Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 26, 2019 | כ״ה באב תשע״ט

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Keritot 5

The gemara brings different cases where a negative commandment is said on a number of items and one receives lashes on each one even though usually one would not – and the gemara explains why. Different rabbis bring examples of important halachot that were learned out from gezeira shava in order to show the significance of gezeira shavas. How are the laws against preparing the oil used for annointing are different than the ones regarding preparing the incense? How does one prepare the oil for annointing? What was it used for? Which kings are annointed and which are not? What are the items that were hidden by Yoshiyahu?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

כתב רחמנא לא תוכל לאוקמה בלאו

reason that the Merciful One writes: “You may not eat” (Deuteronomy 12:17), to establish the consumption of second-tithe produce outside Jerusalem as a prohibition.

ועדיין לאו שבכללות הוא אם כן נימא קרא לא תוכל לאכלם בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירשך ויצהרך למה לי ליחודי אכילה דכל חד וחד

The Gemara challenges: But still, it is a general prohibition, as all three types of second tithe are included in a single command. The Gemara explains: If so, that one receives only one set of lashes, let the verse say: You may not eat them within your gates, as a previous verse already stated “your tithes” (Deuteronomy 12:11). Why do I need the verse to specify: “The tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil”? This serves to designate a prohibition and the punishment of lashes for the consumption of each and every type of produce.

אמר רבי יצחק האוכל לחם קלי וכרמל לוקה שלש והא אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות שאני הכא דמייתר קראי

§ Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who eats bread, parched grain, and fresh stalks before the omer offering has been sacrificed is flogged with three sets of lashes, as it states: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks until this day itself, until you have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:14). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one is not flogged for transgressing a general prohibition. The Gemara answers: It is different here, as the verses are superfluous; the verse did not need to specify these three types of grain products.

לימא קרא לחם ונילף קלי וכרמל מיניה איכא למיפרך מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה

The Gemara tries to ascertain which terms are superfluous. Let the verse say “bread,” and we will derive the halakha of parched grain and fresh stalks from that of bread. The Gemara questions this suggestion: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about bread? It is unique in that it has an increased obligation with regard to ḥalla, which is separated only from the dough of bread, not from parched grain and fresh stalks not made into dough.

נכתוב קלי ולא לכתוב לחם ונילף מקלי לחם מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי איתיה בעיניה לחם לא איתיה בעיניה כרמל מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי נתרבה אצל מנחות כרמל לא נתרבה אצל מנחות

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse write only “parched grain,” and let it not write bread or fresh stalks, and we will derive the halakha of bread and fresh stalks from that of parched grain. The Gemara responds: The halakha of bread cannot be derived from that of parched grain due to the fact that parched grain is in its unadulterated form, whereas bread is not in its unadulterated form, i.e., it has been fully processed, and therefore it can be maintained that only produce that has not been changed is prohibited before the omer. Likewise, the halakha of fresh stalks cannot be derived from that of parched grain due to the fact that parched grain has an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings, as the omer meal offering is of parched grain, whereas fresh stalks do not have an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings.

נכתוב כרמל ונילף לחם וקלי מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לכרמל שכן לא נשתנה מברייתו מן חד לא ילפי נילף חדא מן תרין

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse write only “fresh stalks,” and we will derive the halakha of bread and parched grain from that of fresh stalks. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about fresh stalks? They are unique in that they have not changed from their original state at all. The Gemara states: Clearly, the halakha of two of these types cannot be derived from the halakha of any one of the others. But let us derive the halakha of one of them from the halakha of the other two.

לא נכתוב קרא לחם ונילף מקלי וכרמל איכא למיפרך מה לקלי וכרמל דאיתנהון בעיניהון לא נכתוב קרא כרמל ונילף מלחם וקלי איכא למיפרך מה ללחם וקלי שכן נתרבו אצל מנחות

The Gemara elaborates: Let the verse not write bread, and let us derive its halakha from that of parched grain and fresh stalks. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about parched grain and fresh stalks? They are unique in that relative to bread, which has been fully processed, they are in their unadulterated form. The Gemara suggests: Let the verse not write fresh stalks, and let us derive its halakha from the halakha of bread and parched grain. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about bread and parched grain? They are unique in that they have an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings.

אמר לך רבי יצחק לא נכתוב קרא קלי ונילף מלחם וכרמל מאי פרכת אי פרכת מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה כרמל יוכיח ואי משום דכרמל לא נשתנה מברייתו לחם יוכיח הלכך לוקה דמייתר

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yitzḥak could say to you: Let the verse not write parched grain, and let us derive its halakha from the halakha of bread and fresh stalks. What would you say to refute this? If you refute it by saying: What is unique about bread? It is unique in that it has an increased obligation with regard to ḥalla, the example of fresh stalks will prove that this is not a decisive factor, as the obligation of ḥalla does not apply to it and yet it is prohibited before the omer. And if you would refute the derivation due to the fact that fresh stalks differ from parched grain, as they have not changed from their original state, the case of bread will prove that this is not the key factor, as it has changed from its original state and yet it is prohibited. Therefore, one is flogged for each type, as the verse is superfluous.

ואימא קלי דמייתר מחייב חדא אכולהון מחייב חדא אם כן נכתוב קרא לחם כרמל וקלי אי נמי נכתוב קלי ולחם וכרמל אמאי כתב לקלי באמצע הכי קאמר לחם בקלי נחייב וכרמל נחייב בקלי

The Gemara objects: But why not say that for the consumption of parched grain, whose mention is superfluous, one is separately liable to receive one set of lashes, whereas for eating all the rest of them, i.e., bread and fresh stalks, one is liable to be flogged with only one set of lashes, as they are prohibited by a general prohibition? The Gemara explains: If so, and the halakha of parched grain is unique, let the verse write: Bread, fresh stalks, and parched grain; alternatively, let it write: Parched grain, bread, and fresh stalks. Why does it write the example of parched grain in between the others? This is what the verse is saying: One who eats bread is liable to receive the punishment given for eating parched grain, and likewise one who eats fresh stalks is liable to receive the punishment given for eating parched grain.

אמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי פיגול אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

§ Rabbi Yannai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for consuming meat of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דאמר רבי יוחנן תני זבדא בר לוי נאמר להלן ואוכליו עונו ישא ונאמר כאן והנפש האכלת ממנו עונה תשא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת

The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Zavda bar Levi teaches: It is stated there, with regard to meat of an offering left over after the appointed time for its consumption [notar]: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8), and it is stated here, with regard to intent to consume an offering after its appointed time: “And the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). Just as there the punishment for eating notar is karet, so too here, the punishment for eating piggul is karet.

אמר רבי סימאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי נותר אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Rabbi Simai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for consuming notar, from which it is derived that one is punished with karet for partaking of piggul, is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

מאי היא יליף קדש קדש ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את קדש ה׳ חלל וכתיב ושרפת את הנותר באש כי קדש וגו׳

What is this verbal analogy? One derives by verbal analogy of the word “sacred” in Leviticus and the word “sacred” in Exodus that the verse: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,” is discussing notar. This verse states: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:8), and it is written: “You shall burn the leftovers [notar] in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sacred” (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse in Exodus is referring to notar, the same is true of the verse in Leviticus.

אמר אביי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי בתו מאנוסתו הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Abaye says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter born from the woman he raped is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דאמר רבא אמר לי רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה לאיסורא

Abaye elaborates: This is as Rava says: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me that this halakha is derived by a verbal analogy between the unusual form “they [henna]” and “they [henna],” written with regard to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter born from the woman he raped. As it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: They [henna] are near kinswomen” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is stated: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter; for they [henna] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This latter verse is interpreted as referring to one’s granddaughter from the woman he raped (see Yevamot 97a). The verbal analogy teaches that although one’s daughter from the woman he raped is not mentioned in the verse, she too is included with one’s granddaughter, just as a daughter and a granddaughter are equated in Leviticus 18:17.

אתא זמה זמה לשרפה

Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression of intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped is derived from a verbal analogy between: “It is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same term “lewdness” that appears elsewhere, which teaches that the transgressor is liable to be put to death by burning. As it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14). This teaches that death by burning is the punishment for engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same applies to intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped, due to the verbal analogy of henna and henna linking the two cases.

אמר רב אשי אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי נסקלים הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Rav Ashi says: A verbal analogy should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the list of those who are liable to be put to death by stoning is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דתניא נאמר כאן דמיהם בם ונאמר באוב וידעוני דמיהם בם מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

This is as it is taught in a baraita that it is stated here, with regard to engaging in intercourse with specific relatives: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:11–16), and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there, the verse specifies that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who engages in intercourse with those relatives, they are executed by stoning.

המפטם את השמן כו׳ תנו רבנן המפטם את השמן ללמוד בו למוסרו לציבור פטור לסוך חייב והסך ממנו פטור לפי שאין חייבין אלא על סיכת שמן המשחה שעשה משה בלבד

§ The mishna’s list of prohibitions for whose unwitting violation one must bring a sin offering includes one who blends the anointing oil according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33). The Sages taught in a baraita: One who blends the anointing oil to learn how it was prepared or to transfer it to the community for them to use in the Temple is exempt. But if he blends the anointing oil in order to apply it to his body he is liable. And one who applies to his body the oil prepared by another is exempt, because he is liable for applying the oil to his body only if he uses the anointing oil that was prepared by Moses alone, in accordance with the verse: “Or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger” (Exodus 30:33), which is referring to that specific oil.

אמר מר ללמוד בו על מנת למוסרו לציבור פטור מנלן אתיא מתכנתו מן במתכונתה דקטרת וכתיב לגבי קטרת לא תעשו לכם לכם הוא דאסור אבל למוסרו לציבור פטור גבי שמן נמי למוסרו לציבור פטור

The Master said earlier: One who blends the anointing oil to learn how it was prepared or in order to transfer it to the community for them to use in the Temple is exempt. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: This is derived via a verbal analogy from the term: “Its composition” (Exodus 30:32), written with regard to the oil and the term: “According to its composition” (Exodus 30:37), written with regard to the incense. And it is written with regard to the incense in that verse: “You shall not prepare for yourselves,” from which it is inferred that it is incense prepared for yourselves that is prohibited, but if one prepares it to transfer it to the community he is exempt. With regard to the anointing oil as well, one who blends it to transfer it to the community is exempt.

ותיהדר קטרת ונילף משמן מה שמן כי מפטם לחציין פטור אף קטרת נמי כי מפטם לחציין פטור אלמה אמר רבא קטרת שפטמה לחציין חייב שמן שפטמו לחציין פטור

The Gemara objects: But in light of this verbal analogy, let the case of incense return and let us derive it from that of the anointing oil: Just as with regard to the anointing oil, when one blends it in halves, i.e., not all the specified amount at once, he is exempt, so too, with regard to the incense, when one blends it in halves he should be exempt. Why, then, does Rava say: In the case of incense that one blended in halves, he is liable, whereas with regard to anointing oil that one blended in halves, he is exempt?

אמר לך רבא גבי שמן כתיב ובמתכנתו לא תעשו כמוהו כמוהו הוא דאסור אבל חציו שפיר דמי גבי קטרת דכתיב והקטרת אשר תעשה כל עשייה דקטרת אפשר דמקטיר פרס שחרית ופרס בין הערבים

The Gemara answers that Rava could say to you: With regard to the anointing oil it is written: “Neither shall you prepare any like it according to its composition” (Exodus 30:32), which indicates that it is oil prepared precisely like it that is prohibited, but with regard to preparing half of it, one may well do so. By contrast, with regard to incense, as it is written: “And the incense that you shall prepare, according to its composition you shall not prepare for yourselves” (Exodus 30:37), which teaches that any act of preparing of this incense is prohibited, as it is possible to burn a portion, half of the maneh that must be prepared, in the morning, and a portion in the afternoon.

תנו רבנן שמן המשחה מר דרור חמש מאות קדה חמש מאות קנמן בשם חמש מאות וקנה בשם חמשים ומאתים נמצאו כולם אלף ושבעה מאות וחמשים

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The anointing oil contains pure myrrh weighing 500 shekels, cassia of 500 shekels, aromatic cinnamon of 500 shekels, and aromatic calamus of 250 shekels. It is found that all of them together amount to 1,750 shekels.

תנא מניינא קא משמע לן תנא הא קא קשיא ליה אימא קנה בשם כקנמן בשם מה קנמן בשם מחציתו בחמשים ומאתים אף קנה בשם מחציתו חמשים ומאתים דהוו להו תרין אלפים

The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the baraita: Does the tanna come to teach us the tally? Why is it necessary for the baraita to state the sum of the amounts? The Gemara answers that this is difficult for the tanna: Since the verse states: “And of aromatic cinnamon half so much, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic calamus two hundred and fifty” (Exodus 30:23), one might say that the weight of aromatic calamus is like that of aromatic cinnamon: Just as half of the amount of aromatic cinnamon is two hundred and fifty, so too, the verse means that half of the amount of aromatic calamus is two hundred and fifty, which would mean that the sum total is two thousand.

ואימא הכי נמי אם כן נכתוב קרא קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים

The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is indeed so, that the total weight of calamus is five hundred? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: And of aromatic cinnamon and of aromatic calamus half so much and half so much, two hundred and fifty. The fact that the verse employs the term “half so much” only with regard to cinnamon indicates that their weights were different.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי כשהוא שוקל בהכרע הוא שוקל או עין בעין הוא שוקל אמר ליה רחמנא כתב בד בבד ואת אמרת בהכרע והאמר רב יהודה הקדוש ברוך הוא יודע הכרעות אלמא דאית בהו הכרע

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: When one weighs these substances, does he weigh the ingredients with a slight surplus, so that they tip the scales, or does he weigh the ingredients with precision? Abaye said to him that the Merciful One writes: “Of each there shall be a like weight” (Exodus 30:34), which indicates a precise measure, and you say it is possible that one weighs the ingredients with a surplus? The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the amount of surpluses that should be added. Evidently, there is a surplus involved in these measures.

אלא אמר רב יהודה דקנמן בשם אמאי מייתי מחציתו דחמש מאות חמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא וחמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא כיון דכולהון חמש מאות הויין נייתי חמש מאות בבת אחת שמע מינה מדקמייתי לה לקנמן בשם בתרי זימני הכרע אית ביה והקדוש ברוך הוא יודע בהכרעות

Rather, one certainly weighs with a surplus, and this is what Rav Yehuda says: With regard to aromatic cinnamon, why does one bring half of its total of five hundred, i.e., two hundred and fifty at one time, and two hundred and fifty at one time? Since its entire amount is five hundred, let him bring five hundred all at once. Conclude from the fact that one brings aromatic cinnamon at two separate times that there is a surplus involved in this measure, i.e., one must add a little each time he weighs the cinnamon, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the amount of surpluses.

ומאי בד בבד אמר רבינא שלא יניח משקל במשקל וישקול

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion, what is the meaning of the phrase: “Of each there shall be a like weight”? Ravina said: It means that one should not place a weight of one ingredient against the weight of another ingredient and weigh in this manner. In other words, after weighing one of the ingredients one may not weigh another ingredient against that one; rather, each ingredient must be weighed independently against the scales.

תנו רבנן שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר משלקו העיקרין דברי רבי יהודה אמר לו רבי יוסי והלא לסוך העיקרין אינו סיפק כיצד עושה הביאו העיקרין ושלקום במים והציף עליהן שמן המשחה וקלט את הריח וקיפחו

The Sages taught in a baraita: How did they prepare the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness? They would cook the roots of the spices in it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But that amount of oil is not sufficient even to apply to the roots, as they would absorb the oil; how, then, could the roots be cooked in it? Instead, how did they act? They brought the roots and boiled them in water and the fragrant substance would rise to the top, and one poured the anointing oil on the water, and the oil would absorb the fragrance and retain it, and later he removed the oil [vekipeḥo] from off the top and place it in its flask. This is how the anointing oil was prepared.

אמר לו רבי יהודה

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei:

וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא נסים הרבה נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוג ובו נמשח המשכן וכליו ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבא

And was just one miracle performed with the anointing oil? But many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. He explains: Its initial preparation was only the measure of twelve log, and even so the Tabernacle and its vessels were anointed with it, and likewise Aaron and his sons were anointed with it all the seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations, and yet despite the reduction in the amount of oil during its preparation process, as well as its multiple uses throughout history, it all remains intact for its use in the future.

שנאמר שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדרתיכם זה בגימטריא שנים עשר לוגין הויין

Rabbi Yehuda adds that this is as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The word zeh has a numerical value [bigimatriya] of twelve, which teaches that the original twelve log of oil that existed at the outset are extant throughout all the generations. If so, i.e., if such miracles were performed in connection with the oil, it is no wonder that its initial preparation was miraculous.

תנו רבנן ויקח משה את שמן המשחה וימשח את המשכן וגו׳ רבי יהודה אומר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר הרבה נסים נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוגין כמה יורה בולעת כמה עיקרין בולעין כמה האור שורף ובו נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים

The Sages taught in a baraita: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. Its initial preparation was only twelve log; consider how much of it a cauldron absorbs from what is cooked inside it, and how much of it the roots of the plants absorb, how much of it the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, and Aaron, and his sons were all anointed with it all seven days of the inauguration.

ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה ואת יהואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים אחיו שהיה גדול מאחיו שתי שנים

The baraita adds: And High Priests and kings were anointed with it, and even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing with the oil. But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. And if you say: If so, for what reason did they anoint King Solomon, who was the son of King David? It was due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to usurp the monarchy. And similarly Joash, son of Ahaziah, was anointed king (see II Kings 11:12) due to the threat of Athaliah, his paternal grandmother, who attempted to seize the monarchy for herself (II Kings 11:1–3). And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed as king (II Kings 23:30) due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than his brother, i.e., Jehoahaz. Ordinarily the older brother succeeds the father, but Jehoahaz was more worthy of the throne.

אמר מר ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן שתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח הא קא משמע לן דאפילו מבניו ההוא דמשח הוי כהן גדול ואי לא משח לא הוי כהן גדול

The Gemara clarifies several aspects of this baraita. The Master said earlier: And even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say merely: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is taught by the addition of the term “anointed”? This teaches us that even when the new High Priest is from among the sons of the previous High Priest, only that priest who is anointed with oil is the High Priest, but if he is not anointed with oil he is not the High Priest.

אמר מר אין מושחין מלך בן מלך מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דכתיב למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו כל הימים ירושה היא

The Master said earlier: But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that this is as it is written: In order that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, all the days in the midst of Israel (see Deuteronomy 17:20). The mention of a king’s sons teaches that the kingdom is an inheritance, which does not need to be confirmed by anointing.

ומפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה מנלן דכי אתי מחלוקת בעי משיחה ולא כל דבעי מלכא מורית ליה מלכותא אמר רב פפא אמר קרא בקרב ישראל בזמן ששלום בישראל

The baraita further taught: And for what reason did they anoint King Solomon? Due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that in a situation where there is a dispute the new king requires anointing, and the current king cannot simply grant the kingship as an inheritance to whomever he desires? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his children in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). At a time when there is peace in Israel the monarchy transfers smoothly to the king’s son, but not when there is a dispute.

תנא אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב אמאי תיפוק ליה דמלך ראשון הוא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מלכי בית דוד מושחין מלכי ישראל אין מושחין ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו יהוא בן נמשי מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב

It was taught in a baraita: Also Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi, was anointed by Elisha the prophet only due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, who was the incumbent king, against whose reign Jehu rebelled (see II Kings 9:1–6). The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state this reason? Let the tanna of the baraita derive that Jehu required anointing due to the fact that he was the first king of his lineage, as Jehu was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings from the kingdom of Israel. And if you say: For what reason did Elisha anoint Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi? This was due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab.

אמר מר מלכי בית דוד מושחין ואין מלכי ישראל מושחין מנלן דכתיב קום משחהו כי זה הוא זה טעון משיחה ואין אחר טעון משיחה

The Master said earlier: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings of Israel. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointing of David: “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12). This king, i.e., any king from the house of David, requires anointing, but another king, i.e., from the kingdom of Israel, whose kings were not descendants of the house of David, does not require anointing.

אמר מר מפני מחלוקת יורם ומשום מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב נמעל בשמן המשחה כדאמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא הכא נמי באפרסמא דכיא

The Master said earlier that Jehu was anointed due to the dispute with Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, will we misuse consecrated property by anointing someone unnecessarily with the anointing oil, which is called “a sacred anointing oil” (Exodus 30:31)? After all, kings of the kingdom of Israel do not require anointing. The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa said with regard to Jehoahaz: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, rather than with the anointing oil. Here too, Elisha anointed Jehu with pure balsam oil, not the anointing oil.

ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומי קשיש והכתיב ובני יאשיה הבכור יוחנן והשני יהויקים והשלישי צדקיהו והרביעי שלום ואמר רבי יוחנן הוא יהואחז הוא צדקיהו הוא שלום

It was further stated in the baraita: And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than him. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim in fact older than Jehoahaz? But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” (I Chronicles 3:15); and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The one who is called Johanan in that verse is also called Jehoahaz, and the one who is called Zedekiah is the same as the one called Shallum. If so, Jehoahaz is the eldest son, not Jehoiakim. Why, then, was it necessary to anoint Jehoahaz?

אלא לעולם יהויקים קשיש ואמאי קרי ליה בכור שהוא בכור למלכות ומי מוקמינן זוטא קמי קשישא והכתיב ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור ההוא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה

The Gemara answers: Rather, Jehoiakim was actually older than Jehoahaz. And why does the verse call Jehoahaz the firstborn? This is referring to the fact that Jehoahaz was the firstborn with regard to the monarchy, i.e., he became king first. The Gemara asks: And do we establish the younger son as king before the older son? But isn’t it written with regard to Jehoshaphat: “And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3)? The Gemara answers: Jehoram was one who filled the place of his fathers, i.e., he was fit to serve as king, and therefore as he was firstborn he received the kingship, whereas Jehoiakim was deemed unworthy of the honor, despite being the oldest among his brothers.

אמר מר הוא שלום הוא צדקיה והא בדרי קחשיב ומאי קרי ליה שלישי שהוא שלישי לבנים ומאי קרי ליה רביעי שהוא רביעי למלכות משום דמלך יכניה קמיה בתחלה מלך יהואחז וסוף מלך יהויקים וסוף מלך יכניה וסוף מלך צדקיה

The Master said earlier: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah. The Gemara objects: But the Torah counts these individuals in a row, i.e., one after the other, as I Chronicles 3:15 mentions the first, second, third, and fourth sons. This indicates that they are different people. The Gemara answers: Shallum and Zedekiah are in fact one and the same, and what is the reason the verse calls Zedekiah the third? The reason is that he is third of the sons, i.e., the third in order of birth. And what is the reason the verse calls Shallum the fourth? The reason is that he is fourth to the kingship, because Jeconiah reigned before him. How so? Initially Jehoahaz reigned, and afterward Jehoiakim reigned, and afterward Jeconiah reigned, and afterward Zedekiah reigned. Accordingly, Zedekiah, called Shallum, was fourth to the kingship.

תנו רבנן הוא שלום הוא צדקיה ולמה נקרא שמו שלום שהיה שלם במעשיו דבר אחר שלום ששלם מלכות בית דוד בימיו ומה שמו מתניה שמו שנאמר וימלך את מתניה דדו תחתיו ויסב שמו צדקיה

The Sages taught in a baraita: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah, and why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect [shalem] in his good deeds. Alternatively, he was called Shallum because in his days the kingdom of the house of David was completed [shalam], as he was the last king in the Davidic dynasty. And what was his true name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylonia made Mattaniah, his father’s brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17).

דאמר לו יה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי שנאמר ויביאהו בבלה וכתיב וגם במלך נבוכד נאצר מלך בבל מרד אשר השביעו באלהים

The baraita explains: Why did the king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, call him by the name Zedekiah? The reason is that Nebuchadnezzar said to him: God will justify [yatzdik] the judgment over you if you rebel against me, as it is stated with regard to Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin: “And brought him to Babylon” (II Chronicles 36:10), and with regard to Zedekiah it is stated: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).

ומי הוה שמן המשחה והתניא משנגנז ארון נגנז צנצנת המן וצלוחית שמן המשחה ומקלו של אהרן שקדים ופרחים

§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement that Jehoahaz was anointed: And was there anointing oil in the days of Jehoahaz? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yoma 2:15) that from when the Ark was sequestered, along with it was sequestered the jar of manna that was next to it (see Exodus 16:33), and the flask of the anointing oil, and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms (see Numbers 17:23).

וארגז ששגרו פלשתים דורון לאלהי ישראל שנאמר ואת כלי הזהב אשר השבתם לו אשם תשימו בארגז מצדו ומי גנזו יאשיה מלך יהודה גנזו שנאמר ויאמר המלך אל הכהנים תנו את ארון הקדש

The baraita continues: And also sequestered with the Ark was the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: “And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8). And who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it, as it is stated: And the king said to the priests: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, built (see II Chronicles 35:3).

ואמר רבי אלעזר אתיא שם שם

And Rabbi Elazar says: How do we know that all these items needed to be sequestered together with the Ark? The halakha that the jar of manna was to be kept with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there.” The word “there” is stated with regard to the Ark: “Where I will meet with you there” (Exodus 30:6), and it is also stated with regard to the manna: “And put there” (Exodus 16:33).

אתיא דורות דורות

The halakha that the anointing oil was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “generations” and “generations.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna: “To be kept throughout your generations” (Exodus 16:33), and also with regard to the anointing oil: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31).

אתיא משמרת משמרת אמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא

Finally, the halakha that Aaron’s staff was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the terms “to be kept” and “to be kept.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna, and also with regard to Aaron’s staff: “To be kept there, for a token against the rebellious children” (Numbers 17:25). All these items, which are connected through these verbal analogies, including the anointing oil, were kept by the side of the Ark, and therefore they were sequestered together with the Ark. If so, how was Jehoahaz anointed with the anointing oil? Rav Pappa said: They did not anoint Jehoahaz with the anointing oil, but with pure balsam.

תנו רבנן מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי אמר רב מנשיה כמין כי יוני תני חדא בתחלה מציק שמן על ראשו ואחר כך נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ותני אחריתי בתחלה נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ואחר כך מציק לו שמן על ראשו

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One anoints the kings by placing the oil around the head in a shape similar to a crown, and one anoints the High Priests by placing the oil upon the head in the shape similar to chi. In explanation of this statement, Rav Menashya says: It is placed in a shape similar to the Greek letter chi, which looks like the letter Χ. It is taught in one baraita: First, one pours oil on the head of the High Priest, and afterward one places oil between his eyelashes. And it is taught in another baraita: First, one places oil between his eyelashes, and afterward one pours oil on his head. The baraitot contradict each other.

תנאי היא איכא למאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא ואיכא למאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא שנאמר ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא קסבר שכן נתרבה אצל כלי שרת

The Gemara explains: This is a matter of dispute between tanna’im, as there is a tanna who says: Anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and therefore comes first, and there is a tanna who says that pouring on the head is preferable to anointing between his eyelashes, and therefore comes first. What is the reasoning of the one who says that pouring on the head is preferable? As it is stated: “And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), which indicates that pouring is first, followed by anointing. And as for the one who says that anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and precedes it, he holds that anointing is preferable in that its use is increased, i.e., it is performed on the service vessels, whereas pouring is not mentioned with regard to the service vessels.

והכתיב ויצק ולבסוף וימשח הכי קאמר מה טעם ויצק משום וימשח אותו לקדשו

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to the opinion that anointing is preferable, isn’t it written: “He poured,” and ultimately: “He anointed” (Leviticus 8:12)? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: What is the reason for “he poured”? This action was made possible due to the fact that he had already: “Anointed him to sanctify him.” In other words, the pouring came after the anointing, which is the primary act.

תנו רבנן כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש וגו׳ כמין שתי טיפין מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב כהנא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות בעיקרי זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה רבינו דואג שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is like the precious oil upon the head descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil shaped like pearls hung from Aaron’s beard. Rav Kahana says it is taught: When Aaron would speak his beard would move, and these drops would miraculously rise and sit on the roots of his beard, so that they would not fall to the ground. And with regard to this matter Moses, our teacher, was concerned, thinking: Perhaps, God forbid, I misused the anointing oil by pouring too much, which resulted in these two additional drops.

יצתה בת קול ואמרה כטל חרמון שירד על הררי ציון מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה

A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head, descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments, like the dew of the Hermon that comes down upon the mountains of Zion” (Psalms 133:2–3). This comparison serves to teach: Just as the Hermon’s dew is not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as it is not consecrated but can be used by all, so too, the anointing oil that descends upon Aaron’s beard is not subject to misuse of consecrated property.

ועדיין אהרן היה דואג שמא משה לא מעל ואני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת

And still Aaron himself was concerned, thinking: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property but I misused the oil, as the additional oil is on my body and I derive benefit from it. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property.

תנו רבנן אין מושחין את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתימשך מלכותן שנאמר ויאמר המלך אל בניהו וגו׳ והורדתם אתו על גחון וגו׳ ומשח אותו שם

§ The Gemara cites a baraita which discusses the anointing of kings. The Sages taught: One may anoint kings only next to a spring. This is done as a fortuitous sign, so that their kingdom should continue uninterrupted just as the waters of the spring flow uninterrupted throughout the year. As it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon in the days of King David: And the king said to Benaiah: Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel (see I Kings 1:33–34). The Sages derived from here that all kings should be anointed near a spring.

אמר רב אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי משכא שתא אי לא מייתי שרגא בהלין עשרה יומין דבין ריש שתא ליומא דכיפורי וניתלי בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה

Parenthetical to this matter of performing an act as a fortuitous sign, the Gemara cites that which Rav Ami says: One who desires to know if he will live through this current year or not should bring a lit candle during those ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and hang it in a house through which wind does not blow, and he should watch it carefully: If its light continues he shall know that he will live out his year.

ומאן דבעי נעביד עיסקי ובעי דנידע אי מצלח עיסקי אי לא נירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר נידע דמצלח

And one who desires to conduct business and wants to know if his business will succeed or not should raise a rooster. If the rooster gets fat and beautiful he shall know that the venture will succeed.

האי מאן דבעי ניפוק באורחא ובעי דנידע אי הדר לביתיה ניעול ניקום בביתא דבהתא אם חזי

This one who wishes to leave on a journey and wants to know whether he will return to his home should enter a dark house. If he sees

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 5

כתב רחמנא לא תוכל לאוקמה בלאו

reason that the Merciful One writes: “You may not eat” (Deuteronomy 12:17), to establish the consumption of second-tithe produce outside Jerusalem as a prohibition.

ועדיין לאו שבכללות הוא אם כן נימא קרא לא תוכל לאכלם בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירשך ויצהרך למה לי ליחודי אכילה דכל חד וחד

The Gemara challenges: But still, it is a general prohibition, as all three types of second tithe are included in a single command. The Gemara explains: If so, that one receives only one set of lashes, let the verse say: You may not eat them within your gates, as a previous verse already stated “your tithes” (Deuteronomy 12:11). Why do I need the verse to specify: “The tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil”? This serves to designate a prohibition and the punishment of lashes for the consumption of each and every type of produce.

אמר רבי יצחק האוכל לחם קלי וכרמל לוקה שלש והא אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות שאני הכא דמייתר קראי

§ Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who eats bread, parched grain, and fresh stalks before the omer offering has been sacrificed is flogged with three sets of lashes, as it states: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks until this day itself, until you have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:14). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one is not flogged for transgressing a general prohibition. The Gemara answers: It is different here, as the verses are superfluous; the verse did not need to specify these three types of grain products.

לימא קרא לחם ונילף קלי וכרמל מיניה איכא למיפרך מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה

The Gemara tries to ascertain which terms are superfluous. Let the verse say “bread,” and we will derive the halakha of parched grain and fresh stalks from that of bread. The Gemara questions this suggestion: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about bread? It is unique in that it has an increased obligation with regard to ḥalla, which is separated only from the dough of bread, not from parched grain and fresh stalks not made into dough.

נכתוב קלי ולא לכתוב לחם ונילף מקלי לחם מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי איתיה בעיניה לחם לא איתיה בעיניה כרמל מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי נתרבה אצל מנחות כרמל לא נתרבה אצל מנחות

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse write only “parched grain,” and let it not write bread or fresh stalks, and we will derive the halakha of bread and fresh stalks from that of parched grain. The Gemara responds: The halakha of bread cannot be derived from that of parched grain due to the fact that parched grain is in its unadulterated form, whereas bread is not in its unadulterated form, i.e., it has been fully processed, and therefore it can be maintained that only produce that has not been changed is prohibited before the omer. Likewise, the halakha of fresh stalks cannot be derived from that of parched grain due to the fact that parched grain has an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings, as the omer meal offering is of parched grain, whereas fresh stalks do not have an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings.

נכתוב כרמל ונילף לחם וקלי מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לכרמל שכן לא נשתנה מברייתו מן חד לא ילפי נילף חדא מן תרין

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse write only “fresh stalks,” and we will derive the halakha of bread and parched grain from that of fresh stalks. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about fresh stalks? They are unique in that they have not changed from their original state at all. The Gemara states: Clearly, the halakha of two of these types cannot be derived from the halakha of any one of the others. But let us derive the halakha of one of them from the halakha of the other two.

לא נכתוב קרא לחם ונילף מקלי וכרמל איכא למיפרך מה לקלי וכרמל דאיתנהון בעיניהון לא נכתוב קרא כרמל ונילף מלחם וקלי איכא למיפרך מה ללחם וקלי שכן נתרבו אצל מנחות

The Gemara elaborates: Let the verse not write bread, and let us derive its halakha from that of parched grain and fresh stalks. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about parched grain and fresh stalks? They are unique in that relative to bread, which has been fully processed, they are in their unadulterated form. The Gemara suggests: Let the verse not write fresh stalks, and let us derive its halakha from the halakha of bread and parched grain. The Gemara responds: This derivation can be refuted: What is unique about bread and parched grain? They are unique in that they have an increased obligation with regard to meal offerings.

אמר לך רבי יצחק לא נכתוב קרא קלי ונילף מלחם וכרמל מאי פרכת אי פרכת מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה כרמל יוכיח ואי משום דכרמל לא נשתנה מברייתו לחם יוכיח הלכך לוקה דמייתר

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yitzḥak could say to you: Let the verse not write parched grain, and let us derive its halakha from the halakha of bread and fresh stalks. What would you say to refute this? If you refute it by saying: What is unique about bread? It is unique in that it has an increased obligation with regard to ḥalla, the example of fresh stalks will prove that this is not a decisive factor, as the obligation of ḥalla does not apply to it and yet it is prohibited before the omer. And if you would refute the derivation due to the fact that fresh stalks differ from parched grain, as they have not changed from their original state, the case of bread will prove that this is not the key factor, as it has changed from its original state and yet it is prohibited. Therefore, one is flogged for each type, as the verse is superfluous.

ואימא קלי דמייתר מחייב חדא אכולהון מחייב חדא אם כן נכתוב קרא לחם כרמל וקלי אי נמי נכתוב קלי ולחם וכרמל אמאי כתב לקלי באמצע הכי קאמר לחם בקלי נחייב וכרמל נחייב בקלי

The Gemara objects: But why not say that for the consumption of parched grain, whose mention is superfluous, one is separately liable to receive one set of lashes, whereas for eating all the rest of them, i.e., bread and fresh stalks, one is liable to be flogged with only one set of lashes, as they are prohibited by a general prohibition? The Gemara explains: If so, and the halakha of parched grain is unique, let the verse write: Bread, fresh stalks, and parched grain; alternatively, let it write: Parched grain, bread, and fresh stalks. Why does it write the example of parched grain in between the others? This is what the verse is saying: One who eats bread is liable to receive the punishment given for eating parched grain, and likewise one who eats fresh stalks is liable to receive the punishment given for eating parched grain.

אמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי פיגול אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

§ Rabbi Yannai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for consuming meat of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דאמר רבי יוחנן תני זבדא בר לוי נאמר להלן ואוכליו עונו ישא ונאמר כאן והנפש האכלת ממנו עונה תשא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת

The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Zavda bar Levi teaches: It is stated there, with regard to meat of an offering left over after the appointed time for its consumption [notar]: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8), and it is stated here, with regard to intent to consume an offering after its appointed time: “And the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). Just as there the punishment for eating notar is karet, so too here, the punishment for eating piggul is karet.

אמר רבי סימאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי נותר אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Rabbi Simai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for consuming notar, from which it is derived that one is punished with karet for partaking of piggul, is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

מאי היא יליף קדש קדש ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את קדש ה׳ חלל וכתיב ושרפת את הנותר באש כי קדש וגו׳

What is this verbal analogy? One derives by verbal analogy of the word “sacred” in Leviticus and the word “sacred” in Exodus that the verse: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,” is discussing notar. This verse states: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:8), and it is written: “You shall burn the leftovers [notar] in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sacred” (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse in Exodus is referring to notar, the same is true of the verse in Leviticus.

אמר אביי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי בתו מאנוסתו הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Abaye says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the fact that one is punished with karet for engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter born from the woman he raped is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דאמר רבא אמר לי רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה לאיסורא

Abaye elaborates: This is as Rava says: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me that this halakha is derived by a verbal analogy between the unusual form “they [henna]” and “they [henna],” written with regard to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter born from the woman he raped. As it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: They [henna] are near kinswomen” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is stated: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter; for they [henna] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This latter verse is interpreted as referring to one’s granddaughter from the woman he raped (see Yevamot 97a). The verbal analogy teaches that although one’s daughter from the woman he raped is not mentioned in the verse, she too is included with one’s granddaughter, just as a daughter and a granddaughter are equated in Leviticus 18:17.

אתא זמה זמה לשרפה

Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression of intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped is derived from a verbal analogy between: “It is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same term “lewdness” that appears elsewhere, which teaches that the transgressor is liable to be put to death by burning. As it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14). This teaches that death by burning is the punishment for engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same applies to intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped, due to the verbal analogy of henna and henna linking the two cases.

אמר רב אשי אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי נסקלים הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה

Rav Ashi says: A verbal analogy should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, as the list of those who are liable to be put to death by stoning is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.

דתניא נאמר כאן דמיהם בם ונאמר באוב וידעוני דמיהם בם מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

This is as it is taught in a baraita that it is stated here, with regard to engaging in intercourse with specific relatives: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:11–16), and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there, the verse specifies that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who engages in intercourse with those relatives, they are executed by stoning.

המפטם את השמן כו׳ תנו רבנן המפטם את השמן ללמוד בו למוסרו לציבור פטור לסוך חייב והסך ממנו פטור לפי שאין חייבין אלא על סיכת שמן המשחה שעשה משה בלבד

§ The mishna’s list of prohibitions for whose unwitting violation one must bring a sin offering includes one who blends the anointing oil according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33). The Sages taught in a baraita: One who blends the anointing oil to learn how it was prepared or to transfer it to the community for them to use in the Temple is exempt. But if he blends the anointing oil in order to apply it to his body he is liable. And one who applies to his body the oil prepared by another is exempt, because he is liable for applying the oil to his body only if he uses the anointing oil that was prepared by Moses alone, in accordance with the verse: “Or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger” (Exodus 30:33), which is referring to that specific oil.

אמר מר ללמוד בו על מנת למוסרו לציבור פטור מנלן אתיא מתכנתו מן במתכונתה דקטרת וכתיב לגבי קטרת לא תעשו לכם לכם הוא דאסור אבל למוסרו לציבור פטור גבי שמן נמי למוסרו לציבור פטור

The Master said earlier: One who blends the anointing oil to learn how it was prepared or in order to transfer it to the community for them to use in the Temple is exempt. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: This is derived via a verbal analogy from the term: “Its composition” (Exodus 30:32), written with regard to the oil and the term: “According to its composition” (Exodus 30:37), written with regard to the incense. And it is written with regard to the incense in that verse: “You shall not prepare for yourselves,” from which it is inferred that it is incense prepared for yourselves that is prohibited, but if one prepares it to transfer it to the community he is exempt. With regard to the anointing oil as well, one who blends it to transfer it to the community is exempt.

ותיהדר קטרת ונילף משמן מה שמן כי מפטם לחציין פטור אף קטרת נמי כי מפטם לחציין פטור אלמה אמר רבא קטרת שפטמה לחציין חייב שמן שפטמו לחציין פטור

The Gemara objects: But in light of this verbal analogy, let the case of incense return and let us derive it from that of the anointing oil: Just as with regard to the anointing oil, when one blends it in halves, i.e., not all the specified amount at once, he is exempt, so too, with regard to the incense, when one blends it in halves he should be exempt. Why, then, does Rava say: In the case of incense that one blended in halves, he is liable, whereas with regard to anointing oil that one blended in halves, he is exempt?

אמר לך רבא גבי שמן כתיב ובמתכנתו לא תעשו כמוהו כמוהו הוא דאסור אבל חציו שפיר דמי גבי קטרת דכתיב והקטרת אשר תעשה כל עשייה דקטרת אפשר דמקטיר פרס שחרית ופרס בין הערבים

The Gemara answers that Rava could say to you: With regard to the anointing oil it is written: “Neither shall you prepare any like it according to its composition” (Exodus 30:32), which indicates that it is oil prepared precisely like it that is prohibited, but with regard to preparing half of it, one may well do so. By contrast, with regard to incense, as it is written: “And the incense that you shall prepare, according to its composition you shall not prepare for yourselves” (Exodus 30:37), which teaches that any act of preparing of this incense is prohibited, as it is possible to burn a portion, half of the maneh that must be prepared, in the morning, and a portion in the afternoon.

תנו רבנן שמן המשחה מר דרור חמש מאות קדה חמש מאות קנמן בשם חמש מאות וקנה בשם חמשים ומאתים נמצאו כולם אלף ושבעה מאות וחמשים

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The anointing oil contains pure myrrh weighing 500 shekels, cassia of 500 shekels, aromatic cinnamon of 500 shekels, and aromatic calamus of 250 shekels. It is found that all of them together amount to 1,750 shekels.

תנא מניינא קא משמע לן תנא הא קא קשיא ליה אימא קנה בשם כקנמן בשם מה קנמן בשם מחציתו בחמשים ומאתים אף קנה בשם מחציתו חמשים ומאתים דהוו להו תרין אלפים

The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the baraita: Does the tanna come to teach us the tally? Why is it necessary for the baraita to state the sum of the amounts? The Gemara answers that this is difficult for the tanna: Since the verse states: “And of aromatic cinnamon half so much, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic calamus two hundred and fifty” (Exodus 30:23), one might say that the weight of aromatic calamus is like that of aromatic cinnamon: Just as half of the amount of aromatic cinnamon is two hundred and fifty, so too, the verse means that half of the amount of aromatic calamus is two hundred and fifty, which would mean that the sum total is two thousand.

ואימא הכי נמי אם כן נכתוב קרא קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים

The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is indeed so, that the total weight of calamus is five hundred? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: And of aromatic cinnamon and of aromatic calamus half so much and half so much, two hundred and fifty. The fact that the verse employs the term “half so much” only with regard to cinnamon indicates that their weights were different.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי כשהוא שוקל בהכרע הוא שוקל או עין בעין הוא שוקל אמר ליה רחמנא כתב בד בבד ואת אמרת בהכרע והאמר רב יהודה הקדוש ברוך הוא יודע הכרעות אלמא דאית בהו הכרע

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: When one weighs these substances, does he weigh the ingredients with a slight surplus, so that they tip the scales, or does he weigh the ingredients with precision? Abaye said to him that the Merciful One writes: “Of each there shall be a like weight” (Exodus 30:34), which indicates a precise measure, and you say it is possible that one weighs the ingredients with a surplus? The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the amount of surpluses that should be added. Evidently, there is a surplus involved in these measures.

אלא אמר רב יהודה דקנמן בשם אמאי מייתי מחציתו דחמש מאות חמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא וחמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא כיון דכולהון חמש מאות הויין נייתי חמש מאות בבת אחת שמע מינה מדקמייתי לה לקנמן בשם בתרי זימני הכרע אית ביה והקדוש ברוך הוא יודע בהכרעות

Rather, one certainly weighs with a surplus, and this is what Rav Yehuda says: With regard to aromatic cinnamon, why does one bring half of its total of five hundred, i.e., two hundred and fifty at one time, and two hundred and fifty at one time? Since its entire amount is five hundred, let him bring five hundred all at once. Conclude from the fact that one brings aromatic cinnamon at two separate times that there is a surplus involved in this measure, i.e., one must add a little each time he weighs the cinnamon, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the amount of surpluses.

ומאי בד בבד אמר רבינא שלא יניח משקל במשקל וישקול

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion, what is the meaning of the phrase: “Of each there shall be a like weight”? Ravina said: It means that one should not place a weight of one ingredient against the weight of another ingredient and weigh in this manner. In other words, after weighing one of the ingredients one may not weigh another ingredient against that one; rather, each ingredient must be weighed independently against the scales.

תנו רבנן שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר משלקו העיקרין דברי רבי יהודה אמר לו רבי יוסי והלא לסוך העיקרין אינו סיפק כיצד עושה הביאו העיקרין ושלקום במים והציף עליהן שמן המשחה וקלט את הריח וקיפחו

The Sages taught in a baraita: How did they prepare the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness? They would cook the roots of the spices in it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But that amount of oil is not sufficient even to apply to the roots, as they would absorb the oil; how, then, could the roots be cooked in it? Instead, how did they act? They brought the roots and boiled them in water and the fragrant substance would rise to the top, and one poured the anointing oil on the water, and the oil would absorb the fragrance and retain it, and later he removed the oil [vekipeḥo] from off the top and place it in its flask. This is how the anointing oil was prepared.

אמר לו רבי יהודה

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei:

וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא נסים הרבה נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוג ובו נמשח המשכן וכליו ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבא

And was just one miracle performed with the anointing oil? But many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. He explains: Its initial preparation was only the measure of twelve log, and even so the Tabernacle and its vessels were anointed with it, and likewise Aaron and his sons were anointed with it all the seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations, and yet despite the reduction in the amount of oil during its preparation process, as well as its multiple uses throughout history, it all remains intact for its use in the future.

שנאמר שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדרתיכם זה בגימטריא שנים עשר לוגין הויין

Rabbi Yehuda adds that this is as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The word zeh has a numerical value [bigimatriya] of twelve, which teaches that the original twelve log of oil that existed at the outset are extant throughout all the generations. If so, i.e., if such miracles were performed in connection with the oil, it is no wonder that its initial preparation was miraculous.

תנו רבנן ויקח משה את שמן המשחה וימשח את המשכן וגו׳ רבי יהודה אומר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר הרבה נסים נעשו בו מתחלתו ועד סופו תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוגין כמה יורה בולעת כמה עיקרין בולעין כמה האור שורף ובו נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים

The Sages taught in a baraita: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. Its initial preparation was only twelve log; consider how much of it a cauldron absorbs from what is cooked inside it, and how much of it the roots of the plants absorb, how much of it the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, and Aaron, and his sons were all anointed with it all seven days of the inauguration.

ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה ואת יהואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים אחיו שהיה גדול מאחיו שתי שנים

The baraita adds: And High Priests and kings were anointed with it, and even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing with the oil. But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. And if you say: If so, for what reason did they anoint King Solomon, who was the son of King David? It was due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to usurp the monarchy. And similarly Joash, son of Ahaziah, was anointed king (see II Kings 11:12) due to the threat of Athaliah, his paternal grandmother, who attempted to seize the monarchy for herself (II Kings 11:1–3). And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed as king (II Kings 23:30) due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than his brother, i.e., Jehoahaz. Ordinarily the older brother succeeds the father, but Jehoahaz was more worthy of the throne.

אמר מר ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן שתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח הא קא משמע לן דאפילו מבניו ההוא דמשח הוי כהן גדול ואי לא משח לא הוי כהן גדול

The Gemara clarifies several aspects of this baraita. The Master said earlier: And even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say merely: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is taught by the addition of the term “anointed”? This teaches us that even when the new High Priest is from among the sons of the previous High Priest, only that priest who is anointed with oil is the High Priest, but if he is not anointed with oil he is not the High Priest.

אמר מר אין מושחין מלך בן מלך מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דכתיב למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו כל הימים ירושה היא

The Master said earlier: But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that this is as it is written: In order that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, all the days in the midst of Israel (see Deuteronomy 17:20). The mention of a king’s sons teaches that the kingdom is an inheritance, which does not need to be confirmed by anointing.

ומפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקת אדוניה מנלן דכי אתי מחלוקת בעי משיחה ולא כל דבעי מלכא מורית ליה מלכותא אמר רב פפא אמר קרא בקרב ישראל בזמן ששלום בישראל

The baraita further taught: And for what reason did they anoint King Solomon? Due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that in a situation where there is a dispute the new king requires anointing, and the current king cannot simply grant the kingship as an inheritance to whomever he desires? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his children in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). At a time when there is peace in Israel the monarchy transfers smoothly to the king’s son, but not when there is a dispute.

תנא אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב אמאי תיפוק ליה דמלך ראשון הוא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מלכי בית דוד מושחין מלכי ישראל אין מושחין ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו יהוא בן נמשי מפני מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב

It was taught in a baraita: Also Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi, was anointed by Elisha the prophet only due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, who was the incumbent king, against whose reign Jehu rebelled (see II Kings 9:1–6). The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state this reason? Let the tanna of the baraita derive that Jehu required anointing due to the fact that he was the first king of his lineage, as Jehu was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings from the kingdom of Israel. And if you say: For what reason did Elisha anoint Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi? This was due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab.

אמר מר מלכי בית דוד מושחין ואין מלכי ישראל מושחין מנלן דכתיב קום משחהו כי זה הוא זה טעון משיחה ואין אחר טעון משיחה

The Master said earlier: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings of Israel. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointing of David: “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12). This king, i.e., any king from the house of David, requires anointing, but another king, i.e., from the kingdom of Israel, whose kings were not descendants of the house of David, does not require anointing.

אמר מר מפני מחלוקת יורם ומשום מחלוקת יורם בן אחאב נמעל בשמן המשחה כדאמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא הכא נמי באפרסמא דכיא

The Master said earlier that Jehu was anointed due to the dispute with Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, will we misuse consecrated property by anointing someone unnecessarily with the anointing oil, which is called “a sacred anointing oil” (Exodus 30:31)? After all, kings of the kingdom of Israel do not require anointing. The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa said with regard to Jehoahaz: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, rather than with the anointing oil. Here too, Elisha anointed Jehu with pure balsam oil, not the anointing oil.

ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומי קשיש והכתיב ובני יאשיה הבכור יוחנן והשני יהויקים והשלישי צדקיהו והרביעי שלום ואמר רבי יוחנן הוא יהואחז הוא צדקיהו הוא שלום

It was further stated in the baraita: And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than him. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim in fact older than Jehoahaz? But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” (I Chronicles 3:15); and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The one who is called Johanan in that verse is also called Jehoahaz, and the one who is called Zedekiah is the same as the one called Shallum. If so, Jehoahaz is the eldest son, not Jehoiakim. Why, then, was it necessary to anoint Jehoahaz?

אלא לעולם יהויקים קשיש ואמאי קרי ליה בכור שהוא בכור למלכות ומי מוקמינן זוטא קמי קשישא והכתיב ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור ההוא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה

The Gemara answers: Rather, Jehoiakim was actually older than Jehoahaz. And why does the verse call Jehoahaz the firstborn? This is referring to the fact that Jehoahaz was the firstborn with regard to the monarchy, i.e., he became king first. The Gemara asks: And do we establish the younger son as king before the older son? But isn’t it written with regard to Jehoshaphat: “And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3)? The Gemara answers: Jehoram was one who filled the place of his fathers, i.e., he was fit to serve as king, and therefore as he was firstborn he received the kingship, whereas Jehoiakim was deemed unworthy of the honor, despite being the oldest among his brothers.

אמר מר הוא שלום הוא צדקיה והא בדרי קחשיב ומאי קרי ליה שלישי שהוא שלישי לבנים ומאי קרי ליה רביעי שהוא רביעי למלכות משום דמלך יכניה קמיה בתחלה מלך יהואחז וסוף מלך יהויקים וסוף מלך יכניה וסוף מלך צדקיה

The Master said earlier: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah. The Gemara objects: But the Torah counts these individuals in a row, i.e., one after the other, as I Chronicles 3:15 mentions the first, second, third, and fourth sons. This indicates that they are different people. The Gemara answers: Shallum and Zedekiah are in fact one and the same, and what is the reason the verse calls Zedekiah the third? The reason is that he is third of the sons, i.e., the third in order of birth. And what is the reason the verse calls Shallum the fourth? The reason is that he is fourth to the kingship, because Jeconiah reigned before him. How so? Initially Jehoahaz reigned, and afterward Jehoiakim reigned, and afterward Jeconiah reigned, and afterward Zedekiah reigned. Accordingly, Zedekiah, called Shallum, was fourth to the kingship.

תנו רבנן הוא שלום הוא צדקיה ולמה נקרא שמו שלום שהיה שלם במעשיו דבר אחר שלום ששלם מלכות בית דוד בימיו ומה שמו מתניה שמו שנאמר וימלך את מתניה דדו תחתיו ויסב שמו צדקיה

The Sages taught in a baraita: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah, and why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect [shalem] in his good deeds. Alternatively, he was called Shallum because in his days the kingdom of the house of David was completed [shalam], as he was the last king in the Davidic dynasty. And what was his true name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylonia made Mattaniah, his father’s brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17).

דאמר לו יה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי שנאמר ויביאהו בבלה וכתיב וגם במלך נבוכד נאצר מלך בבל מרד אשר השביעו באלהים

The baraita explains: Why did the king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, call him by the name Zedekiah? The reason is that Nebuchadnezzar said to him: God will justify [yatzdik] the judgment over you if you rebel against me, as it is stated with regard to Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin: “And brought him to Babylon” (II Chronicles 36:10), and with regard to Zedekiah it is stated: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).

ומי הוה שמן המשחה והתניא משנגנז ארון נגנז צנצנת המן וצלוחית שמן המשחה ומקלו של אהרן שקדים ופרחים

§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement that Jehoahaz was anointed: And was there anointing oil in the days of Jehoahaz? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yoma 2:15) that from when the Ark was sequestered, along with it was sequestered the jar of manna that was next to it (see Exodus 16:33), and the flask of the anointing oil, and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms (see Numbers 17:23).

וארגז ששגרו פלשתים דורון לאלהי ישראל שנאמר ואת כלי הזהב אשר השבתם לו אשם תשימו בארגז מצדו ומי גנזו יאשיה מלך יהודה גנזו שנאמר ויאמר המלך אל הכהנים תנו את ארון הקדש

The baraita continues: And also sequestered with the Ark was the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: “And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8). And who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it, as it is stated: And the king said to the priests: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, built (see II Chronicles 35:3).

ואמר רבי אלעזר אתיא שם שם

And Rabbi Elazar says: How do we know that all these items needed to be sequestered together with the Ark? The halakha that the jar of manna was to be kept with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there.” The word “there” is stated with regard to the Ark: “Where I will meet with you there” (Exodus 30:6), and it is also stated with regard to the manna: “And put there” (Exodus 16:33).

אתיא דורות דורות

The halakha that the anointing oil was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “generations” and “generations.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna: “To be kept throughout your generations” (Exodus 16:33), and also with regard to the anointing oil: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31).

אתיא משמרת משמרת אמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא

Finally, the halakha that Aaron’s staff was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the terms “to be kept” and “to be kept.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna, and also with regard to Aaron’s staff: “To be kept there, for a token against the rebellious children” (Numbers 17:25). All these items, which are connected through these verbal analogies, including the anointing oil, were kept by the side of the Ark, and therefore they were sequestered together with the Ark. If so, how was Jehoahaz anointed with the anointing oil? Rav Pappa said: They did not anoint Jehoahaz with the anointing oil, but with pure balsam.

תנו רבנן מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי אמר רב מנשיה כמין כי יוני תני חדא בתחלה מציק שמן על ראשו ואחר כך נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ותני אחריתי בתחלה נותן לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ואחר כך מציק לו שמן על ראשו

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One anoints the kings by placing the oil around the head in a shape similar to a crown, and one anoints the High Priests by placing the oil upon the head in the shape similar to chi. In explanation of this statement, Rav Menashya says: It is placed in a shape similar to the Greek letter chi, which looks like the letter Χ. It is taught in one baraita: First, one pours oil on the head of the High Priest, and afterward one places oil between his eyelashes. And it is taught in another baraita: First, one places oil between his eyelashes, and afterward one pours oil on his head. The baraitot contradict each other.

תנאי היא איכא למאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא ואיכא למאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא שנאמר ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא קסבר שכן נתרבה אצל כלי שרת

The Gemara explains: This is a matter of dispute between tanna’im, as there is a tanna who says: Anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and therefore comes first, and there is a tanna who says that pouring on the head is preferable to anointing between his eyelashes, and therefore comes first. What is the reasoning of the one who says that pouring on the head is preferable? As it is stated: “And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), which indicates that pouring is first, followed by anointing. And as for the one who says that anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and precedes it, he holds that anointing is preferable in that its use is increased, i.e., it is performed on the service vessels, whereas pouring is not mentioned with regard to the service vessels.

והכתיב ויצק ולבסוף וימשח הכי קאמר מה טעם ויצק משום וימשח אותו לקדשו

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to the opinion that anointing is preferable, isn’t it written: “He poured,” and ultimately: “He anointed” (Leviticus 8:12)? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: What is the reason for “he poured”? This action was made possible due to the fact that he had already: “Anointed him to sanctify him.” In other words, the pouring came after the anointing, which is the primary act.

תנו רבנן כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש וגו׳ כמין שתי טיפין מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב כהנא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות בעיקרי זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה רבינו דואג שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is like the precious oil upon the head descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil shaped like pearls hung from Aaron’s beard. Rav Kahana says it is taught: When Aaron would speak his beard would move, and these drops would miraculously rise and sit on the roots of his beard, so that they would not fall to the ground. And with regard to this matter Moses, our teacher, was concerned, thinking: Perhaps, God forbid, I misused the anointing oil by pouring too much, which resulted in these two additional drops.

יצתה בת קול ואמרה כטל חרמון שירד על הררי ציון מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה

A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head, descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments, like the dew of the Hermon that comes down upon the mountains of Zion” (Psalms 133:2–3). This comparison serves to teach: Just as the Hermon’s dew is not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as it is not consecrated but can be used by all, so too, the anointing oil that descends upon Aaron’s beard is not subject to misuse of consecrated property.

ועדיין אהרן היה דואג שמא משה לא מעל ואני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת

And still Aaron himself was concerned, thinking: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property but I misused the oil, as the additional oil is on my body and I derive benefit from it. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property.

תנו רבנן אין מושחין את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתימשך מלכותן שנאמר ויאמר המלך אל בניהו וגו׳ והורדתם אתו על גחון וגו׳ ומשח אותו שם

§ The Gemara cites a baraita which discusses the anointing of kings. The Sages taught: One may anoint kings only next to a spring. This is done as a fortuitous sign, so that their kingdom should continue uninterrupted just as the waters of the spring flow uninterrupted throughout the year. As it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon in the days of King David: And the king said to Benaiah: Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel (see I Kings 1:33–34). The Sages derived from here that all kings should be anointed near a spring.

אמר רב אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי משכא שתא אי לא מייתי שרגא בהלין עשרה יומין דבין ריש שתא ליומא דכיפורי וניתלי בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה

Parenthetical to this matter of performing an act as a fortuitous sign, the Gemara cites that which Rav Ami says: One who desires to know if he will live through this current year or not should bring a lit candle during those ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and hang it in a house through which wind does not blow, and he should watch it carefully: If its light continues he shall know that he will live out his year.

ומאן דבעי נעביד עיסקי ובעי דנידע אי מצלח עיסקי אי לא נירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר נידע דמצלח

And one who desires to conduct business and wants to know if his business will succeed or not should raise a rooster. If the rooster gets fat and beautiful he shall know that the venture will succeed.

האי מאן דבעי ניפוק באורחא ובעי דנידע אי הדר לביתיה ניעול ניקום בביתא דבהתא אם חזי

This one who wishes to leave on a journey and wants to know whether he will return to his home should enter a dark house. If he sees

Scroll To Top