Horayot 11

Horayot 11

הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צַעוֹרֵי צַעֲרִינְהוּ. וְאִילּוּ צְעִירָה דִּקְרָיתֵיהּ ״בֶּן עַמִּי״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַל תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם״, כְּלָל, אֲפִילּוּ צַעוֹרֵי לָא.

that one may not contend with them, but it is permitted to harass them. While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter, who called her son ben Ami, son of my people, avoiding any direct mention of the baby’s father, God said to Moses: “Neither harass them, nor contend with them” (Deuteronomy 2:19), at all. Even to harass them is not permitted.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקָּדְמָה בְּכִירָה לַצְּעִירָה, זָכְתָה וּקְדָמַתָּה אַרְבַּע דּוֹרוֹת לַמַּלְכוּת.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person should always be first to perform a matter of a mitzva, as in reward for one night that the elder daughter preceded the younger daughter, she merited and preceded her to royalty by four generations. Ruth the Moabite, ancestor of King David, descended from her son Moab, and she preceded Naamah the Ammonite, who was married to King Solomon, by four generations.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ. ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא,

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). The phrase “from among the common people” serves to exclude the anointed priest; the phrase “from among the common people” also serves to exclude the king.

וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר יָצְאוּ מָשִׁיחַ לִידּוֹן בְּפַר, נָשִׂיא לִידּוֹן בְּשָׂעִיר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל: מָשִׁיחַ עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא פַּר, עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ. ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא.

The baraita continues: But weren’t these individuals already excluded from bringing a ewe or a female goat as a sin-offering, as an anointed priest is subject to atonement with a bull, and a king is subject to atonement with a male goat? Why then is an additional exclusionary derivation necessary? The baraita answers: The derivation is necessary, as one might have thought that an anointed priest brings a bull for absence of awareness of the matter together with the unwitting performance of an action, but that he brings a ewe or a female goat, as does a non-priest, for the unwitting performance of an action alone. Therefore, the verse states: “From among the common people,” which serves to exclude the anointed priest, who is completely exempt from bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression unless it was committed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. The baraita concludes: The phrase “from among the common people” serves to exclude the king.

תִּינַח מָשִׁיחַ, אֶלָּא נָשִׂיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי!

The Gemara challenges: Granted, in the case of an anointed priest it is clear why an additional exclusionary derivation is necessary. But in the case of a king, it is for the unwitting performance of an action that he brings a goat as his offering. Why then is the additional derivation necessary?

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָזֵל בָּתַר יְדִיעָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן (דְּאָזְלוּ) [דְּאָזְלִי] בָּתַר חֲטָאָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and thereafter his transgression became known to him. It could enter your mind to say: Let him bring a ewe or a female goat because he performed the transgression before he became king. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he brings a male goat as he is now a king. The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of knowledge, and holds that one brings the offering on the basis of his status at the time when his transgression became known to him. But according to the Rabbis, who follow the time of the performance of the sin, what can be said?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נִצְטְרֵף וְנַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and he then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and thereafter it became known to him that he had eaten forbidden fat. It could enter your mind to say: Let the two halves combine and let him bring a ewe or a female goat. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the status of a king is not like that of a commoner. Since a king brings a special offering, the half olive-bulk that he ate before becoming king does not combine with the half olive-bulk that he ate as a king.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: נְשִׂיאוּת מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְעָבַר, וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ – הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא מִצְטְרֵף, דְּאַכְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט וּפַלְגָא כְּשֶׁהוּא נָשִׂיא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט אַכְלֵיהּ מִצְטְרֵף, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? מַאי?

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: With regard to kingship, what is the halakha? Does it interpose between two parts of a transgression and prevent them from combining? What are the circumstances? It is a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and then was removed from his position, and then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat. Perhaps it is there, in the previous case, that the two actions do not combine, as he ate half when he was a commoner and half when he was king. But here, where he ate both this half and that half when he was a commoner, they combine. Or perhaps it is no different, and once he was appointed king and his status changed, the two actions do not combine. What is the halakha?

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּד וְחָזַר בּוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה – יִדָּחֶה. הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? מְשׁוּמָּד לָאו בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן הוּא, הַאי בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן הוּא.

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for his unwitting sin, and he became an apostate, and then retracted his apostasy, since he was disqualified from bringing the offering as an apostate he shall remain disqualified from bringing an offering for that sin. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? An apostate is ineligible as far as bringing an offering of any kind is concerned; this king is eligible with regard to bringing an offering, albeit of a different type.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָכַל סָפֵק חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל סְפֵקוֹ, מַהוּ? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָזְלִי בָּתַר חֲטָאָה לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּמַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, אֶלָּא כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one ate meat when he was a commoner, and there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and subsequently he was appointed king and his uncertainty became known to him, what is the halakha? According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who follow the time of the actual transgression, do not raise the dilemma, as in their opinion, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Rather, when you raise the dilemma it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of awareness of the transgression.

מִדְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי לְוַדַּאי, אִשְׁתַּנִּי לְסָפֵק, אוֹ דִלְמָא כִּי אִשְׁתַּנִּי לְוַדַּאי, דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי קׇרְבָּן דִּידֵיהּ – אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא אִשְׁתַּנִּי קׇרְבָּן דִּידֵיהּ, אֵימָא לַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי? תֵּיקוּ.

Is the halakha that from the fact that his status changed with regard to a definite transgression, as, if he was liable to bring a sin-offering and his sin became known to him after his coronation, he is completely exempt, it may be derived that his status changed with regard to an uncertain transgression as well, and he is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt-offering? Or perhaps when his status changed, it was with regard to a definite transgression only, as in that case his offering changed, since a king brings a goat as a sin-offering instead of a ewe or a female goat. But here, in the case of an uncertain transgression, as his offering does not change, say: Let him bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לִמְשׁוּמָּד.

§ The Sages taught: The verse states: “And if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents for that sin, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאָשֵׁם״, הַשָּׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon bar Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: “If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty; or if his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him” (Leviticus 4:27–28). From the words “be known to him” it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., who would not have sinned had he known that the act was forbidden, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression and achieves atonement in this way. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would sin even after becoming aware that the act is forbidden, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי הַמְנוּנָא: מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל הַדָּם – אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּמְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב – לְדָם נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד הָוֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לְדָם מִיהָא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ הוּא.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether the halakha is derived from the earlier or later verse? Rav Hamnuna said: The difference between them is in the case of an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat; they disagree as to whether or not he brings an offering for unwittingly consuming blood. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he is an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat, he is also considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: With regard to consuming blood, in any event, he is one who repents due to his awareness, as he is not considered an apostate with regard to blood.

וְהָא רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָם! אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּאוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה לְתֵאָבוֹן וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּלְתֵאָבוֹן אָכֵיל בְּמֵזִיד – מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַשְׁכַּח דְּהֶיתֵּרָא לָא אֲכַל דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לָאו מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava say that everyone agrees that an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat is not considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood? The Gemara answers: Rather, here it is with regard to a person who eats forbidden fat and an animal carcass due to appetite, e.g., only when he does not have access to kosher meat. And forbidden fat became confused for that person with permitted fat and he ate the forbidden fat. It is in that case that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he intentionally eats forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: Since if he finds food that is permitted he does not eat food that is prohibited, as he merely seeks to satiate his appetite, he is not an apostate.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָכַל חֵלֶב – זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר מָר: אָכַל חֵלֶב זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת כּוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר?

The Sages taught: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses or animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses, etc. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Why, after answering the question, does the tanna ask who is an apostate and then provide a different answer?

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָכַל חֵלֶב לְתֵאָבוֹן – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – הֲרֵי זֶה מִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד דְּבִסְתָמוֹ מִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֵל נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵיפָה, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is what he is saying: If one ate forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. If he ate it to express insolence, this person is a heretic. And which is the apostate who is a presumptive heretic merely on the basis of his actions? You must say that it is one who eats an animal carcass or a tereifa, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Based on the fact that he violates serious transgressions for which one has no appetite such as repugnant creatures or creeping animals, it is clear that he is a heretic who denies the Torah in its entirety. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כִּלְאַיִם דְּרַבָּנַן. מָר סָבַר: מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, דְּרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד. וּמָר סָבַר: כִּלְאַיִם כֵּיוָן דִּמְפַרְסַם אִסּוּרֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in the case of one who wears a garment of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen prohibited by rabbinic law. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: One who violates a prohibition by Torah law is an apostate; one who violates a prohibition by rabbinic law is not an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds: With regard to diverse kinds, since his violation of the prohibition is well known, as people see that he is wearing that garment, even though he violates a prohibition by rabbinic law, he is an apostate.

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לְתֵאָבוֹן – מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – מִין. וְחַד אָמַר: לְהַכְעִיס נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ מִין? כָּל הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מֵיתִיבִי: אָכַל פַּרְעוֹשׁ אֶחָד אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד. וְהָא הָכָא דִּלְהַכְעִיס הוּא, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ מְשׁוּמָּד! הָתָם דְּאָמַר: אֶטְעוֹם טַעַם דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: If one violated a prohibition due to appetite or convenience he is an apostate, while one who eats to express insolence is a heretic. And one said: One who violates a prohibition to express insolence is also an apostate. Rather, who is a heretic? It is anyone who engages in idol worship. The Gemara raises an objection to the first opinion from a baraita: If a person ate one flea or one mosquito, this person is an apostate. But here, isn’t it a case where it is a violation performed to express insolence, as one has no desire to eat these insects, and yet the tanna calls him an apostate? The Gemara answers: The reference there, in that baraita, is to the case of one who eats the flea due to appetite, as he says: I shall taste the flavor of prohibition. He seeks to eat a food that he has never eaten before.

וְאֵיזֶהוּ נָשִׂיא? זֶה מֶלֶךְ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״נָשִׂיא״ – יָכוֹל נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט כְּנַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, וּלְהַלָּן: הוּא אוֹמֵר ״לְמַעַן יִלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״.

§ The mishna teaches: Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: “When a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. The Sages taught: The verse states: “nasi.” One might have thought that the reference is to the prince of a tribe, like Naḥshon, son of Amminadab. Therefore, the verse states: “And performed any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God.” Later, in the passage with regard to the king, the verse states: “That he may learn to fear the Lord his God” (Deuteronomy 17:19).

מָה לְהַלָּן שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו, אַף נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו.

Just as there, in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God, so too, with regard to a nasi, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּגוֹן אֲנִי, מַהוּ בְּשָׂעִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי צָרָתְךָ בְּבָבֶל. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד, אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִים לְעַצְמָם, וְאֵלּוּ מְבִיאִים לְעַצְמָם! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כַּיְיפִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָכָא אֲנַן כַּיְיפִינַן לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Your rival, the Exilarch in Babylonia, is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to Rabbi Ḥiyya from a baraita: If kings of the kingdom of Israel and kings of the house of David perform an unwitting transgression, these bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings, and those bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There, the kings were not subject to each other’s authority. Here, in Eretz Yisrael, we are subject to their authority, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the Nasi.

רַב סָפְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּגוֹן אֲנִי מַהוּ בְּשָׂעִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם ״שֵׁבֶט״, הָכָא ״מְחוֹקֵק״, וְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה״ – זֶה רֹאשׁ גּוֹלָה שֶׁבְּבָבֶל, שֶׁרוֹדֶה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַקֵּל. ״וּמְחוֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו״ – אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל הִלֵּל שֶׁמְלַמְּדִים תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בָּרַבִּים.

Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.

מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַמָּשִׁיחַ? הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, לֹא הַמְרוּבֶּה בִּבְגָדִים. אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִמְרוּבֵּה בְּגָדִים, אֶלָּא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת.

MISHNA: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot.

וְאֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.

And the difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וּמְצֻוִּוים עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וַאֲסוּרִים עַל הָאַלְמָנָה, וְאֵינָם מִטַּמְּאִים בִּקְרוֹבֵיהֶם, וְלֹא פּוֹרְעִים, וְלֹא פּוֹרְמִים, וּמַחְזִירִין הָרוֹצֵחַ.

Both this High Priest currently serving and that former High Priest are equal with regard to performing the rest of the Yom Kippur service, and they are both commanded with regard to marrying a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13), and it is prohibited for both to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and they may not render themselves impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of their relatives dies (see Leviticus 21:11), and they may not grow their hair long and they may not rend their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25).

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר הָיוּ שׁוֹלְקִים בּוֹ אֶת הָעִיקָּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא לָסוּךְ אֶת הָעִקָּרִים אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵק?! אֶלָּא: שׁוֹרִין אֶת הָעִקָּרִים בְּמַיִם, וּמֵצִיף עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן, וְקוֹלֵט אֶת הָרֵיחַ וְקוֹפְחוֹ.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: To blend the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil in the oil the roots of the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn’t that amount of oil insufficient even to smear on the roots of those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? Rather, they soak the roots in water. Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises and they float oil on the water and the oil absorbs the fragrance. And at that point, one removed the oil [vekippeḥo] from the water, and that was the anointing oil.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי נֵס אֶחָד נַעֲשָׂה בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? וַהֲלֹא תְּחִלָּתוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין, וּמִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה נִמְשָׁח מִשְׁכָּן וְכֵלָיו אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כׇּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn’t it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וַיִּמְשַׁח [אֶת] הַמִּשְׁכָּן [וְאֶת] כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ״, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר, כַּמָּה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ בּוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, תְּחִלָּתוֹ לֹא הָיָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין, רְאֵה כַּמָּה יוֹרָה בּוֹלַעַת, וְכַמָּה עִקָּרִים בּוֹלְעִים, וְכַמָּה הָאוּר שׂוֹרֵף, וּבוֹ נִמְשַׁח מִשְׁכָּן וְכֵלָיו וְאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כׇּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וּבוֹ נִמְשְׁחוּ כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּמְלָכִים.

It is taught in another 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, how many miracles were performed in its regard continuously, from beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve log. Consider how much oil a pot absorbs, and how much oil is absorbed by the roots, and how much oil the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed with it for the entire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations.

וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה, וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִים מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה מָשְׁחוּ אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה? מִפְּנֵי מַחְלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל אֲדוֹנִיָּה, וְאֶת יוֹאָשׁ מִפְּנֵי עֲתַלְיָה, וְאֶת יְהוֹאָחָז מִפְּנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁמֶן קַיָּים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״, ״זֶה״ – בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין הֲווֹ.

Apropos the anointing oil, the baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.

אָמַר מָר: וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, נֵימָא קְרָא ״וְהַכֹּהֵן מִתַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, מַאי ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמִבָּנָיו דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אִי הָוֵי מָשִׁיחַ – הָוֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְאִי לָא – לָא הָוֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.

§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: And even a High Priest, 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 only: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is the reason that it says: “The anointed priest”? The Torah teaches us that even from among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointed with oil he is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest.

אָמַר מָר: וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל מַמְלַכְתּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָכֶם. וּמְנָלַן דְּכִי אִיכָּא מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּעֵי מְשִׁיחָה, וְלָאו כָּל דְּבָעֵי מַלְכָּא מוֹרֵית מַלְכוּתָא לִבְנֵיהּ, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא וּבָנָיו בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל״. בִּזְמַן שֶׁשָּׁלוֹם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״הוּא וּבָנָיו״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּלֹא מְשִׁיחָה.

The Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “So that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom is an inheritance for you. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that when there is a dispute with regard to succession, the king requires anointing, and it is not that whenever the king wishes he can bequeath the kingdom to his son without anointing him? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his sons, in the midst of Israel.” When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: “He and his sons,” even without anointing; but when there is dispute, anointing is required.

תָּנָא: אַף יֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי לֹא נִמְשַׁח אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַחְלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם. וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא! חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד מְשׁוּחִין, מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְשׁוּחִין. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״קוּם מְשָׁחֵהוּ כִּי זֶה וְגוֹ׳״ – זֶה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה, וְאֵין אַחֵר טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה.

It is taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram (see II Kings 9:1–14). The Sages challenge: And let him derive that Jehu was anointed due to the fact that he was the first of his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that the verse states: “Arise, anoint him, for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: This king, David, requires anointing, but another king does not require anointing.

אָמַר מָר: אַף יֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי לֹא נִמְשַׁח אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַחְלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם. וּמִשּׁוּם מַחְלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב נִמְעוֹל בְּשֶׁמֶן? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא, הָכִי נָמֵי בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oil and anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is like that which Rav Pappa said in another context: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. So too, with regard to Jehu, they anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.

וְאֶת יְהוֹאָחָז מִפְּנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וּמִי קַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ הַבְּכוֹר יוֹחָנָן הַשֵּׁנִי יְהוֹיָקִים הַשְּׁלִישִׁי צִדְקִיָּהוּ הָרְבִיעִי שַׁלּוּם״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ, הוּא יוֹחָנָן הוּא יְהוֹאָחָז. לְעוֹלָם יְהוֹיָקִים קַשִּׁישׁ, וּמַאי ״בְּכוֹר״? בְּכוֹר לַמַּלְכוּת.

The baraita teaches: And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim 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: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; these are two names for one person. Likewise, he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz, who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz. And what is the meaning of the term “firstborn” written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of a firstborn in terms of ascent to the kingship.

וּמִי מָלְכִי זוּטְרֵי מִקַּמֵּי קַשִּׁישֵׁי? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמַּמְלָכָה נָתַן לִיהוֹרָם כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר״! יְהוֹרָם מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם אֲבוֹתָיו הֲוָה, יְהוֹיָקִים לָאו מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם אֲבוֹתָיו הֲוָה.

The Gemara asks: And do younger sons rule before elder sons? But isn’t it written: “And the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: Jehoram was a surrogate for his ancestors as he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. Jehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors; he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him.

אָמַר מָר: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ, הוּא יוֹחָנָן הוּא יְהוֹאָחָז. וְהָא חַד חַד קָא חָשֵׁיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הָרְבִיעִי״! מַאי ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ – שְׁלִישִׁי לַבָּנִים, וּמַאי ״רְבִיעִי״ – רְבִיעִי לַמַּלְכוּת. דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מְלַךְ יְהוֹאָחָז, וּלְבַסּוֹף יְהוֹיָקִים, וּלְבַסּוֹף יְכׇנְיָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף צִדְקִיָּהוּ.

The Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the verse enumerate them individually, as it is written: “The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,” indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of third? It means the third among the sons. And what is the meaning of fourth? It means the fourth to ascend to the kingship. How so? Initially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately, after him, Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Zedekiah, who was fourth to the kingship.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁלּוּם? שֶׁהָיָה מְשׁוּלָּם בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״שַׁלּוּם״ – שֶׁשָּׁלְמָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד בְּיָמָיו, וּמָה שְׁמוֹ? מַתַּנְיָה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּמְלֵךְ מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל אֶת מַתַּנְיָה דוֹדוֹ תַּחְתָּיו וַיַּסֵּב אֶת שְׁמוֹ צִדְקִיָּהוּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהּ יַצְדִּיק עָלֶיךָ אֶת הַדִּין אִם תִּמְרוֹד בִּי, (שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְבִאֵהוּ בָּבֶלָה) וּכְתִיב: ״וְגַם בַּמֶּלֶךְ נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר מָרָד אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבִּיעוֹ בֵּאלֹהִים״.

The Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum? It is due to the fact that he was perfect [meshullam] is his actions. Some say: He was called Shallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [sheshalema] during his days. And what was his actual name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? He said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).