Horayot 11b — the Talmud in English

What is stated below

refers to a king

who has no authority over him

and no one is above him within his kingdom

except the Lord, his God; so too, a Nasi

—when it is written concerning him, “the Lord, his God,” this refers to one

over whom there is no one except the Lord, his God—

that is, a king.

Rabbi

Judah the Nasi

asked Rabbi Hiyya: In a case such as mine,

since I am a Nasi, if I had been in this situation while the Temple was standing,

what

would my law be regarding atonement for my inadvertent transgression

with a goat 2 ,

as a Nasi? His question was whether his position as Nasi was considered a position that required him to bring the goat designated for a Nasi.

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi:

Behold,

there is

your rival authority in Babylonia!

The Exilarch in Babylonia is above you. Only a Nasi over whom there is no one except the Lord, his God, is obligated to bring the offering of a Nasi. Since he is above you, you do not have the status of a Nasi with regard to the obligation to bring the Nasi’s offering.

Since Rabbi Hiyya told him that the Exilarch was his “rival authority,” rather than saying that he was above him, Rabbi understood him to mean that the two of them were equal. This, he thought, was the reason that he would not be obligated to bring the offering. Therefore,

Rabbi raised an objection from a source

to Rabbi Hiyya: What difference does it make that the Exilarch in Babylonia is my rival authority? We learned:

The kings of Israel

who sinned inadvertently,

and the kings of the House of David

who sinned inadvertently—these

bring for themselves

a goat for their inadvertent transgressions,

and these bring for themselves

a goat for their inadvertent transgressions.

This proves that when two equal kings sin inadvertently, both are obligated to bring a goat. If so, what difference does it make that the Exilarch is my equal? As long as neither of us is greater than the other, the obligation to bring the offering of a Nasi can apply to me.

Rabbi Hiyya therefore clarified his meaning and

said

to Rabbi:

There,

in the case of the kings of Israel and Judah,

they are not subordinate to one another;

neither is subject to the other.

But

here,

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

we,

the inhabitants of the Land of Israel,

are subordinate to them,

to the inhabitants of Babylonia. Since we are subject to him, you are not considered one over whom there is no one except the Lord, his God.

Rav Safra taught Rabbi Hiyya’s reply in this manner

to his response:

Rabbi asked Rabbi Hiyya: In a case such as mine, what is the law regarding the goat?

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi:

There,

in Babylonia, there is the position of the Exilarch, whose authority is considered the authority of a Nasi, because he is called a

“scepter.”

But

here,

in the Land of Israel, the Nasi is called only a

“lawgiver”

[a sage]. This is only limited authority, since he does not have the power to rule over the people. Therefore, a Nasi in the Land of Israel, such as Rabbi, does not have the status of a Nasi, because there is another authority over him besides the Lord, his God.

And as it is taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: With regard to whom was the verse

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”

stated? It refers to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who rules over Israel

with a scepter.

And the continuation of the verse is:

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

and issue rulings

publicly to Israel.

Rabbi was a descendant of the elder Hillel. He did not have the power to compel the people in monetary laws; he could only instruct them in the law.

Mishna:

And who is

the

anointed priest

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

anointed with the anointing oil,

and

not

a High Priest who is only

the one increased through the garments,

who wears the eight garments of the High Priest but was not anointed with the anointing oil , like the High Priests who served in the Second Temple, when they did not have the anointing oil because it had been hidden in the days of Josiah. There are no

differences in law

between a priest

who is

great,

anointed with the anointing oil, and

a High Priest who is only

increased through the garments

and was not anointed with the anointing oil,

except

for one difference, namely:

the bull brought for all the commandments

that he violated through an erroneous ruling.

A priest anointed with oil who sins inadvertently on the basis of his erroneous ruling brings a bull. But a priest increased through the garments does not bring a bull at all; rather, he brings a female sheep or female goat, as required for an individual sin offering.

And

likewise

there are no

differences in law

between a priest

who is great and

serving, and a priest

who is great but

no longer serving,

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 Yom Kippur service [which must specifically be performed by a High Priest], then when the first priest becomes fit again, he returns to his service. The second is no longer fit to serve either as a High Priest or as an ordinary priest, but all the mitzvot of the High Priest still apply to him. Therefore, when the first priest returns, he is called the “serving priest,” while the second is then called the “former priest” [and the same law applies to a priest who ceased serving because of a physical defect 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 nothing between them

except the bull of Yom Kippur,

which the High Priest brings on Yom Kippur from his own funds, and it comes only from the acting priest, and not from the priest who passed from office.

And

likewise

the tenth of an ephah

which is the twelve loaves that the High Priest brings every day from his own funds for the minhat havitin, half in the evening and half in the morning. And this meal-offering comes only from the acting priest, and not from the priest who passed from office.

However,

this,

the acting priest,

and this,

the priest who passed from office,

are equal in the service of Yom Kippur,

for this service is valid through either of them.

And

likewise they are equal in this, that

they are commanded regarding a virgin,

to take specifically a virgin as a wife, and not one who has had intercourse, as it is written, “and he shall take a woman in her virginity.”

And both are likewise equal in this, that

they are forbidden

to have intercourse

with a widow.

And

likewise they are equal in this, that

they do not become impure for their relatives,

as is the law of a High Priest, who does not become impure even for the seven close relatives. And he is not like an ordinary priest, who becomes impure for his seven relatives.

Nor do they let their hair grow

the hair of their heads,

nor do they rend

their garments over a dead person, for it is stated in the Torah regarding a High Priest, “He shall not let the hair of his head grow, and he shall not rend his garments.”

And they return

the

manslayer

who killed unintentionally, whose law is to flee to a city of refuge because of the blood-avenger and to sit there until the death of the High Priest. And they are equal, the acting priest and the priest who passed from his mashiach status, in that if one of them dies, the manslayer returns to his city.

Gemara:

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

which was made from several kinds of spice roots and olive oil, as explained in the portion of Ki Tisa—what was the manner of its preparation?

They boiled

cooked

in it,

in this oil,

the roots,

the roots of the spices mentioned in the passage concerning the anointing oil; and through boiling them in the oil, the fragrance of the spices was absorbed into the oil—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yose says:

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

after all,

even

to anoint the roots

alone, without boiling them,

it is insufficient

for this, the quantity of oil in that amount, which contained only twelve log [as it is written in the Torah, “and olive oil, a hin”—and a hin is twelve log], while the roots were numerous. Even if they merely anointed them with the 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 the preparation of the oil: at first they

soaked the roots in water,

so that they would absorb water and become saturated, and thereafter would not absorb much of the oil.

And

after removing them from the water,

they poured oil over them

11 , and

through this

the oil absorbed

the

the fragrance

of the spices,

and they squeezed them,

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

Rabbi Judah said

to Rabbi Yose: What is this that you wonder—how is it possible that they cooked the roots in oil and were not concerned that the oil would be consumed?

And was only one miracle performed with the anointing oil? After all,

many miracles were performed with it!

For

at its beginning

this oil, before the cooking or soaking of the roots, contained only

twelve log

alone,

and

even so,

from it all

the

Tabernacle and its vessels

were anointed, and likewise

Aaron and his sons

were anointed with it

throughout all seven days of the inauguration.

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

and all of it

remained

existing for the future. As it is stated [

Exodus 30],

“Holy anointing oil shall this be for Me

throughout your generations.”

And since we find that miracles were performed with it, therefore even in its preparation one may rely upon the miracle and make it through cooking, and there is no need to fear lest the oil 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 that was in it.”

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

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

And these are they:

the beginning

of this oil

was only

the measure of

twelve log.

See

and consider

how much of the oil the

the

cauldron

in which they boiled the roots

absorbs.

And how many roots

that were cooked in the oil

absorb

from it.

And how much the fire

upon which they cooked it

burns

and evaporates 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

at the time of their appointments.

And

also the

kings

were 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; and by inheriting his father he does not become sanctified as a High Priest who was anointed.

But

they do not anoint

him 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.

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 do they not anoint a king who is the son of a king?

Your answer:

because of the dispute of Adonijah

the son of David, who wanted to reign; and where there is a dispute, even the son of a king requires anointing at the time of his appointment, as is explained below, nearby.

And Joash

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

because of

the dispute, for his mother

Athaliah

killed all the royal offspring of Judah [and only Joash was saved, by Jehosheba his aunt hiding him, as explicitly stated in II Kings 11].

And Jehoahaz

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

because of

the dispute of

Jehoiakim,

his brother,

who was older than him by two years,

and therefore preceded him in kingship. This too is considered a challenge to the kingship, and therefore in this manner as well a son of a king requires anointing.

And the beraita continues to relate the miracles of the anointing oil: besides the fact that they anointed all those mentioned with it and the oil was not depleted, another miracle occurred.

And that oil

all of it remained

in existence for the future. As it is stated: “The oil of sacred anointment shall this be for Me, for your generations.”

“This” in gematria: twelve log measures it was.

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

And the Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita:

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

at the time of his initiation.

From where do we know

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

For it is written: “And the anointed priest who shall take his place, from among his sons.”

And apparently the superfluity of the wording is puzzling, for

let the verse say: “And the priest who shall take his place, from among his sons.”

And

why

was it necessary to add the word

“the anointed one”?

Rather, necessarily,

it teaches us

through this superfluity the law

that from the sons of a High Priest

they will be High Priests only

if he was anointed,

that is, if they anointed his son who inherits him, then he

is

his son

a High Priest.

But

if not,

if they did not anoint his son,

he is not a High Priest. 19.

And the Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the words of the beraita:

The master said,

we learned in a beraita:

They do not anoint a king

who is

the son of a king. From where do we know

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

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: for it is written [

Deuteronomy 17],

“So that he may prolong his days over his kingdom,

he and his sons among Israel.”

And it is implied from the wording “he and his sons” 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.

And now the Gemara asks about what was stated in the beraita: that where there is a dispute over the kingship, they must anoint even the son of a king:

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

over the kingship,

anointing is required

for the heir?

And

when

is it not that whatever the king desires,

everything that the king wishes,

he bequeaths,

he bequeaths

the kingship to his sons,

even without anointing?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

this law is learned from what

the verse says:

“So that he may prolong his days over his kingdom”—

he and his sons—

among Israel.”

And we derive: only

when

there is

peace in Israel, we apply to it “he and his sons,”

that is, 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, for in this circumstance the verse did not establish that the law of inheritance applies to kingship.

A tanna

in a beraita:

“Even Jehu son of Nimshi,

whom the prophet Elisha anointed as king [II Kings 9,

was anointed only because of the dispute with Joram

son of Ahab.”

And the Gemara asks:

But let it be derived

that Jehu son of Nimshi was required to be anointed

because

he was a

first

king in his family, since his father was not a king; and a king who is not the son of a king certainly needs to be appointed specifically through anointing. Why, then, did the beraita need to say that he was anointed because of the dispute?

And we answer: This beraita

is deficient, and

it is necessary to say that

this is what it teaches:

Only

the kings of the House of David

need to be

anointed,

but

the kings of Israel do not

need to be

anointed.

And we explain:

From where do we know

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

Rava said: The verse says

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

‘Rise, 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 be kings.

But another,

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

does not require 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 with Joram

son of Ahab. And we ask:

But because of the dispute with Joram son of Ahab, shall we misuse the oil?

Is it permitted to use the anointing oil? But he was a king of Israel, and his law does not require anointing; and the anointing oil is consecrated. For we have not found that they anoint because of a dispute except a son of a king from among the kings of Judah, concerning whom the verse innovated that even a king’s son requires anointing when there is a dispute.

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

as Rav Pappa said

[below, 12a], Jehoahaz was anointed

with pure balsam,

pure balsam oil.

So too,

the anointing of Jehu was

with pure balsam.

And concerning what is stated in the beraita:

“And Jehoahaz,

the son of Josiah, they anointed as king although 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:

And 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 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, had another name, Johanan, and this is how he is called in this verse.

It follows that the firstborn was Jehoahaz, concerning whom it is said in the verse 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 what the verse says,

“firstborn”

— “Johanan,” which, as stated, is an appellation of Jehoahaz? It does not mean that Jehoahaz [who is called Johanan here] was the firstborn of the brothers, but that he was

firstborn for 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?

And

do we find that

younger kings

[that the younger become kings]

before an older one,

when there are brothers older than them?

But it is written

[II Chronicles 21]

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

This indicates that his firstborn status was the reason that he would reign and not his brothers. If so, how did the younger Jehoahaz reign before Jehoiakim!?

And we answer: Although the usual manner of inheriting the kingship is that the firstborn son is the one who reigns, this is only in a case like

Jehoram,

who

was one who filled the place of his fathers 24,

for he was righteous like his father [and even though Jehoram later became corrupt, at the time of his kingship he was righteous]. But

Jehoiakim,

although he was a firstborn,

was not one who filled the place of his fathers 25,

and therefore he did not reign 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.

And the Gemara wonders:

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

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

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“third”

stated concerning Zedekiah?

Third among the sons.

For Zedekiah was Josiah’s third son.

And what

is the meaning of the expression

“fourth”

stated in the verse, although the verse mentions only three sons? It means

fourth for kingship,

for Zedekiah, the third son, was the fourth son to reign.

At the outset,

the first,

Jehoahaz reigned. And at the end

there reigned

Jehoiakim,

his brother who was older than him.

And at the end

there reigned

Jeconiah

[whose name is not mentioned in the verse],

and at the end

there reigned

Zedekiah.

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

And why was his name called Shallum?

Because

he was complete in his deeds,

for he was entirely righteous and the possessor of good deeds.

There are those who say:

The verse called Zedekiah

Shallum

because

the kingdom of the House of David was completed

and ended

in his days.

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

And what was his name?

His name was Mattaniah.

As it is stated

[II Kings 24]

“And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, his uncle, king in his place. And he changed

[the king]

his name to Zedekiah.”

As a hint that

he said to him,

Nebuchadnezzar:

“May God justify the judgment against you

[that is, that you will be punished by Him]

if you rebel against me!”

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

as it is written [

II Chronicles 32]:

“He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar —

whom he had adjured by God.”