Shekalim 16a — the Talmud in English

But

the

Ark was in Zion,

in its place.

Rather, necessarily this Ark was a second Ark, which went out with them in addition to the Ark that was placed in its place in Zion.

And we raise an objection:

What do the Rabbis do with it?

[How will the Rabbis explain and reject this proof?]

And we answer: The Rabbis hold that indeed the Ark was in its place, in Zion.

And what is written, “the Ark and Israel are dwelling in booths,” means that the Ark was beneath

a covering, without a roof, for the chosen House had not yet been built.

For also in the Tabernacle of Shiloh, although its walls were of stone, nevertheless its roof was not permanent as in the Temple, but was made only of curtains. Therefore it is called by the language of covering. And Israel and Judah too were dwelling in booths, because they had gone out to war. Since the Ark too was not yet in the everlasting House, and Israel too were not in their place, Uriah was stringent with himself not to have relations with his wife.

It was mentioned in our Mishna that at the destruction of the First Temple the Ark was hidden, and the Gemara enumerates the additional things that were hidden with it:

When the Ark was hidden, the jar of manna was hidden with it,

which Moses had placed before the Ark at the command of the Lord. As it is written in the section of Beshalach: “And Moses said to Aaron: Take one jar and put there a full omer of manna, and place it before the Lord as a keepsake for your generations.” And when the Ark was hidden, it too was hidden with it.

And likewise there was hidden

the flask of anointing oil.

And Aaron’s staff, and its blossoms and its almonds.

For the law concerning all these is that they should be near the Ark, both when the Ark was in the Holy of Holies and when it was hidden, as we derive from verses in tractate Yoma [52a].

And

also hidden with it was

the chest that the Philistines returned as a guilt-offering to the God of Israel.

When the Philistines returned the Ark of the Lord, which had been captured in their hands, to Israel, they returned with it a gift to the God of Israel, a golden vessel.

And it is written there: “And you shall take the Ark of the Lord and place it upon the cart. And the golden vessels that you return to Him as a guilt-offering, place in a chest beside it.”

It follows that the place of the chest too was beside the Ark; therefore it was hidden with it.

And who hid

this Ark?

Josiah hid it.

When he saw that it is written, “The Lord will lead you and your king whom you will set over you to a nation that you did not know, neither you nor your fathers,”

he feared that the Ark too might be exiled to Babylonia. And because of this he

stood and hid it.

This is what is written

in Chronicles:

“And he said

[Josiah]

to the Levites who had understanding, and to all Israel who were holy to the Lord: Place the holy Ark in the House that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built.

We have no burden on the shoulder.

Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel.”

And it is difficult: Was the Ark not indeed placed in the House that Solomon built? What then is the meaning of his commanding them, “Place the holy Ark in the House that Solomon built”?

Rather, thus

he said to them

Josiah:

If it is exiled

[the Ark]

with you to Babylonia —

you will not return it again to its place!

For he knew through the holy spirit that even if the vessels of the Temple were to return at the end of the Babylonian exile, nevertheless the Ark would not return.

And he expounded this from what is written, “You have no burden on the shoulder,” teaching that you will not return it on your shoulders,

but

you must hide it in its place beneath the Holy of Holies. And this is what he said to them:

“Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel.”

And since the Gemara mentioned that the anointing oil was hidden, it now comes to explain how the anointing oil was compounded.

The compounding of the anointing oil

how was it done? It is written in the section of Ki Tisa:

“And you, take for yourself

choice spices, pure myrrh — five hundred, and cinnamon spice — half of it, two hundred and fifty, and fragrant cane — two hundred and fifty,

and cassia —

five hundred

by the sacred shekel. And olive oil — a hin. And you shall make it an anointing oil of holiness.”

It follows that the measure of all the principal spices of the anointing oil together

was one thousand five hundred manehs.

And the measure of

olive oil

used for the anointing oil was

a hin,

as it is written in the verse, and that means

twelve log, in which

they

would boil the principal spices

[the roots of the spices] enumerated above, and through boiling them in the oil, the fragrance of the spices was absorbed into it,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

It is not possible that the boiling of the spices was in oil. For the measure of oil, twelve log, is small in relation to the quantity of the principal spices, and if they were boiled in the oil, all the oil would have been absorbed into the principal spices.

Rather,

they were boiled in water

and they became filled with water through their boiling.

And

afterward

he placed the oil upon them,

and thereafter the oil was no longer absorbed into them; rather, it floated upon their surface and absorbed their scent. And

once

the oil had absorbed the

scent, he would transfer it

[wiping it] from the roots of the spices and placing it in a small flask.

And this order of preparation is

the manner in which the perfumers make [it].

This is what is written: “Holy anointing oil

compound perfume, the work of a perfumer.”

For from what is written, “compound perfume, the work of a perfumer,” we learn that it must be made in the manner of the perfumers [who compound perfumes].

And now the Gemara brings a beraita in order to reconcile the words of Rabbi Meir, who holds that he boiled them in the oil: how did the oil in fact remain and not become entirely absorbed into the roots?

Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Ila'i taught: The anointing oil that Moses made in the wilderness —

miracles were performed with it from beginning to end.

For from the beginning

of the making of this oil, before its boiling,

there were only twelve logim in it.

As it is stated:

“And you, take for yourself spices of the finest sort ... and

a hin of olive oil.”

But surely,

if there was not enough to anoint the roots with it,

for even if he did not come to boil the roots in the oil, but only to rub them with it, there would still not be enough in it to rub all the roots, which together amounted to one thousand five hundred maneh.

All the more so

is it naturally impossible that the oil should suffice for boiling the spices:

for

indeed, at the time of the boiling,

the fire absorbs,

for a little of the oil is consumed because of the boiling heat of the fire beneath the cauldron.

And

also

the woods

[that is, the roots of the spices]

absorb

some of the oil.

And

likewise

the cauldron absorbs

a little.

And

from the oil that remained after all this,

they anointed the Tabernacle and all its vessels, the table and all its vessels, the menorah and all its vessels.

And from it they also anointed Aaron the High Priest and his sons during all seven days of the inauguration.

And from it they anointed High Priests and kings,

for all these require anointing with the anointing oil, as is explicit in the Torah.

Thus, the very existence of the anointing oil was through a miracle.

And for this reason it is not astonishing how oil remained after they boiled the roots in it, for this too was part of the miracle.

And now the beraita continues and explains the laws of anointing a king and a High Priest.

A king at the outset.

That is, one whom they appointed king at the outset, and whose father was not a king—

requires anointing

with the anointing oil.

A king, the son of a king —

does not require anointing

at the time of his accession, because he becomes king by inheritance, even without anointing.

But a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, even

if his ancestors were High Priests

for ten generations —

requires anointing

at the time of his appointment, and he does not become High Priest by inheritance. And in tractate Horayot we derive this from a verse.

And the beraita concludes with another miracle that occurred with the anointing oil: after all that was diminished from the oil through its preparation and through the anointing of the Tabernacle and its vessels, and of the kings and the priests, there remained

all of it preserved for the future.

This is what is written: “Holy anointing oil shall this be Mine

for your generations.”

“This” has the numerical value of twelve. That is, the twelve logim of anointing oil alluded to by the word “this” shall be Mine “for your generations”—that is, even for the future.

They anoint

the

kings

at the time of their accession

only beside a spring,

as a good sign, that his kingship should continue like a spring that flows constantly without interruption. And similarly we find that David commanded that Solomon be anointed king beside the spring.

As it is stated: “You shall mount Solomon my son upon the mule that is mine, and bring him down to Gihon

[a small spring adjoining Jerusalem, namely the Shiloah spring],

and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him there as king over Israel.” Thus, the king is to be anointed and installed as king beside the spring.

There is thus a requirement to anoint the king and install him as king beside the spring.

They do not anoint a king who is the son of a king

who becomes king by inheritance without anointing,

except on account of dispute.

Only if there is a dispute concerning the kingship do they anoint even the son of a king.

For surely,

why was Solomon anointed

the king, even though he was the son of King David, and is it not the case that they do not anoint a king who is the son of a king? Rather, they anointed him

because of the dispute of Adonijah

David’s son, who wanted to reign; and when a dispute arises concerning the kingship, even the son of a king requires anointing, as we said.

And for this reason they also anointed

Joash,

the king of Judah, the son of King Ahaziah,

because of Athaliah,

his mother, who killed all the royal seed of Judah [and only Joash was saved, for Jehosheba his aunt hid him, as is stated explicitly in II Kings 11]. And since there was a dispute there concerning the kingship, they anointed him.

And likewise

Jehoahaz

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

because of

the dispute of

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

and was prior to him for the kingship. And Jehoahaz reigned because Jehoiakim did not follow the ways of his ancestors. And since they disputed the kingship, they were required to anoint him, even though he was the son of a king.

And even

Jehu,

the son of Nimshi, whom Elisha the prophet anointed as king [II Kings 9], was anointed only

because of

the dispute of

Joram,

the son of Ahab, against whom Jehu disputed and rebelled.

And the beraita required this reason even for the anointing of Jehu, although he was a king at the outset and his father was not a king, and a king at the outset certainly requires anointing—for Jehu was one of the kings of Israel, and the kings of Israel do not require anointing [when there is no dispute], even if they are not the sons of kings. [Based on Babylonian Horayot 11b].

And we raise an objection: How can we say that they anoint the kings of Israel because of dispute?

But

is it not so written

concerning the anointing of King David: “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—

requires anointing

in order to be king,

but the kings of Israel do not require anointing!

And since we derive from the verse that the kings of Israel are not to be anointed, how is it possible to anoint the kings of Israel even because of dispute? For this would be misuse of the anointing oil.

And there is another difficulty concerning what the beraita said: They anointed King Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, even though he was the son of a king, because of the dispute of his brother Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he and prior to him for the kingship:

and

for

was it not Josiah who concealed

the anointing oil, as we said above? If so, how could it be possible that his son Jehoahaz was anointed with the anointing oil, when in his days there was no anointing oil at all, for his father had concealed it?

And we answer:

This teaches

[that is to say, this means] that Jehoahaz was not anointed with the anointing oil, but

with

oil of

persimmon he was anointed. And from now we must reconcile and say that Jehu son of Nimshi likewise was not anointed with the anointing oil, since he was among the kings of Israel, but he was anointed with persimmon oil.

They do not anoint

the

kings

except from

oil

that is

placed in a

horn.

As it is written concerning the anointing of David and Solomon: “the horn of oil.”

And the Gemara says:

Saul and Jehu

son of Nimshi

were anointed from

oil that was placed

in a flask,

and therefore

their kingship was a passing kingship,

which did not endure.

But

David and Solomon,

who

were anointed from the horn—

their kingship was an enduring kingship.

They do not anoint

with the anointing oil

priests

who became

kings.

For although he is not a stranger with regard to the anointing oil, since they anointed him when he became a High Priest, nevertheless they do not anoint him with the anointing oil for kingship, for they anoint only the kings of the House of David.

Rabbi Judah of Antundarya said: On account of

why do they not anoint the High Priests for kingship? Because it is written in Jacob’s blessing:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah.”

That is, the kingship belongs only to the tribe of Judah, and not to the priests, who are from the tribe of Levi.

Therefore, even if they establish a king from the other tribes, and even from among the High Priests, they do not anoint him with the anointing oil, since their kingship does not continue forever.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Adda said:

It is written in the Book of Deuteronomy concerning the king:

“So that he may prolong his days upon his kingship, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel.”

And

what is written afterward

[after this verse]?

“There shall not be for the priests, the Levites

any portion and inheritance with Israel, the entire tribe of Levi.”

And we expound it as follows: Indeed, by law they retain a king from the other tribes of Israel who reigned before David became king [and not according to Rabbi Judah’s view]; nevertheless, from among the priests and Levites they do not appoint a king at all. And this is what the verse says: There shall not be for the priests a portion and inheritance—that is, in kingship—for they are to perform the service of the Lord. And since they are not appointed king, all the more so they are not anointed under the law of a king.

And now the Gemara discusses the anointing of Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah:

It is written in Chronicles: “And the sons of Josiah: the firstborn—Johanan, the second—Jehoiakim, the third—Zedekiah, the fourth—Shallum.”

And the verse did not mention Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah.

And

said

about this

Rabbi Yohanan: He is Johanan

mentioned in this verse;

he is Jehoahaz!

For he was also called “Johanan.”

And we raise an objection:

But is it not written, “the firstborn Johanan”?

And if the Johanan mentioned here is Jehoahaz, it follows that Jehoahaz was the firstborn. Yet above we said that it was necessary to anoint Jehoahaz because of the dispute of his brother Jehoiakim, since Jehoiakim was two years older than Josiah. Therefore Jehoiakim was prior to him for the kingship.

And we answer: In fact, Jehoiakim was two years older than Jehoahaz, as is explicitly explained in the verses. And what is written, “Johanan the firstborn,” does not mean that he was the “firstborn of the brothers,” but that he was

“firstborn for kingship,”

for he reigned before Jehoiakim.

And furthermore,

Rabbi Yohanan said

in explanation of that same verse: “Shallum,” who is mentioned in the verse as Josiah’s fourth son, is not a fourth son, but:

he is Shallum —

he is Zedekiah!

For Zedekiah, Josiah’s third son, was also called “Shallum.”

And we raise an objection:

But it is written

in this verse:

“the third

—Zedekiah, the fourth

—Shallum”!?

It follows that they were two sons, and not one.

And we answer: In fact, Shallum and Zedekiah were one son.

And that which it teaches, “the third” and “the fourth,” means that Zedekiah was

“third by birth,”

for he was the third son among Josiah’s sons, but he was only

“fourth for kingship.”

For the first to the kingship [after Josiah their father] was Jehoahaz; after him Jehoiakim reigned; after him Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, reigned; and only afterward did Zedekiah reign [the uncle of Jehoiachin].

And why was his name called

Zedekiah?

Because

he vindicated upon him

the

attribute of justice,

for in his days the Temple was destroyed.

And why was Zedekiah’s name also called

Shallum?

Because in his days the kingship of the House of David was completed,

for he was the last of the kings, until the coming of our righteous Messiah, speedily in our days.

And we say:

Neither was his name Shallum, nor was his name Zedekiah,

for all these are designations and not his name.

Rather, Mattaniah

was

his name.

This is what is written: “And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, his uncle

[of Jehoiachin]

in his place.

And he established

[the king Nebuchadnezzar]

his name as Zedekiah.”

Saying: May the Lord vindicate the judgment against you if you rebel against me.

Thus, his name was Mattaniah, and his other names were merely designations.

We find in the Temple three measures of a cubit:

a. A cubit of five handbreadths

b. A cubit of six handbreadths, called an intermediate cubit,

c. The large cubit, larger by one fingerbreadth than a cubit of six handbreadths, which was placed in the building constructed in the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, called the Shushan Gate [and in Pesahim 86a it is explained what this cubit was used for].

And the tannaim below disputed according to which measures of cubits the Temple and its vessels were built.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths.

And we say:

Who

is the

tannai

who holds that the Ark was made

with a cubit of six handbreadths?

It is Rabbi Meir.

For we learned: Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits

that were in the Temple, whether in the building or in its vessels,

were in

a

intermediate

cubit, which is a cubit of six handbreadths. [Except for the cubit of the foundation, the ledge, and the horns of the outer altar, which were cubits of five handbreadths].

Rabbi Judah says: The cubits of the building

such as the measure of the wall of the House and the length and height of the altar were in a cubit of

six

handbreadths. But the cubit

of the vessels

in the Temple was measured with a cubit of

five

handbreadths.

And we say:

According to Rabbi Meir’s view, who said

[according to Rabbi Meir’s view, who said]

the Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths,

it follows that

the length of

the

Ark

was

fifteen handbreadths.

For it is written

concerning the dimensions of the Ark:

“Two and a half cubits was its length.”

And

one cubit

[one cubit]

is six

[it is six handbreadths],

and another cubit is six

[and another cubit of six handbreadths], making twelve handbreadths.

And half a cubit is three

[and the additional half-cubit is three handbreadths]; it follows that the length of the Ark was fifteen handbreadths,

and there were four tablets in it, two whole ones,

which are the second tablets,

and two broken ones,

which are the first tablets.

And from where do we know that the broken tablets too were in the Ark?

For it is written:

[Deuteronomy 10:4] “And I wrote upon the tablets the words that were upon the first tablets,

which you broke, and you shall place them in the Ark.”

And the words “which you broke” are superfluous. They teach you that he should place the broken tablets as well in the Ark.

And now the Gemara calculates how the dimensions of the Ark corresponded to the objects that were found inside it.

The tablets were, each one: their length six handbreadths, and their width three handbreadths.

Place the width of the tablets along the length of the Ark,

and behold,

three handbreadths remained there.

For the length of the Ark was fifteen handbreadths, and the width of each tablet was three handbreadths; and when you arrange the four tablets with their width along the length of the Ark, it follows that they occupy twelve handbreadths.