Keritot 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

Why are you surprised that the small amount of oil lasted without being absorbed by the spices?

And was only one miracle performed with the anointing oil? Many miracles were performed with it, from beginning to end!

At its beginning,

when it was first prepared,

there were only twelve log,

as the beraita explains below.

It was used to anoint the Tabernacle and its vessels, and Aaron and his sons, throughout all seven days of the inauguration.

For it is stated concerning Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8:33): “You shall fill their hands for seven days.” The “filling” means “multiplication,” through Aaron’s wearing of the eight garments of the kohanim, and his sons’ wearing of the four garments of the kohanim; these are garments of greater number. And it is written (Exodus 29:29): “To anoint them with them and to fill their hands with them.” This juxtaposes anointing with the multiplication of garments: Just as they were “multiplied” through wearing the garments throughout all seven days of the inauguration, so they were anointed with the anointing oil throughout all seven days. Certainly, according to the laws of nature, twelve log would not have sufficed for this; rather, a miracle necessarily occurred.

In addition,

High Priests and kings were anointed with it.

And

although it was used for anointing so many times, nevertheless

all of it will remain for the future 67 .

The beraita now explains how it is known that, when it was first prepared, it contained twelve log:

As it is stated (

Exodus 30:31): “

Anointing oil of holiness shall this be for Me throughout your generations.”

“This” has the numerical value of—

there are twelve log!

And the Torah said, “This throughout your generations,” indicating that all twelve log would remain throughout your generations.

The Sages taught:

It is written (Leviticus 8:10), “

And Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: Many miracles were performed with the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, from beginning to end!

Come and see: For

at its beginning there were only twelve log.

How much oil does the cauldron

in which the spices are cooked with the oil

absorb

into its walls?

How much do the spices

that were cooked in it

absorb

from it?

How much does the fire burn

and evaporate from the oil?

And it was used to anoint the Tabernacle and its vessels,

as well as

Aaron and his sons—

throughout all seven days of the inauguration.

And High Priests and kings were anointed with it.

The beraita now continues with the laws of anointing:

Even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest,

who is fit to take his father’s place,

requires anointing 68 .

However,

a king who is the son of a king is not anointed

at the time he is enthroned, because he becomes king even without anointing.

And if you say: Why did they anoint Solomon

who was the son of King David?

Your answer is:

Because of the dispute with Adonijah,

David’s son who sought to become king. When there is a dispute concerning the kingship, the king requires anointing.

And Joash,

the king of Judah and son of King Ahaziah, was anointed even though he was the son of a king—

because of the dispute with

his mother,

Athaliah,

who had killed all the royal descendants of Judah.

And Jehoahaz,

son of King Josiah, was anointed—

because of

the dispute with

his brother Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was,

and therefore had precedence over him in becoming king.

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

when he is initiated as High Priest.

From where do we derive this? As it is written: “

And the anointed priest who succeeds him, from among his sons.”

This is difficult:

Let the verse say: “

And the priest who succeeds him, from among his sons.”

What is the significance of the word

“anointed”?

anointed””?

Rather,

this teaches us that even

if one appoints one

of the sons

of the High Priest, only

the one whom he anointed with the anointing oil

is the one who

becomes High Priest.

But if he did not anoint him, he

does not become High Priest.

The Master said: A king who is the son of a king is not anointed.

From where do we derive this?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: As it is written (

Deuteronomy 17:20): “

So that he may prolong his days over his kingdom, he and his sons”—

it is an inheritance

that

he receives, and anointing is unnecessary.

We also learned in a beraita:

And why did they anoint Solomon? Because of the dispute with Adonijah.

We raise a question concerning this:

From where do we know that when there is a dispute

over the kingship,

one requires

even the king’s son

to be anointed,

despite the fact that his father the king instructed that he should reign in his place, as occurred with King Solomon?

And

if

not

do we say that

whatever the king desires

to enthrone,

he bequeaths

to him

the kingship,

to his son, without any need for anointing?

Rav Pappa said: The verse states (

there): “So that he may prolong his days over his kingdom, he and his sons

among Israel”—

when there is peace in Israel,

the kingship passes by inheritance and anointing is unnecessary. But when there is a dispute, it does not pass by inheritance. Even if the king wishes to bequeath the kingship to one of his sons, he cannot do so without anointing, as though the kingship were now beginning anew within the family.

The tanna taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi,

whom Elisha anointed as king [II Kings 9],

was anointed only because of the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab.

We raise an objection:

Why

do you say that Jehu, son of Nimshi, was anointed because of the dispute?

Let it emerge that he was the first king

of his family,

he,

since his father had not been a king!?

We answer:

The beraita is incomplete

in its wording,

and this is what it teaches: The kings of the house of David are anointed, but the kings of Israel are not anointed

from the time David became king. Saul, who preceded David, was anointed.

And if you say:

Why did they anoint Jehu, son of Nimshi,

who was one of the kings of Israel?

Because of the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab.

The Master said: The kings of the house of David are anointed, but the kings of Israel are not anointed.

From where do we derive this? As it is written (

I Samuel 16), concerning the anointing of King David, that the Almighty said to Samuel: “

Arise, anoint him, for this is he.”

And we derive:

This

refers to David and the kings after him who are kings of the house of David; they

require anointing.

But no other

king who is not from the house of David

requires anointing.

The Master said:

Jehu, son of Nimshi, was anointed

because of the dispute with Joram.

We raised an objection:

And

if

because of the dispute with Jehoram son of Ahab one would misuse the anointing oil?!

Granted, the matter of anointing a king who is the son of a king among the kings of the House of David because of a dispute is not difficult: the first king among the kings of the House of David requires anointing, and we learned above from a verse that even when the son of a king succeeds his father, if there is a dispute he is considered like a first king and requires anointing. But among the kings of Israel, even the first king is not anointed, for they are altogether unfit for anointing.

And we answer: Indeed, it was forbidden to use the anointing oil for the purpose of crowning Jehu son of Nimshi. However, there they did not anoint him with the anointing oil, but rather

as Rav Pappa said

below: after the anointing oil had been concealed by Josiah, they anointed Zedekiah

with pure balsam oil

[pure balsam oil], and

here too

they anointed Jehu son of Nimshi because of the dispute

with pure balsam oil,

even though this took place before the anointing oil was concealed.

We learned in a beraita:

And Jehoahaz

the son of Josiah was anointed as king

because of

the dispute with

Jehoiakim,

his brother,

who was two years older than he

and preceded him in the kingship.

We raised an objection:

And

if

who

was Jehoiakim

older

[older] than his brother Jehoahaz?

But it is written:

(I Chronicles 3), “

And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn —

Johanan.

And the second —

Jehoiakim.

And the third —

Zedekiah.

And the fourth —

Shallum.”

And Rabbi said: Johanan is Jehoahaz; Zedekiah is Shallum.

Thus Jehoahaz, who is Johanan, was the firstborn, whereas Jehoiakim his brother was Josiah’s second son!?

And we answer: It is not difficult.

Rather, actually, Jehoiakim

indeed was

older

than Jehoahaz, and therefore contested his kingship.

And why does it call

Jehoahaz [who is called “Johanan” in the verse]

firstborn?

Because

he

was

“firstborn”

firstborn”

with regard to the kingship,

in that he became king before Jehoiakim.

We wonder: How did Jehoahaz actually become king first?

And

if

do we appoint a younger one

young

before an older one

older?

But it is written:

(II Chronicles 21), “

And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram

for he was the firstborn!”

And we answer:

That one,

Jehoram,

was his father’s successor,

for he was righteous like his father and fit to inherit his father’s position. When there is a firstborn who is his father’s successor, he takes precedence in inheriting the kingship. But Jehoiakim was not his father’s successor and therefore was not fit to inherit the royal throne; consequently, they made Jehoahaz king.

The Master said: He is Shallum; he is Zedekiah.

We wonder: How can it be said that this refers to one son who had two names?

But

the verse listed each of Josiah’s four sons separately and even specified their number

by generations

[by generations], meaning brothers according to the order of their births, as though each one were a “generation” following the preceding one;

it counts them.

For it counts Zedekiah and Shallum as the third and fourth sons.

And we answer: Actually, as we said, Zedekiah was called Shallum.

And why does it call

Zedekiah

“third,”

because

he was third among the sons.

And

why does it call him

“fourth”?

Because he

was the

fourth in the kingship

among the descendants of Josiah.

Because Jeconiah reigned,

the son of Jehoiakim, in place of Jehoiakim his father,

before

Zedekiah reigned.

And it follows that:

At first Jehoahaz reigned, and afterward

[after him]

Jehoiakim reigned, and afterward Jeconiah reigned,

the son of Jehoiakim,

and afterward Zedekiah reigned.

The Sages taught: He is Shallum; he is Zedekiah. And why was his name called Shallum? Because he was perfect in his deeds.

Alternatively: Shallum —

because the kingship of the House of David ended in his days.

He was the last of the kings of the House of David, and in his days the Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylonia.

And we say: Neither the name Shallum nor the name Zedekiah was his actual name; they were merely appellations.

And what was his name? His name was Mattaniah! As it is stated:

(II Kings 24), “

And he made

the king of Babylonia

Mattaniah, his uncle

of Jeconiah,

king in his place.

And he changed

the king of Babylonia

his name

from Mattaniah to

Zedekiah.”

His intention in changing his name to this name was:

for he said to him

Nebuchadnezzar:

“May God justify the judgment against you,”

when you are punished

if you rebel against me! As it is stated:

(Ezekiel 17), “And he took one of the royal seed [the reference is to Zedekiah]

and brought him under oath

[with an oath].”

And it is also written

in Chronicles (II 36) that Nebuchadnezzar made him swear that he would not rebel against him: “

And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia,”

Zedekiah, despite

the oath by which he had adjured him before God

not to rebel against him.

We raise a difficulty concerning the statement of the beraita, which teaches: Jehoahaz was anointed because of Jehoiakim.

And

if

was there anointing oil

in the days of Jehoahaz?

But it was taught: Once

the

Ark

was concealed in the days of Josiah,

the

was also concealed

jar of manna

[which God commanded to be placed there as a memorial for future generations in the Holy of Holies before the Ark, as it is written in the passage concerning the manna (Exodus 16:33–34)].

And

the

flask of anointing oil and Aaron’s staff

with the

almonds and blossoms

[which likewise they were commanded to place there as a memorial before the Ark (Numbers 17:25)] were also concealed.

And

also the

box that the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel

when they returned the Ark of the Covenant

as it is stated

(I Samuel 6): “

And the golden vessels that you return to Him,

to the God of Israel, as an offering for

guilt —

you shall place in a box beside it,”

the Ark of the Covenant. Since it is written “beside it,” this indicates that wherever the Ark was, the box was there as well.

And who concealed it? Josiah, king of Judah, concealed it.

As it is stated

(II Chronicles 35): “

And the king said to the priests: Put the holy Ark

in the House that Solomon built. ‘You shall no longer carry it on your shoulders.’” And they explained in tractate Shekalim (16a) that he told them that if the Ark were exiled with them to Babylonia, they would not return it on their shoulders. Therefore, he concealed it in the place that Solomon had prepared for this purpose.

And

from where do we know that the other objects mentioned above in the beraita were concealed?

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived from the expression

“there, there,”

which is written concerning the Ark (Exodus 30:6): “where I shall meet with you there,” and concerning the manna it is written (Exodus 16:33): “and put it there before the Lord.” They derive through a gzera shava that when they concealed the Ark, they also concealed the jar of manna with it.

It is derived from the expression

“generations, generations,”

which is written concerning the manna (there): “as a memorial for your generations,” and concerning the anointing oil it is written (Exodus 30:31): “for your generations.” They derive through a gzera shava that both were concealed with the Ark.

It is derived from the expression

“memorial, memorial,”

which is written concerning the manna (there): “as a memorial,” and concerning Aaron’s staff it is written (Numbers 17:25): “as a memorial.”

If so, this is difficult: Since Josiah, Zedekiah’s father, had already concealed the anointing oil, how was Jehoahaz, who came after him, anointed with it?

Rav Pappa said:

They did not anoint him with the anointing oil, but rather

with pure balsam oil,

pure balsam oil.

The Sages taught: Kings are anointed

at the time they are crowned

in the form of a crown

around their heads.

And the High Priests

are anointed

in the form of

a “chi.”

And we explain:

What

is

a “chi”? Rav Menashya said: Like a Greek chi,

which has the shape of X,

where one pours oil on his head and then places it between his eyebrows, and connects the two applications with his finger across his forehead in the shape of X. [See Rambam, Shabbetai Frankel edition.]

One teaching states: At first he pours oil on his head, and afterward he applies to him

with his finger

oil between his eyebrows.

And another teaching states: At first he applies oil to him between his eyebrows, and afterward he pours oil on his head.

And they contradict one another.

And we explain: It is a dispute

between tannaim:

There is one who says that anointing

with the finger

is preferable,

and therefore he first applies some of the oil with his finger between his eyebrows in the form of anointing, and afterward pours oil on his head.

And there is one who says that pouring is preferable,

and therefore he first pours it on his head.

We raise an objection:

What is the reason of the one who says that pouring is preferable?

And we answer:

As it is stated

(Leviticus 8:12): “

And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him to sanctify him” —

it follows that he first poured and afterward anointed.

And the one who says that anointing is preferable

holds

that anointing is preferable,

since it was increased

in

the

anointing

for the sacred vessels,

for in their case there was no pouring at all, only anointing.

And we challenge this opinion:

But it is written

“and he poured,”

and

only

at the end

is it written

“and he anointed”!

And we answer:

This is what it means:

What is the reason for

“and he poured”?

Because beforehand he had already

“anointed him to sanctify him.”

“anointed him to sanctify him.”

The Sages taught:

It is written (Psalms 133): “

Like the good oil upon the head, descending upon the beard, the beard of Aaron” —

the anointing oil upon Aaron’s beard appeared

like two drops of pearls,

as though

they were hanging from Aaron’s beard.

Rav Kahana said: It was taught: When he,

Aaron,

would speak

[some explain: when he would trim his beard—Rashi], those two drops

would rise and settle at the roots of his beard.

And concerning this matter,

the drops of anointing oil that hung from Aaron’s beard,

Moses our teacher was worried: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I misused the anointing oil,

perhaps I placed too much there. [Rashi explained in Horayot that Moses feared that he might have touched and benefited from them when he dressed Aaron in the priestly garments.]

A Divine Voice emerged and said:

(there), “

Like the dew of Hermon that descends upon the mountains of Zion” —

just as there is no misuse of dew,

for it is entirely ordinary,

so there is no misuse of the oil that descends upon Aaron’s beard.

Aaron was still worried that perhaps Moses had not misused the oil, whereas I had misused it,

because the garments were becoming fragrant from the scent of the oil on my beard.

A Divine Voice emerged and said to him

(there):

“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together” —

just as Moses did not misuse it, so you did not misuse it. The Sages taught: Kings are anointed only beside a spring, so that their kingship may continue,

for a spring that flows without interruption is a favorable sign that their kingship will continue.

As it is stated

(I Kings 1): “

And the king

David

said to them: Take with you

the servants of your master,

and bring him down

Solomon

to

the spring of

Gihon, and anoint him there

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet as king over Israel.”

Rashi explained that the Gihon mentioned here is a small spring near Jerusalem, and it is not the great Gihon mentioned in the Torah portion of Bereshit, which emerges from Eden].

Rav Ami said: One who wishes to know

at the beginning of the year

whether he will complete the year

if he will live out the year,

and if not, he will die:

let him light

a lamp

a candle

during these

during these

ten days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur, and let him hang it in a house where there is no wind

[let him hang it in a house where no wind blows], and examine it:

if its flame continues burning,

so that the candle burns as long as there is oil in it,

he will know that he will complete the year,

and live out the year, just as the candle burned until all the oil was consumed and did not go out midway [according to Rashi in Horayot].

And one who wishes to conduct business

[who wishes to engage in business],

and wishes to know whether his business will succeed or not:

let him raise a rooster

let him raise a rooster for this business,

and if it grows fat and fine

if it grows fat and healthy,

he will know that it will succeed.

One who wishes to set out on a journey,

who wishes to go on a journey,

and wishes to know whether he will return home

whether he will merit returning to his home,

let him enter and stand in a darkened house

let him enter and stand in a somewhat dark house,

if he sees !(pamud.bmp "

precise column placement")

a shadow corresponding to his shadow

a shadow corresponding to his shadow,

he will know that he will come home.