1) FULFILLING VOWS IN “BEIS CHONYO”

(a) (Mishnah): If one said ‘Alai Olah’, he must offer it in the Mikdash;
1. If he offered it in Beis Chonyo (a place in Alexandria where certain Kohanim would offer (Tosfos – Korbanos of Nochrim) to Hash-m – this will be explained more on Amud B), he was not Yotzei (did not fulfill his obligation);
(b) If he said ‘Alai Olah (on condition) that I will offer (it) in Beis Chonyo’, he must offer it in the Mikdash;
1. If he offered it in Beis Chonyo, he was Yotzei.
(c) If one said ‘I am a Nazir’, he must Megale’ach (bring Korbanos Nazir upon finishing Nezirus) in the Mikdash; (Megale’ach literally means ‘shave’, but this is done outside the Mikdash.)
1. If he was Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo, he was not Yotzei;
(d) If he said ‘I am a Nazir, (on condition that) I will Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo’, he must Megale’ach in the Mikdash;
1. If he was Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo, he was Yotzei.
(e) R. Shimon says, he is not a Nazir.
(f) (Gemara) Question: Why was he Yotzei – (a Korban slaughtered outside the Mikdash is Pasul,) it is as if it was (not slaughtered, just) killed!
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Hamnuna): It is as if he said ‘Alai Olah on condition that I will have no Acharayos (obligation to bring another Korban if the animal I Makdish is lost or disqualified.)
(h) Question (Rava – Seifa): ‘I am a Nazir, I will Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo’, he must Megale’ach in the Mikdash; if he was Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo, he was Yotzei.
1. You cannot say that it is as if he said ‘I am a Nazir on condition that I will have no Acharayos for Korbanos Nazir – until a Nazir brings Korbanos, the prohibitions of Nezirus apply to him!
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): One who vows on condition to offer in Beis Chonyo does not intend for a real Korban, rather, a mere ‘gift’ to Hash-m, he is willing to offer in Beis Chonyo, he does not obligate himself to more exertion than this (e.g. to offer in the Mikdash – the case is, he is closer to Beis Chonyo than to the Mikdash.)
1. Version #1 (Rashi): Similarly, one who accepts Nezirus on condition to Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo does not intend for real Nezirus, rather, just to afflict himself – he does not accept more than to (Rambam – accept the prohibitions of Nezirus until he is) Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo. (If he was permitted to drink wine, this would be like R. Shimon!)
2. Version #2 (Tosfos Kesuvos 56A (Harei)): Similarly, a stipulation to Megale’ach in Beis Chonyo shows a limit on how much he accepts to exert himself:
i. If he is Megale’ach in the Mikdash, he was indeed a Nazir; if not, this reveals retroactively that he never accepted Nezirus!
(j) Answer (to Question (h), on behalf of Rav Hamnuna): Indeed, the case of Kabalas (pseudo-)Nezirus is like Rava says – however, the first clause is a vow to bring a proper Olah without Acharayos.
(k) R. Yochanan agrees with Rav Ham
nuna:
1. (Rabah bar bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): If one said ‘Alai Olah (on condition) that I will offer (it) in Beis Chonyo’, and he offered it (outside the Mikdash) in Eretz Yisrael, he was Yotzei, he is Chayav Kares (for Shechutei Chutz, for it is a real Korban.)
(l) Support (for R. Yochanan and Rav Hamnuna – Beraisa): If one said ‘Alai Olah (on condition) that I will offer (it) in the Midbar’, and he offered it in Ever ha’Yarden, he was Yotzei, he is Chayav Kares.
2) KOHANIM THAT SERVED IDOLATRY
(a) (Mishnah): Kohanim that served in Beis Chonyo are disqualified from Avodah in the Mikdash in Yerushalayim (Tosfos, citing Rashi – but such service does not disqualify from Avodah in the Mikdash in Nov or Giv’on);
1. We need not say that another matter (idolatry) disqualifies;
2. “Ach Lo Ya’alu Kohanei ha’Bamos El Mizbach Hash-m bi’Yrushalayim Ki Im Achlu Matzos b’Soch Acheihem” – they are like Ba’alei Mumim, they receive portions and may eat Kodshim, but they may not serve.
(b) (Gemara – Rav Yehudah): If a Kohen slaughtered to idolatry, his Korban (i.e. what he (later) offers to Hash-m) is acceptable.
(c) (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi): He learns from “Ya’an Asher *Yesharsu* Osam Lifnei Giluleihem v’Hayu l’Veis Yisrael l’Michshol Avon…V’Lo Yigshu Elai Lechahen Li” – a Kohen is disqualified only for *Sherus* (special Avodah) of idolatry, slaughter is not considered Sherus (because even Chulin is slaughtered, or because Zarim may slaughter in the Mikdash.)
(d) (Rav Nachman): If a Kohen was Zorek to idolatry b’Shogeg, his Korban is acceptable;
(e) (Rav Sheshes): It is not acceptable.
(f) Rav Sheshes: I learn from “V’Hayu l’Veis Yisrael l’Michshol Avon”:
1. Suggestion: Kohanim are disqualified for “Michshol” *or* “Avon” (they are distinct,) i.e. for Shogeg or Mezid!
(g) Rejection (Rav Nachman): No, they are disqualified for Michshol *of* Avon (stumbling in intentional sin.)
(h) Rav Nachman: I learn from a Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa): “V’Chiper ha’Kohen Al ha’Nefesh ha’Shogeges b’Cheta’ah bi’Shgagah” – this teaches that a Kohen can (bring the Korban to) atone for his sin (of idolatry).
2. Question: How did he sin?
i. Suggestion: He slaughtered to idolatry.
ii. Rejection: If so, even if he was Mezid he could atone for himself (slaughter is not Sherus!)
3. Answer #1: He was Zorek to idolatry.
(i) Rejection (and Answer #2 – Rav Sheshes): Really, he slaughtered to idolatry;
1. Had he been Mezid, he could not atone for himself (even though this is not Sherus), for he became a priest of the idolatry.
(j) Each of them is consistent with his opinion in another argument.
(k) (Rav Nachman): If a Kohen slaughtered to idolatry b’Mezid, his Korban is acceptable, for this is not Sherus;
(l) (Rav Sheshes): It is not acceptable, for he became a priest of the idolatry.
109b—————————————109b

(m) Rav Nachman: I learn from a Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa): If a Kohen served idolatry and repented, his Korban is acceptable.
2. Question: Was he Shogeg or Mezid?
i. If he was Shogeg, why does it say that he repented – he never intended to sin!
3. Answer #1: Rather, he was Mezid.
4. Question: What Avodah did he do?
i. If he was Zorek, Teshuvah would not help, he did Sherus!
5. Answer: Rather, he slaughtered.
(n) Rejection (and Answer #2 – Rav Sheshes): Really, he was Shogeg;
1. The Beraisa means, if he repented from the beginning, i.e. he sinned b’Shogeg, his Korban is acceptable, if not it is not acceptable.
(o) (Rav Nachman): If a Kohen bowed to idolatry, his Korban is acceptable;
(p) (Rav Sheshes): It is not acceptable.
(q) (Rav Nachman): If a Kohen accepted an idolatry to be his god, his Korban is acceptable;
(r) (Rav Sheshes): It is not acceptable.
(s) They must argue in all four cases:
1. If they only argued regarding Zerikah, one might have thought that only there Rav Sheshes is Posel his Korban, for he did Sherus, but slaughter (even b’Mezid) is not Sherus;
2. If they (also) argued regarding slaughter (but not bowing), one might have thought that there Rav Sheshes is Posel, for he did Avodah, but bowing is not Avodah;
3. If they (also) argued regarding bowing (but not accepting it for his god), one might have thought that there Rav Sheshes is Posel, for he did an action, but acceptance is mere speech;
4. Therefore, they must argue in all cases.
3) “BEIS CHONYO”
(a) (Mishnah): …All the more so another matter (idolatry) disqualifies.
(b) Inference: This implies that Beis Chonyo is not idolatry; our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah:
1. (Beraisa – R. Meir): One year (after Yom Kipur) Shimon ha’Tzadik (correctly) predicted that he would die that year.
2. People: How do you know?
3. Shimon ha’Tzadik: Every Yom Kipur I used to see the form of an elder dressed in white, he would enter and exit the Kodesh ha’Kodoshim with me; this year, I saw an elder dressed in black, he entered with me but did not leave with me.
4. After Sukos, he fell sick for seven days, and died; Kohanim ceased to use Hash-m’s name in Birkas Kohanim (Tosfos Sotah 38A (Harei) – because they no longer merited Giluy Shechinah.)
5. At the time he died, he commanded that his son Chonyo be the next Kohen Gadol; Chonyo’s older brother Shim’i was jealous.
6. Shim’i told Chonyo ‘I will teach you how to serve (Tosfos – on the day of your inauguration.)’ He put two extra garments on him, and had him stand near the Mizbe’ach. He told the other Kohanim that the garments were of Chonyo’s beloved (Rashi – wife; Rambam – harlot), he had vowed to her to wear them on his first day of Avodas Kohen Gadol. They chased after Chonyo to kill him; he fled to Alexandria and built a Mizbe’ach and offered to idolatry.
i. Chachamim observed, how much one can be overcome with jealousy for a position he never held, all the more so one who held it (should not be demoted, lest he ruin himself!)
7. R. Yehudah: No, this is what happened – Chonyo insisted that his older brother Shim’i be the Kohen Gadol, but later he became jealous.
8. Chonyo told Shim’i ‘I will teach you how to serve.’ He had him stand near the Mizbe’ach with extra garments, he told the other Kohanim that Shim’i was fulfilling his vow to his beloved. They sought to kill Shim’i; he explained what happened, and (after verifying his story) they chased after Chonyo to kill him. He fled to the king’s house, everyone who saw him would tell the pursuers. He fled to Alexandria and built a Mizbe’ach and offered (Tosfos – Korbanos of Nochrim) l’Shem Hash-m – “Ba’Yom ha’Hu Yihyeh Mizbe’ach la’Sh-m b’Soch Eretz Mitzrayim…”
i. Chachamim observed, one who fled from honor was so overcome with jealousy, all the more so one who seeks it!
(c) Version #1 (Beraisa – R. Yehoshua ben Perachyah): If someone begins and says ‘Alai Olah’ (i.e. before designating an animal – this is improper, perhaps he will not fulfill his vow), I will tie him up in front of a lion. (Tosfos – according to this text, this teaching should be earlier in the Gemara:)
(d) Version #2 (Beraisa – R. Yehoshua ben Perachyah): At the beginning, if someone would have told me to rise (become Nasi), I would have tied him up in front of a lion (for he is like a Rodef, authority buries those who bear it – heard in the name of R. Yechezkeil Levenstein; Maharal – one is very prone to be damaged by a lion, just like a leader is prone to sin);
1. After becoming Nasi, if someone would tell me to step down, I would pour boiling water over him (Maharal – an awesome pain, like the pain of losing authority. Maharsha – he would inflict the damage himself. The Yerushalayimi (Pesachim 6:1) explains, he would take all measures to remain Nasi, lest his replacement would not Mekadesh Hash-m as much as himself.)
2. We find that Sha’ul hid when Shmuel wanted to make him king; after he was king, and he sensed that David would be the next king, he sought to kill David.