his associates: This year, he will die, euphemistically referring to himself. They said to him: From where do you know?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a baraita that fits the “Beit Ḥonyo is not avodah zara” view, and the baraita opens with the death of Shimon HaTzaddik — one of the last of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and (according to this tradition) the predecessor whose succession-crisis led to Ḥonyo’s flight to Egypt. The narrative will develop two rival accounts (Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda) of what actually happened. The euphemism “this year HE will die” — rather than “I will die” — reflects a rabbinic reticence about speaking of one’s own death.
Key Terms:
- שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק (Shimon HaTzaddik) = Shimon the Righteous, a high priest mentioned in Pirkei Avot 1:2 as one of the last of the Great Assembly
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא (Shimon HaTzaddik’s Yom Kippur Vision)
The mystical sign that revealed Shimon HaTzaddik’s impending death
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָהֶן: כׇּל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים נִזְדַּמֵּן לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד לָבוּשׁ לְבָנִים, וְנִתְעַטֵּף לְבָנִים, וְנִכְנַס עִמִּי וְיָצָא עִמִּי. שָׁנָה זוֹ נִזְדַּמֵּן לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד לָבוּשׁ שְׁחוֹרִים, וְנִתְעַטֵּף שְׁחוֹרִים, וְנִכְנַס עִמִּי וְלֹא יָצָא עִמִּי.
English Translation:
Shimon HaTzaddik said to them: In previous years, every Yom Kippur, upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which I would be met by an old man who was dressed in white, and his head was wrapped in white, and he would enter the Holy of Holies with me, and he would leave with me. But this year, I was met by an old man who was dressed in black, and his head was wrapped in black, and he entered the Holy of Holies with me, but he did not leave with me. Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.
קלאוד על הדף:
The “zaken” of the vision is traditionally understood as the Shechinah itself or an angelic escort accompanying the High Priest into the Kodesh Ha-Kodashim. White vestments signified divine favor and acceptance; black — accompanying him in but not out — foretold that this year he would enter the inner sanctum for the last time and would not return the following year. The vision is framed as a yearly occurrence, reinforcing the baraita’s picture of Shimon HaTzaddik as a figure of unique sanctity.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים (Kodesh Ha-Kodashim) = the Holy of Holies, entered only by the High Priest on Yom Kippur
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא (The Fulfillment of the Vision)
Shimon HaTzaddik’s death and the consequences for the Temple priesthood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַחַר הָרֶגֶל, חָלָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וָמֵת, וְנִמְנְעוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִלְּבָרֵךְ בַּשֵּׁם.
English Translation:
Indeed, after the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot, he was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting the Priestly Benediction with the ineffable name of God.
קלאוד על הדף:
The vision was confirmed: Shimon HaTzaddik died shortly after Sukkot. The baraita notes a pivotal consequence — from this time on, the priests ceased pronouncing the Shem Ha-Meforash (the Tetragrammaton) in the Birkat Kohanim. Shimon HaTzaddik’s death marks a concrete rupture in the Second Temple’s spiritual trajectory, a backdrop the baraita uses to introduce the succession crisis that follows.
Key Terms:
- בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים בַּשֵּׁם (Birkat Kohanim ba-Shem) = the Priestly Benediction pronounced with the explicit four-letter Name of God (as opposed to the substitute “Adonai” used thereafter)
Segment 13
TYPE: אגדתא — גרסת רבי מאיר (Aggadic Narrative — Rabbi Meir’s Version, Part 1)
The succession: Shimi’s jealousy of Ḥonyo and the tunic trick
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם: חוֹנְיוֹ בְּנִי יְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתַּי. נִתְקַנֵּא בּוֹ שִׁמְעִי אָחִיו, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה. אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַאֲלַמֶּדְךָ סֵדֶר עֲבוֹדָה. הִלְבִּישׁוֹ בְּאוּנְקְלִי, וַחֲגָרוֹ בְּצִילְצוֹל, (העמידו) [וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ] אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר לָהֶם לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ מָה נָדַר זֶה וְקִיֵּים לַאֲהוּבָתוֹ: ״אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה אֶלְבּוֹשׁ בְּאוּנְקְלִי שֶׁלִּיכִי וְאֶחְגּוֹר בְּצִילְצוֹל שֶׁלִּיכִי״.
English Translation:
At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Onias’ brother, became jealous of him, as Shimi was two and a half years older than Onias. Shimi said to Onias treacherously: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. Shimi dressed Onias in a tunic [be’unkeli] and girded him with a ribbon [betziltzul] as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and stood him next to the altar. Shimi said to his fellow priests: Look what this man vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir’s version opens the central narrative: Shimon HaTzaddik designates the younger son, Ḥonyo, as his successor; the elder, Shimi, bypassed by two and a half years, is consumed by jealousy. Under the pretense of teaching his brother the avodah, Shimi dresses Ḥonyo in a woman’s tunic and sash (unkeli and tziltzul — clearly not the bigdei kehunah), positions him at the altar, and publicly slanders him as a lover who vowed to officiate in his beloved’s clothing. The scene dramatizes the destructive force of kin’ah within the priesthood.
Key Terms:
- אוּנְקְלִי (unkeli) = a women’s tunic/undergarment (Greek loanword)
- צִילְצוּל (tziltzul) = a woman’s sash or ribbon (likely Greek loanword)
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא — גרסת רבי מאיר (Rabbi Meir’s Version, Part 2)
Ḥonyo’s flight, the altar at Alexandria, and Rabbi Meir’s moral
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּקְּשׁוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהׇרְגוֹ, רָץ מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו. הָלַךְ לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, וּבָנָה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו לְשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: מָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד לָהּ – כָּךְ, הַיּוֹרֵד לָהּ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
The fellow priests of Onias wanted to kill him because he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias ran away from them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this person, Shimi, who did not enter the position of High Priest, acted with such jealousy, all the more so will one who enters a prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Rabbi Meir’s telling, Ḥonyo — falsely shamed — flees to Alexandria and builds an altar “le-shem avodah zara.” The Sages’ moral is a kal va-ḥomer about the psychology of status: if Shimi (who never held high priesthood) acted this viciously out of jealousy, one who has actually tasted power will act far worse if threatened. Rabbi Meir thus links Beit Ḥonyo directly to avodah zara, which creates a tension with the mishna’s dikduk (seg 9) that treated Beit Ḥonyo as non-idolatrous.
Segment 15
TYPE: אגדתא — גרסת רבי יהודה (Rabbi Yehuda’s Counter-Narrative)
Rabbi Yehuda inverts the roles — Ḥonyo is the jealous trickster
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא לֹא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו חוֹנְיוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה שִׁמְעִי אָחִיו גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נִתְקַנֵּא בּוֹ חוֹנְיוֹ בְּשִׁמְעִי אָחִיו. אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַאֲלַמֶּדְךָ סֵדֶר עֲבוֹדָה, וְהִלְבִּישׁוֹ בְּאוּנְקְלִי, וַחֲגָרוֹ בְּצִילְצוֹל, וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר לָהֶם לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים: רְאוּ מָה נָדַר זֶה וְקִיֵּים לַאֲהוּבָתוֹ ״אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה אֶלְבּוֹשׁ בְּאוּנְקְלִי שֶׁלִּיכִי וְאֶחְגּוֹר בְּצִילְצוֹל שֶׁלִּיכִי״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The incident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not accept the position of High Priest because his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him, so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. And even so, even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, Onias was jealous of his brother Shimi. Onias said to Shimi: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. And Onias dressed Shimi in a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar. Onias said to his fellow priests: Look what this man, Shimi, vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda reverses the cast: Ḥonyo nobly declined the high priesthood in favor of his older brother Shimi — and yet, subsequently, was still seized by jealousy and perpetrated the same tunic-and-ribbon deception on Shimi. The inversion has theological and historical stakes: if even Ḥonyo the moderate was corrupted, the Sages’ eventual teaching (seg 17) about power’s distorting force becomes even more pointed.
Segment 16
TYPE: אגדתא — גרסת רבי יהודה (Rabbi Yehuda’s Version, Part 2)
Ḥonyo’s flight and the altar at Alexandria — for the sake of Heaven
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּקְּשׁוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהׇרְגוֹ, סָח לָהֶם כׇּל הַמְאוֹרָע, בִּקְּשׁוּ לַהֲרוֹג אֶת חוֹנְיוֹ, רָץ מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו, רָץ לְבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְרָצוּ אַחֲרָיו, כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ אוֹמֵר: זֶה הוּא, זֶה הוּא, הָלַךְ לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, וּבָנָה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְהָיָה) בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה מִזְבֵּחַ לַה׳ בְּתוֹךְ אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וּמַצֵּבָה אֵצֶל גְּבוּלָהּ לַה׳״.
English Translation:
His fellow priests wanted to kill Shimi. Shimi then told them the entire incident, that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests wanted to kill Onias. Onias ran away from them, and they ran after him. Onias ran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him, and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord” (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Rabbi Yehuda’s telling, Shimi exposes the plot, the priests pursue Ḥonyo, and he flees — first to the king’s palace, then to Alexandria — where he builds an altar le-shem Shamayim, for the sake of Heaven. Rabbi Yehuda grounds his view in Isaiah 19:19, “there shall be an altar to Hashem in the midst of the land of Egypt.” On this reading, Beit Ḥonyo was historically a misplaced but sincere shrine to Hashem — precisely the position the mishna’s kal va-ḥomer (seg 9) presupposed.
Key Terms:
- לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם (le-shem Shamayim) = “for the sake of Heaven” — sincere devotion to Hashem, however halachically illicit the venue
Segment 17
TYPE: מוסר חז”ל (Moral Reflection of the Sages)
The inverted kal va-ḥomer — how much more so for one who seeks power
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁבָּרַח מִמֶּנָּה כָּךְ, הַמְבַקֵּשׁ לֵירֵד לָהּ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
English Translation:
And when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one, Onias, who fled from the position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with such jealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, all the more so will one who wants to enter a prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s version generates its own kal va-ḥomer, exactly inverse to Rabbi Meir’s: if one who fled from power (Ḥonyo) was corrupted by jealousy once he saw another holding it, how much more will one who actively sought power be corrupted. The two versions thus teach complementary lessons about kin’ah and serarah (authority) — the lesson that would form the basis of the following baraita from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya.
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא / אגדתא (Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya’s Self-Reflection)
A tannaitic confession about the corrupting effects of power
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה: בַּתְּחִלָּה, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עֲלֵה לָהּ״ – אֲנִי כּוֹפְתוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לִפְנֵי הָאֲרִי; עַתָּה, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר לִי לֵירֵד מִמֶּנָּה – אֲנִי מֵטִיל עָלָיו קוּמְקוּם שֶׁל חַמִּין.
English Translation:
As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: Initially, in response to anyone who would say to me: Ascend to the position of Nasi, I would tie him up and place him in front of a lion out of anger for his suggestion. Now that I have become the Nasi, in response to anyone who tells me to leave the position, I would throw a kettle [kumkum] of boiling water at him out of anger at his suggestion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya — one of the early zugot — offers a strikingly candid admission: he once violently resisted being elevated to leadership; now that he has tasted the role, he just as violently resists being removed. The statement gives a first-person voice to the aggada’s psychological thesis. It also functions as mussar: even Torah-great leaders are not immune to the distorting pull of serarah, and the self-aware leader must know this about himself.
Key Terms:
- נָשִׂיא (Nasi) = the head of the Sanhedrin / rabbinic leader
- קוּמְקוּם (kumkum) = a kettle of hot water (Greek loanword)
Segment 19
TYPE: ראיה מן הכתוב (Scriptural Illustration)
Saul as the biblical archetype of power’s corrupting effect
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁאוּל בָּרַח מִמֶּנָּה, וּכְשֶׁעָלָה בִּקֵּשׁ לַהֲרוֹג אֶת דָּוִד.
English Translation:
It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. As evidence of this principle, Saul initially fled from the kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: “When they sought him he could not be found…Behold he has hidden himself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:21–22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18–27).
קלאוד על הדף:
Shaul is adduced as the paradigmatic case: hiding ba-kelim (among the baggage) to avoid coronation, yet later hurling a spear at David out of paranoid attachment to the throne. The arc from reluctant candidate to jealous persecutor vindicates the Sages’ kal va-ḥomer in segments 14 and 17, and reinforces Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya’s confession. The sugya sketches a rabbinic theory of leadership: the same person can be unrecognizable to himself on the two sides of his elevation.
Segment 20
TYPE: שאלת הסוגיה (Question Back to the Dispute)
How does Rabbi Meir handle Rabbi Yehuda’s prooftext from Isaiah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי קְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar Kashisha raises a pointed textual challenge: Rabbi Yehuda cited Isaiah 19:19 — “there shall be an altar to Hashem in the midst of the land of Egypt” — to vindicate Beit Ḥonyo as a shrine le-shem Shamayim. But if Rabbi Meir holds Beit Ḥonyo was avodah zara, he needs some other referent for the prophecy. The question drives the Gemara toward its final baraita of the sugya.
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ אביי מברייתא (Abaye Resolves via a Baraita)
The Isaiah verse refers to Hezekiah and the aftermath of Sennacherib’s fall
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְאַחַר מַפַּלְתּוֹ שֶׁל סַנְחֵרִיב, יָצָא חִזְקִיָּה וּמָצָא בְּנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בִּקְרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב, הִדִּירָן שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיוּ חָמֵשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מְדַבְּרוֹת שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן
English Translation:
Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: After the downfall of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II Kings, chapters 18–19), King Hezekiah emerged from Jerusalem and found the gentile princes Sennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, sitting in carriages [bikronot] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols, and they fulfilled their vow, as it is stated in Isaiah’s prophecy about Egypt: “In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves Mar Kashisha’s question with a baraita: Rabbi Meir reads Isaiah 19:19 not as a prophecy about Beit Ḥonyo but about Hezekiah’s post-war encounter with gentile princes whom Sennacherib had transplanted. Hezekiah made them swear off avodah zara, and they resettled in “five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the lips of Canaan” (i.e., committing to Israel’s God). The sugya ends with this redirection — Rabbi Meir need not appeal to Beit Ḥonyo for the Isaiah verse, and the halachic dispute about the status of Beit Ḥonyo’s priests is left standing alongside the narrative traditions that frame it.
Key Terms:
- סַנְחֵרִיב (Sennacherib) = the Assyrian king whose siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE failed miraculously
- קָרוֹנוֹת (keronot / bikronot) = carriages (Greek/Latin loanword)
- שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן (sefat Kena’an) = “the language of Canaan” — here understood as a commitment to Israel’s God rather than literal Hebrew