פירוש על מנחות 13:10

בבית חוניו – The Temple that Khonyo, the son of Shimon HaTzaddik built in Alexandria of Egypt. For when Shimon HaTzaddik (see Tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2 – one of the last of the generation of the Great Assembly who stated that the world stands on three “pillars”: Torah, Divine Service and Deeds of Loving Kindness) [was about] to die (see the Baraita in Tractate Menahot 109b), he said to them (i.e., his sons): Khonyo, my son will serve in my place, because he is an expert and familiar with the Divine Service more than Shimei his brother. But Khonyo did not accept upon himself to become the High Priest because Shimei his brother was two and half years older than him. And Shimei was appointed as High Priest in place of his father. Subsequently, Khonyo became jealous of Shimei his brother, he (i.e., Shimei) said to him: “Come and I will teach you the order/arrangement of the Divine Service. He dressed him in a thin, fine linen shirt/undercoat, that women wear upon their flesh and upon it a small, narrow belt/girdle and he placed him near the Altar; he went and said to his brethren the Kohanim: “See what this person vowed and fulfilled to his beloved,” that day when I will be appointed to be High Priest, I will wear your fine linen shirt and I will gird myself with your belt/girdle. His brethren the Priests desired to kill him, he recounted to him the entire event, they wished to kill Khonyo, he (i.e., Khonyo) ran from before them to the house of the King. And yet, everyone who sees him states that this is him, he went to Alexandria of Egypt where there were myriads of Jews and made there a Temple and built an altar and offered upon it in the name of God. And regarding that altar Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 19:19): “In that day, there shall be an altar to the LORD inside the land of Egypt [and a pillar to the LORD at its border].” And this House (i.e., Temple) stood for close to two hundred years and is called “The House of Khonyo” in his name. And everyone agrees that the sacrifices that they would offer there were not a sacrifice. Therefore, whomever said, “May a burnt-offering sacrifice be upon me” – and he offered it there did not fulfill his vow.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a fascinating historical topic, the “Temple of Onias.” The Temple of Onias was a Jewish Temple built in Egypt, in Heliopolis, around 230 years before the destruction of the Temple, some time during the second century B.C.E. The Temple is mentioned by Josephus who relates that it was destroyed in 73 C.E., three years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rabbis did not look with favor upon the Temple of Onias, but neither did they completely reject it. It seems that the rabbis believed that such a Temple was not a valid form of worship, but that it was not an idolatrous shrine and that it was created with good, albeit mistaken, intent.

שאקריבנה בבית חוניו – it was made like one who says : “May a burnt-offering sacrifice be upon me on the condition that I will kill it and not be liable for it, therefore if he offered it in the House of Khonyo, he did not fulfill his vow, but he is liable for extirpation because he slaughters outside [the Temple courtyard], for he called upon it the designation of a burnt-offering.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. If one offers to bring an olah, he must bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem. If he brings it to the Temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he specifically states that he is going to bring it to the Temple of Onias, he should still bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem because for it to truly be an olah, it must be offered in Jerusalem. However, if he offers it in the Temple, he has fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon takes a stronger stance against the Temple of Onias. Vowing to bring an olah at the Temple of Onias does not make the animal an olah. Therefore, there is no validity to his vow and he need not bring a sacrifice at all.

רבי שמעון אומר אין זו עולה – and behold it is completely unconsecrated, for the designation of consecrated does not occur to it at all when he stated that I will offer it in the House of Khonyo. But the Halalkha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

[If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The same rules hold true for a nazirite with regard to completing his naziriteship which is performed in the Temple by shaving and bringing sacrifices.

ואם גלח בבית חוניו לא יצא – but rather, he should return and shave [at the conclusion of his period of Naziriteship] in the Temple in Jerusalem, and there he should bring his sacrifices.

The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices. Priests who serve in the Temple of Onias are penalized by not being allowed to subsequently serve in the Temple of Jerusalem. However, they still can receive their share of holy things, such as terumah and sacrificial meat. The mishnah compares them with priests with blemishes. In other words, priests remain priests no matter what they do. Their genealogy provides them with the right to eat priestly food. But to serve in the Temple one must be unblemished, both physically and spiritually. Serving in the Temple of Onias and all the more so serving in an idolatrous temple, called by the Mishnah “something else,” disqualifies one from serving in the Temple in Jerusalem.

שאגלח בבית חוניו אם גלח בבית חוניו יצא – that this man who took the vow of becoming a Nazirite in order that he could shave in the House of Khonyo, he intended to cause himself suffering, but because he was close to the House of Khonyo and far from the land of Israel, he stated, “If I can [offer it] in the House of Khonyo, I will go to the trouble of doing so. More than that he is not able to cause himself suffering, but the designation of being a Nazirite does not fall upon him but he becomes like a person who took an oath that he would not drink wine until a certain time.

רבי שמעון אומר – He is not a Nazirite at all and is permitted to drink wine. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

ואין צריך לומר לדבר אחר – if they served for idolatry, they would not serve [as priests] any longer in Jerusalem.

והרי הן כבעלי מומין (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 12, Mishnah 1) – that they take their portions and eat Sacred Things [but do not offer sacrifices].