Horayot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

What is stated below

refers to a king

who has no authority over him

and there is no one above him in his kingdom

other than the Lord, his God; so too, a nasi

in whose regard it is written “the Lord, his God”—this refers to one

who has no authority over him other than the Lord, his God—

that is, a king.

Rabbi Judah the Nasi asked

Rabbi

Ḥiyya: In a case such as mine,

where I am a nasi, if I had been in this situation while the Temple was standing,

what

would my law be with regard to atoning for my unwitting transgression

with a goat 2 ,

2 ,

as a nasi? His uncertainty was whether his status as nasi would be considered nasi-ship that renders him liable for the goat of a nasi.

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥiyya:

Behold,

there is

your counterpart in Babylonia!

The exilarch in Babylonia, who is above you. A bull offering is required only of a nasi who has no one above him other than the Lord, his God; and since he is above you, you do not have the status of a nasi with regard to the obligation to bring the offering of a nasi.

Since Rabbi Ḥiyya told him that the exilarch was his “counterpart,” rather than telling him that he was above him, Rabbi understood him to be arguing that they were equal. This was the reason that Rabbi would not be liable to bring a bull. Therefore,

Rabbi raised an objection

to Rabbi Ḥiyya: What difference does it make that my counterpart is the exilarch in Babylonia? Did we not learn:

The kings of Israel

who sinned unwittingly

and the kings of the House of David

who sinned unwittingly—these

bring for themselves

a goat for their unwitting transgressions,

and those bring for themselves

a goat for their unwitting transgressions.

It is evident that when two equal kings sin, both are liable to bring a goat. If so, what difference does it make that the exilarch is equal to me? As long as neither of us is greater than the other, the obligation to bring the goat of a nasi can apply to me.

Rabbi Ḥiyya therefore clarified his intention and

said to him

Rabbi:

There,

with regard to the kings of Israel and Judah,

they are not subordinate to one another;

neither one is subordinate to the other.

But

here,

in the case under discussion, concerning you and the exilarch,

we,

the residents of Eretz Yisrael,

are subordinate to them,

to the residents of Babylonia. And since we are subordinate to him, you are not considered one who has no one above him other than the Lord, his God.

Rav Safra taught this

as Rabbi Ḥiyya’s response:

Rabbi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case such as mine, what is the law with regard to a goat?

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi:

There,

in Babylonia, there is the position of the exilarch, whose authority is considered nasi-ship, because he is called a

“scepter.”

But

here,

in Eretz Yisrael, the nasi is called only a

“lawgiver”

[a sage], and this is merely limited authority, since he lacks the power to rule over the people. Therefore, a nasi in Eretz Yisrael, such as Rabbi, does not have the status of a nasi, because there is another authority above him besides the Lord, his God.

And as it is taught

in a beraita: With regard to whom was the verse stated:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”?

This is the exilarch in Babylonia, who rules over Israel

with a scepter.

And the continuation of the verse states:

“And a lawgiver from between his feet”—these are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah

and formulate rulings

for Israel publicly.

Rabbi was a descendant of Hillel the Elder, and he did not have the power to impose monetary laws upon the people; he could only teach them halakha.

Mishna:

And who is

the

anointed

priest whom we learned about above, at the beginning of the chapter, that he brings a bull for an unwitting act that he performed on the basis of his own ruling? This is the High Priest

anointed with the anointing oil,

and

not

a High Priest who is merely

one appointed through the additional garments,

who wears the eight garments of the High Priest but is not anointed with the anointing oil , as was the case with the High Priests who served in the Second Temple, for whom there was no anointing oil because the oil had been concealed in the days of Josiah.

There are

no distinctions in law

between a priest

who is

a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, and

a High Priest who is merely

appointed through the additional garments

and is not anointed with the anointing oil,

except

for one distinction בלבד, namely:

the bull brought for all the commandments

that he transgressed through an unwitting ruling.

Thus, when an anointed priest errs on the basis of his mistaken ruling, he brings a bull. A priest appointed through the additional garments, however, does not bring a bull at all, but brings a female sheep or female goat, as required for the sin offering of an individual .

And

likewise

there are no

distinctions in law

between a High Priest

who is

serving, and a priest

who is

former,

for if a disqualification befell the High Priest—for example, he became impure or experienced a seminal emission—and another High Priest was appointed in his place for the service of Yom Kippur [which must be performed specifically by a High Priest], then when the first priest becomes fit again, he returns to his service, while the second is no longer fit to serve either as a High Priest or as an ordinary priest, although all the mitzvot of the High Priest remain incumbent upon him. Therefore, when the first priest returned, he was called a “serving priest,” whereas the second was then called a “former priest” [and the same law applies to a priest who became former because of a physical blemish or old age: he is considered a “former priest” with regard to the fact that he remains liable to bring the bull of an anointed priest] .

And there is no difference between them

except for the bull offering of Yom Kippur,

which the High Priest brings on Yom Kippur from his own funds; it is brought only from the funds of the serving kohen, and not from those of the kohen who was removed.

And

likewise

the tenth of an ephah

—the twelve loaves that the High Priest brings each day from his own funds for the minḥat ḥavitin, half in the evening and half in the morning. This meal offering is brought only from the funds of the serving kohen, and not from those of the kohen who was removed.

However,

this one,

the serving kohen,

and this one,

the kohen who was removed,

are equal with regard to the Yom Kippur service,

as this service is valid when performed by either one of them.

And

likewise, they are equal in that

they are commanded concerning a virgin,

to take specifically a virgin as a wife, and not a woman who had previously had relations, as it is written: “And he shall take a woman in her virginity.”

And likewise, both are equal in that

they are forbidden

to have relations

with a widow.

And

likewise, they are equal in that

they do not become impure for their relatives,

in accordance with the law of a High Priest, who does not become impure even for the seven close relatives. He is not like an ordinary kohen, who becomes impure for his seven close relatives.

Nor do they let their hair grow wild

on their heads,

nor do they rend

their garments over the dead, for the Torah states concerning a High Priest: “He shall not let the hair of his head grow wild, nor rend his garments.”

And they return

the

murderer

who killed unintentionally, whose law is to flee to a city of refuge because of the blood avenger and remain there until the death of the High Priest. The serving kohen and the kohen who was removed from his anointed status are equal: if either one of them dies, the murderer returns to his city.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The anointing oil that Moses made in the wilderness,

which was made from several types of spice roots and olive oil, as explained in the portion of Ki Tisa—how was it made?

They boiled

—cooked—

in it,

in this oil,

the roots,

the spice roots mentioned in the portion concerning the anointing oil; by boiling them in the oil, the fragrance of the spices was absorbed into the oil—

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is not possible that they boiled the spices in the oil, because

indeed

even

to anoint the roots

alone, without boiling them,

it would not suffice

for the quantity of oil available. There were only twelve log of oil [as the Torah states: “and olive oil, a hin”—and a hin is twelve log], while the roots were numerous. Even if they had merely anointed them with oil, all the oil would have been absorbed into the roots; all the more so, if they boiled them, all the oil would have been absorbed into them.

Rather,

this was how the oil was made: at first they

soaked the roots in water,

so that they would absorb water and become saturated, and would then absorb little of the oil.

And

after removing them from the water,

they poured oil over them

11 , and

by doing so

the oil absorbed

the

fragrance

of the spices,

and they squeezed them out,

removing the oil immediately so that it would not be absorbed into the roots.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him

—to Rabbi Yosei: Why are you astonished? How is it possible that they boiled the roots in oil without being concerned that the oil would be consumed?

Was only one miracle performed with the anointing oil? Indeed,

many miracles were performed with it!

For

at the beginning

of this oil, before the roots were boiled or soaked, there were only

twelve log

alone.

And

even so,

from it was anointed

the entire

Tabernacle and its vessels,

and likewise

Aaron and his sons

were anointed with it

throughout all seven days of the inauguration.

Another miracle was performed with it, for even after all these had been anointed with it,

and all of it

remained

in existence for the future. As it is stated [Exodus 30]

Exodus 30],

“This shall be a holy anointing oil for Me—

throughout your generations.”

Since we find that miracles were performed with it, it follows that one may also rely on a miracle in making it and make it by boiling, without concern that the oil might be consumed.

And likewise,

it was taught

in a

baraita

that these miracles were performed with the anointing oil. For it is written: “

And Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle and everything in it.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: The anointing oil that Moses made in the wilderness—how many miracles were performed with it, from beginning to end!

And these are them:

At the beginning

of this oil

there was only

the measure of

twelve log.

Look

and consider

how much

of the oil the

cauldron

in which the roots were boiled

absorbed.

And how many roots

that were boiled in the oil

absorbed

of it.

And how much the fire

on which they were cooked

burned

and evaporated from the oil.

And

in addition to all this, we find that

with it the Tabernacle and

all

its vessels, and

likewise

Aaron and his sons throughout all seven days of the inauguration, and

likewise

High Priests were anointed with it

at the time of their appointments.

And

the

kings

were also anointed with it.

And even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest requires anointing,

to sanctify him with the sanctity of a High Priest; by inheriting his father, he is not sanctified as a High Priest who has been anointed.

But

they do not anoint

with it

a king who is the son of a king

at the time of his enthronement, because by inheriting his father he becomes king and does not require anointing for his appointment. Below, the Gemara will explain the sources for these distinctions between the laws.

And if you will say:

if so,

why did they anoint Solomon

the king who was the son of King David, for one does not anoint a king who is the son of a king?

Your answer:

because of the challenge posed by Adonijah

David’s son, who sought to reign; and wherever there is a dispute, even a king’s son requires anointing when he is appointed, as explained below, immediately following.

And Joash

the king of Judah, the son of King Ahaziah, was anointed, despite the fact that a king who is the son of a king is not anointed,

because of

the dispute, for his mother,

Athaliah

had killed all the royal descendants of Judah [and only Joash survived, because his aunt Jehosheba hid him, as explicitly stated in II Kings 11].

And Jehoahaz

the king of Judah, who was the son of King Josiah, was anointed

because of

the challenge posed by

Jehoiakim,

his brother,

who was two years older than he,

and therefore had precedence over him for the kingship. This too is considered a challenge to the kingship; consequently, in this situation as well, the son of a king requires anointing.

The baraitha continues to recount the miracles associated with the anointing oil. In addition to anointing all those mentioned, without the oil being depleted, another miracle occurred.

And that oil

in its entirety remained

in existence for the future. As it is stated: “This shall be sacred anointing oil for Me throughout your generations.”

“This” has the numerical value of twelve log.

That is, the twelve log of anointing oil alluded to by the word “this” shall remain for Me throughout your generations—for the future.

The Gemara returns to explain the words of the baraitha:

The Master said: And even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest requires anointing

at the time of his induction.

From where do we know

that he requires anointing for his appointment and does not become High Priest through inheriting his father’s position?

For it is written: “And the anointed priest who succeeds him, from among his sons.”

The apparent redundancy of the wording is difficult, for

let the verse say: “And the priest who succeeds him, from among his sons.”

And

why

was it necessary to add the word

“anointed”?

Rather, necessarily,

it teaches us

through this redundancy the law

that from among the sons of a High Priest

they will become High Priests only

if he was anointed,

that is, if they anointed his inheriting son, then

he becomes

his son

a High Priest.

But

if not,

if they did not anoint his son,

he does not become a High Priest 19 .

The Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the words of the baraitha:

The Master said:

We learned in the baraitha:

A king

who is

the son of a king is not anointed. From where do we know

that he does not require appointment through anointing, but becomes king through inheriting his father?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: For it is written [

Deuteronomy 17]:

“So that he may long reign upon his throne,

he and his sons among Israel.”

The wording “he and his sons” indicates that

it is an inheritance for you,

the sons of kings.

That is, the kingship passes by inheritance, like an inheritance that a person bequeaths to his son. Therefore, his son becomes king immediately after his death, and there is no need to anoint him with the anointing oil.

The Gemara now challenges the statement in the baraitha that when there is a dispute concerning the kingship, even the son of a king must be anointed:

And from where do we know that when there is a dispute

concerning the kingship,

the heir requires anointing

?

And

if

is it not the case that whatever the king desires,

everything the king wishes,

he bequeaths,

he bequeaths

the kingship to his sons,

even without anointing!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

This law is derived from what

the verse says:

“So that he may long reign upon his throne” —

“he and his sons” —

“among Israel.”

And we expound as follows: Only

when

there is

peace in Israel, do we apply to him the phrase “he and his sons,”

meaning that his sons become kings through inheritance,

even without anointing.

But when there is no peace in Israel, the sons of a king become kings only through anointing, like the appointment of a new king, because in such a situation the verse did not establish the law of inheritance with regard to the kingship.

The tanna

in a beraita:

Even Jehu son of Nimshi,

whom the prophet Elisha anointed king [II Kings 9]]

was anointed only because of the dispute concerning Joram

son of Ahab.

And the Gemara asks:

Then let us derive

that Jehu son of Nimshi required anointing

because

he was a

first

king in his family, as his father was not a king; and a king who is not the son of a king certainly requires appointment specifically through anointing. If so, why did the beraita need to state that they anointed him because of the dispute?

And we answer: This beraita

is incomplete, and

it must be stated that

this is what it teaches:

Only

the kings of the House of David

are required to be

anointed,

but

the kings of Israel are not

required to be

anointed.

And we explain:

From where do we derive

that there is no need to anoint the kings of Israel?

Rava said: The verse states

concerning the anointing of King David [I Samuel 16]: “And the Lord said,

Arise, anoint him, for this

is he.” And we expound:

“This,”

David, and the other kings of the House of David,

require anointing

in order to become king.

But another

who is not among the kings of the House of David, but rather among the kings of Israel,

requires anointing 22 .

And the Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita concerning the anointing of Jehu:

The Master said: Even Jehu son of Nimshi was not anointed

as king

except because of the dispute concerning Joram

son of Ahab. And we ask:

But should we misuse the anointing oil because of the dispute concerning Joram son of Ahab?

Is it permitted to use the anointing oil? But he was a king of Israel, and the law of anointing does not apply to him; and the anointing oil is consecrated. Moreover, we have not found that anointing is performed because of a dispute except in the case of a son of a king from the kings of Judah, with regard to whom the verse innovated that even a king’s son requires anointing when there is a dispute.

And we answer: Indeed, it is prohibited to use the anointing oil for this purpose. Jehu was not anointed with the anointing oil; rather,

as Rav Pappa said [below, 12a], Jehoahaz was anointed

with

pure balsam oil,

pure balsam oil.

Here too,

the anointing of Jehu was

with pure balsam oil.

And concerning what is stated in the beraita:

And Jehoahaz,

the son of Josiah, they anointed as king even though he was the son of a king,

because of

the dispute of

Jehoiakim

his brother,

who was two years older than he.

The Gemara asks:

But was

Jehoiakim

older

than

him,

than Jehoahaz!?

But

is it not

written

in Chronicles:

“And the sons of Josiah”:

“The firstborn, Johanan.”

“The second, Jehoiakim.”

“The third, Zedekiah. The fourth—

‘Shallum.’”

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

The four names mentioned in the verse are not the names of four sons, but rather of only three sons, namely: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah.

And this is the explanation of the verse:

a. Zedekiah appears under two names in the verse:

He

who is called

Shallum, he is Zedekiah.

b.

He is Johanan—

he is Jehoahaz.

That is, Jehoahaz, the firstborn son, had another name, Johanan, and this is the name by which he is called in this verse.

It follows that the firstborn was Jehoahaz, about whom the verse states that he was the firstborn, whereas the second was Jehoiakim.

If so, it is difficult: Why do we say that Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz?

And we answer:

Jehoiakim always

was

older

than Jehoahaz.

And what

is the meaning of the expression

“firstborn”—Johanan, who, as stated, is an appellation for Jehoahaz?

It does not mean that Jehoahaz [called Johanan here] was the firstborn of the brothers; rather, he was

the firstborn with regard to kingship.

That is, he was the first to become king, before his brother Jehoiakim.

And we ask: How in fact did Jehoahaz become king first?

But

do we find that

younger kings

[that younger sons become kings]

before an older one,

when there are older brothers?

But it is written

[II Chronicles 21]

“And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, for he was the firstborn.”

This implies that his being the firstborn was the reason he became king rather than his brothers. If so, how did the younger Jehoahaz become king before Jehoiakim!?

And we answer: Although the manner of inheriting the kingship is that the firstborn son becomes king, this applies only in a case like

Jehoram,

who

was one who filled his fathers’ place 24 ,

as he was righteous like his father [and although Jehoram later acted wickedly, he was righteous at the time of his kingship]. But

Jehoiakim,

although he was the firstborn,

was not one who filled his fathers’ place 25 ,

and therefore he did not become king first.

And now the Gemara comes to discuss the words of the beraita:

The Master said: He is Shallum—

he is Zedekiah. He is Johanan—

he is Jehoahaz.

The Gemara wonders:

But it counts each one individually, as it is written, “The third, the fourth.”

This implies that the verse mentions four sons, and that each of the names is the name of a different son, with each one born after his brother.

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“third”

stated with regard to Zedekiah?

The third among the sons.

Zedekiah was Josiah’s third son.

And what

is the meaning of the expression

“fourth”

stated in the verse, despite the fact that the verse mentions only three sons? It means

the fourth with regard to kingship,

as Zedekiah, the third son, was the fourth son to become king.

At first,

the first,

Jehoahaz became king. And at the end

his older brother

Jehoiakim

became king.

And at the end

Jehoiachin

Jeconiah

[whose name is not mentioned in the verse] became king,

and at the end

Zedekiah

Zedekiah became king.

The Sages taught: He is Shallum; he is Zedekiah.

And why was his name called Shallum?

Because

he was complete in his deeds,

as he was entirely righteous and possessed good deeds.

Some say:

The verse called Zedekiah

Shallum

because

he completed

and brought to an end

the kingship of the House of David in his days.

And we conclude: All these names are merely appellations of Zedekiah.

And what was his name?—

His name was Mattaniah.

As it is stated

[II Kings 24]:

“And the king of Babylonia made Mattaniah, his uncle, king in his stead. And he changed

the king’s

name to Zedekiah.”

This was to hint that

he said to him:

Nebuchadnezzar:

May God justify the judgment against you

[meaning, that you will be punished through Him]

if you rebel against me!

And indeed, we find another verse in which it is explicit that Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah swear in the name of Hashem not to rebel against him,

as it is written

II Chronicles 32:

“He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar—

who had made him swear by God.”