Shekalim 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

But was not

the

Ark in Zion,

in its place?

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

And we object:

What do the Sages do with this? [

How do the Sages explain and reject this proof?]

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

And the statement, “The Ark, Israel, and Judah are dwelling in booths,” means that the Ark was beneath

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

For even in the Tabernacle at Shiloh, although its walls were of stone, its roof was nevertheless not permanent as in the Temple; it was made only of curtains. Therefore it is described with the language of a covering. Israel and Judah too were dwelling in booths because they had gone out to war. Since the Ark was not yet in the permanent House, and Israel too were not in their places, Uriah imposed upon himself the stringency of not engaging in marital relations.

Our Mishna mentioned that at the destruction of the First Temple the Ark was concealed, and the Gemara lists the additional items that were concealed with it:

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

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

And likewise there was concealed

the flask of anointing oil,

as well as Aaron’s staff, its blossoms, and its almonds.

All of these were meant to be near the Ark, both when the Ark was in the Holy of Holies and when it was concealed, as is derived from verses in tractate Yoma 52a.

And

also concealed with it was

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

When the Philistines returned the Ark of the Lord, which they had captured, to Israel, they sent with it a gift to the God of Israel: this golden vessel.

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

Thus, the chest too belonged beside the Ark, and therefore it was concealed with it.

And who concealed

this Ark?

Josiah concealed it.

When he saw that it was written, ‘The Lord will lead you and your king whom you will set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known,’

he feared that the Ark too might be taken to Babylonia. Therefore he

rose and concealed 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.”

This is difficult: Was the Ark not indeed kept in the House that Solomon built? What, then, did he command them by saying, “Place the holy Ark in the House that Solomon built”?

Rather, this is what

he said to them,

Josiah:

If it is exiled [

the Ark]

with you to Babylonia—

you will never return it to its place!

He knew through the Holy Spirit that even if the Temple vessels were returned at the end of the Babylonian exile, the Ark would nevertheless not return.

And he expounded the verse, “We have no burden on the shoulder,” to teach that they would not return it on their shoulders,

but

they were to conceal 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 concealed, it now explains how the anointing oil was compounded.

The compounding of the anointing oil

How was it done? It is written in the passage of Ki Tisa:

“And you shall take for yourself

choice spices: pure myrrh—five hundred, fragrant cinnamon—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 into an oil of sacred anointment.”

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

was one thousand five hundred maneh.

And the measure of

olive oil

used for the anointing oil was

a hin,

as stated in the verse, namely,

twelve log, in which

they

boiled the principal spices [

the roots of the spices listed above]. Through boiling them in the oil, the fragrance of the spices was absorbed into it,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

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

Rather,

they were boiled in water,

and they would become saturated with water during their boiling.

And

afterward

he would place the oil over them, and the oil would no longer be absorbed into them; rather, it would float on their surface and absorb their fragrance. And

the oil was no longer absorbed into them. Rather, it floated on top of them and absorbed their fragrance. And

once

the oil had absorbed

the fragrance,

he would remove it from the principal spices and place it in a flask.

This method of preparation is

the manner in which perfumers prepare it.

This is what is written: “Holy anointing oil,

a compound of a perfumer, the work of a perfumer

.” As it is written, “a compound of a perfumer, the work of a perfumer,” we derive that it must be prepared in the manner of perfumers.

The Gemara now cites a beraita to reconcile the words of Rabbi Meir, who holds that they were boiled in the oil: How, in fact, did any oil remain rather than being entirely absorbed into the spices?

Rabbi Yehuda, 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 at the beginning

of the preparation of this oil, before it was boiled,

there were only twelve log.

As it is stated: “Take for yourself choice spices … and

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

olive oil, a hin.”

But

if it was insufficient even to anoint the spices,

for even if he had not intended to boil the spices in the oil, but only to anoint them with it, it would still not have been sufficient to anoint all the spices, whose total weight was one thousand five hundred maneh,

all the more so

it is naturally impossible that the oil would have sufficed to boil the spices.

for

For

the fire absorbs

some of the oil, which is consumed by the heat of the fire boiling the cauldron.

And

And also

the pieces of wood

that is, the principal spices,

absorb

some of the oil.

And

And likewise

the cauldron absorbs

a small amount.

And from the oil that remained after all this,

And from the oil that remained after all this,

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

Aaron the High Priest and his sons were also anointed with it throughout all seven days of the inauguration.

High Priests and kings were anointed with it,

as all these require anointing with the anointing oil, as explicitly stated in the Torah.

It follows that the very existence of the anointing oil was miraculous.

Therefore, it is not surprising that oil remained after the spices were boiled in it, for this too was part of the miracle.

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

A king initially.

That is, one who was appointed king initially, whose father had not been a king,

requires anointing

with the anointing oil.

A king who is 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 who is the son of a High Priest, even if

his forefathers were High Priests

for ten generations—

requires anointing

at the time of his appointment, as he does not become High Priest by inheritance. In tractate Horayot, this is derived from a verse.

The beraita concludes with another miracle that occurred with the anointing oil: After all that was used up in its preparation and in anointing the Tabernacle and its vessels, the kings, and the priests,

all of it will remain intact for the future.

This is what is written: “The holy anointing oil shall be this for Me

for your generations.”

The word “this” has the numerical value of twelve. That is, the twelve log of anointing oil alluded to by the word “this” shall be for Me throughout your generations—that is, even in the future.

They anoint

the

kings

at the time of their accession

only beside a spring, as a good omen that his kingship will continue like a spring that constantly flows without interruption. Similarly, we find that David commanded that Solomon be anointed king beside a spring.

as a good sign, so that their reign will continue like a spring that constantly flows without interruption. We find similarly that David commanded that Solomon be anointed as king beside a spring.

As it is stated: “You shall have Solomon my son ride upon my mule, and bring him down to Gihon

a small spring near Jerusalem, the spring of Shiloah,

and there Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him king over Israel.”

Thus, the king is to be anointed and proclaimed king beside a spring.

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

as he becomes king by inheritance without anointing,

except on account of a dispute.

Only when there is a dispute over the kingship is even the son of a king anointed.

For

why was Solomon anointed,

the king, even though he was the son of King David, when a king who is the son of a king is not anointed? Rather, they anointed him

because of the dispute of Adonijah,

David’s son, who wished to reign. When a dispute arises over the kingship, even the son of a king requires anointing, as we have said.

And for this reason they also anointed

Jehoash,

the king of Judah and son of King Ahaziah,

because of Athaliah,

his mother, who killed all the royal offspring of Judah [and only Jehoash survived, as his aunt Jehosheba hid him, as explained in II Kings 11]. Since there was a dispute over the kingship, they anointed him.

And likewise

Jehoahaz,

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

because of

the dispute of

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

and who preceded him in succession to the throne. Jehoahaz became king because Jehoiakim did not follow the ways of his forefathers. Since they disputed the kingship, it was necessary to anoint him, even though he was the son of a king.

And even

Jehu,

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

because of

the dispute of

Joram,

the son of Ahab, whom Jehu opposed and against whom he rebelled.

The beraita needed to state this reason even regarding Jehu’s anointing, although he was a king initially and his father had not been a king, and a king initially certainly requires anointing—because Jehu was one of the kings of Israel, and the kings of Israel do not require anointing [when there is no dispute], even when they are not sons of kings. [Based on Babylonian Horayot 11b.]

And we raise an objection: How can we say that the kings of Israel are anointed because of a dispute?

But

is it not written

concerning the anointing of King David: “And the Lord said,

‘Arise, anoint him, for this is he.’”

And we expound:

“This”

means David and the other kings of the house of David,

require anointing

in order to become king,

but the kings of Israel do not require anointing!

Since we derive from the verse that the kings of Israel are not to be anointed, how can it be possible to anoint the kings of Israel even on account of a dispute? Would that not constitute misuse of the anointing oil?

There is also a difficulty concerning what the beraita said, that they anointed Jehoahaz, the king and 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 and preceded him in succession to the throne:

and

was it not the case that

did Josiah not conceal it,

the anointing oil, as we said above? If so, how could his son Jehoahaz have been anointed with the anointing oil? In his time there was no anointing oil at all, since his father had concealed it!?

And we answer:

This means

that Jehoahaz was not anointed with the anointing oil; rather,

with

balsam

he was anointed with balsam oil.

We can now resolve the matter by saying that Jehu, son of Nimshi, likewise was not anointed with the anointing oil, since he was one of the kings of Israel; rather, he was anointed with balsam oil.

They anoint

with

kings only with

oil

that is

the oil placed in a

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

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 with

oil that was placed

in a flask,

and therefore

their kingships were passing kingships,

which did not endure.

Whereas

David and Solomon,

who

were anointed from a horn—

their kingships were enduring kingships.

They do not anoint

with the anointing oil

High Priests

who became

kings.

Although he is not a stranger to the anointing oil, since he was anointed with it when he became High Priest, nevertheless he is not anointed with the anointing oil for kingship, as only the kings of the house of David are anointed.

Rabbi Yehuda Antundarya said: For this reason

why are the High Priests not anointed for kingship? Because it is written in Jacob’s blessing:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah.”

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

Therefore, even if a king is appointed from the other tribes, and even if he is one of the High Priests, he is not to be anointed with the anointing oil, since his kingship will not endure forever.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Adda said:

It is written in 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?

“The Levitical priests

the entire tribe of Levi shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel.”

And we expound it as follows: In principle, a king from the other tribes of Israel may be maintained, as was the case before David became king [and contrary to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion]. Nevertheless, no king is appointed from among the priests and Levites at all. This is what the verse says: The priests shall have no portion or inheritance—that is, they have no portion in kingship, but only to perform the service of the Lord. Since they are not appointed king, all the more so they are not anointed by virtue of being a king.

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

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

The verse does not mention Jehoahaz, son of Josiah.

And

Rabbi Yohanan said

And

Rabbi Yohanan said concerning this: He is Johanan,

the one mentioned in this verse,

he is Jehoahaz!

He was also called “Johanan.”

And we raise an objection:

But it is written: “Johanan the firstborn.”

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 with his brother Jehoiakim, since Jehoiakim was two years older than Jehoahaz. Therefore, Jehoiakim preceded him in succession to the throne!?

And we answer: In fact, Jehoiakim was two years older than Jehoahaz, as is explicit in the Writings. And when it is written, “Johanan the firstborn,” it does not mean that he was the firstborn among the brothers; rather, he was

“the firstborn to kingship,”

for he reigned before Jehoiakim.

Furthermore,

Rabbi Yohanan said

in explaining that verse: “Shallum,” who is mentioned in the verse as Josiah’s fourth son, was not a fourth son; rather:

he is Shallum—

he is Zedekiah!

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”!?

This indicates that they were two sons, not one.

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

And the reason it states “the third” and “the fourth” is that Zedekiah was

“third by birth,”

as he was Josiah’s third son, but he was only

“fourth by kingship.”

The first to reign [after their father Josiah] was Jehoahaz; after him Jehoiakim reigned; after him Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, reigned; and only afterward did Zedekiah reign [as Jehoiachin’s uncle].

And why was he called

Zedekiah?

Because

he affirmed concerning him

the

the attribute of justice,

as the Temple was destroyed in his days.

And why was Zedekiah also called

Shallum?

Because in his days the kingship of the house of David came to an end,

as he was the last king, until the coming of our righteous Messiah, speedily in our days.

And we say:

His name was neither Shallum nor Zedekiah,

as all these are appellations and not his name.

Rather, Mattaniah

was

his name.

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

of Jehoiachin,

king in his place.

And he established

King Nebuchadnezzar

his name as Zedekiah.”

This means: The Lord will vindicate the judgment against you if you rebel against me.

Thus, his name was Mattaniah, while his other names were merely appellations.

We find three measures of the cubit in the Temple:

A. A cubit of five handbreadths.

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

C. A cubit larger by one fingerbreadth than a cubit of six handbreadths. It was kept in a building at the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, called the Shushan Gate [and in Pesahim 86a it is explained what this cubit was used for].

The tannaim below disagree as to which of these measures of the cubit were used to construct the Temple and its vessels.

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

And we say:

Who

is the

tanna

who holds that the Ark was made

with a cubit of six handbreadths?

It is Rabbi Meir.

As we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits

that were in the Temple, both in its construction and in its vessels,

were measured with

were

intermediate cubits,

which are cubits 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 Yehuda says: The cubits used for construction,

such as the dimensions of the Temple wall and the length and height of the altar, were cubits of

six

handbreadths. But the cubit

of the vessels

in the Temple was measured by a cubit of

five

handbreadths.

And we say:

According to Rabbi Meir, who said

according to his view,

that the Ark was made with a cubit of six handbreadths,

it follows that

the length of

the

Ark

was

fifteen handbreadths.

As it is written

concerning the dimensions of the Ark:

“Two and a half cubits was its length.”

And

And

one cubit

is six

which is six handbreadths,

and another cubit is six

and an additional cubit of six handbreadths, making twelve handbreadths.

And half a cubit is three

and the additional half-cubit is three handbreadths; thus, the Ark’s length was fifteen handbreadths,

and there were four tablets in it, two complete,

namely, the second tablets,

and two broken

namely, the first tablets.

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

As it is written:

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

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

The words “which you broke” are superfluous. They teach that the broken tablets too were to be placed in the Ark.

The Gemara now calculates how the Ark’s dimensions corresponded to the objects found inside it.

Each of the tablets was six handbreadths long and three handbreadths wide.

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

and

three handbreadths remained there.

For the Ark was fifteen handbreadths long, and each tablet was three handbreadths wide; when the four tablets were arranged with their width along the Ark’s length, they occupied twelve handbreadths.