Horayot 11b:13הוריות י״א ב:יג
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Horayot 11b:13"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11bי״א ב

מה להלן שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו אף נשיא שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו

Just as there, in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God, so too, with regard to a nasi, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God.

בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר אמר ליה הרי צרתך בבבל איתיביה מלכי ישראל ומלכי בית דוד אלו מביאים לעצמם ואלו מביאים לעצמם אמר ליה התם לא כייפי אהדדי הכא אנן כייפינן להו לדידהו

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Your rival, the Exilarch in Babylonia, is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to Rabbi Ḥiyya from a baraita: If kings of the kingdom of Israel and kings of the house of David perform an unwitting transgression, these bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings, and those bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There, the kings were not subject to each other’s authority. Here, in Eretz Yisrael, we are subject to their authority, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the Nasi.

רב ספרא מתני הכי בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר א"ל התם שבט הכא מחוקק ותניא (בראשית מט, י) לא יסור שבט מיהודה זה ראש גולה שבבבל שרודה את ישראל במקל (בראשית מט, י) ומחוקק מבין רגליו אלו בני בניו של הלל שמלמדים תורה לישראל ברבים:

Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.

מתני׳ ואיזהו המשיח המשוח בשמן המשחה לא המרובה בבגדים אין בין כהן המשוח בשמן המשחה למרובה בגדים אלא פר הבא על כל המצות

MISHNA: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot.

ואין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר אלא פר יוה"כ ועשירית האיפה

And the difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

זה וזה שוים בעבודת יוה"כ ומצווים על הבתולה ואסורים על האלמנה ואינם מטמאים בקרוביהם ולא פורעים ולא פורמים ומחזירין הרוצח:

Both this High Priest currently serving and that former High Priest are equal with regard to performing the rest of the Yom Kippur service, and they are both commanded with regard to marrying a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13), and it is prohibited for both to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and they may not render themselves impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of their relatives dies (see Leviticus 21:11), and they may not grow their hair long and they may not rend their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25).

גמ׳ ת"ר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר היו שולקים בו את העיקרים דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר והלא לסוך את העקרים אינו סופק אלא שורין את העקרים במים ומציף עליו שמן וקולט את הריח וקפחו

GEMARA: The Sages taught: To blend the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil in the oil the roots of the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn’t that amount of oil insufficient even to smear on the roots of those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? Rather, they soak the roots in water. Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises and they float oil on the water and the oil absorbs the fragrance. And at that point, one removed the oil [vekippeḥo] from the water, and that was the anointing oil.

אמר לו רבי יהודה וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא תחלתו שנים עשר לוגין וממנו היה נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר (שמות ל, לא) שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn’t it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.

תניא אידך (ויקרא ח, י) ויקח משה את שמן המשחה וימשח [את] המשכן [ואת] כל אשר בו רבי יהודה אומר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר כמה נסים נעשו בו מתחלה ועד סוף תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוגין ראה כמה יורה בולעת וכמה עקרים בולעים וכמה האור שורף ובו נמשח משכן וכליו ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים

It is taught in another baraita: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, how many miracles were performed in its regard continuously, from beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve log. Consider how much oil a pot absorbs, and how much oil is absorbed by the roots, and how much oil the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed with it for the entire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations.

ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה ואין מושחים מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקתו של אדוניה ואת יואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ואותו שמן קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם זה בגימטריא שנים עשר לוגין הוו

Apropos the anointing oil, the baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.

אמר מר ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ו, טו) והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן מתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח קמ"ל דמבניו דכהן גדול אי הוי משיח הוי כהן גדול ואי לא לא הוי כהן גדול

§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say only: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is the reason that it says: “The anointed priest”? The Torah teaches us that even from among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointed with oil he is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest.

אמר מר ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דכתיב (דברים יז, כ) למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו וגו' ירושה היא לכם ומנלן דכי איכא מחלוקת בעי משיחה ולאו כל דבעי מלכא מורית מלכותא לבניה אמר רב פפא אמר קרא הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל בזמן ששלום בישראל קרינא ביה הוא ובניו ואפילו בלא משיחה

The Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “So that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom is an inheritance for you. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that when there is a dispute with regard to succession, the king requires anointing, and it is not that whenever the king wishes he can bequeath the kingdom to his son without anointing him? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his sons, in the midst of Israel.” When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: “He and his sons,” even without anointing; but when there is dispute, anointing is required.

תנא אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם ותיפוק ליה משום דראשון הוא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני מלכי בית דוד משוחין מלכי ישראל אין משוחין מנלן אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמואל א טז, יב) קום משחהו כי זה וגו' זה טעון משיחה ואין אחר טעון משיחה

It is taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram (see II Kings 9:1–14). The Sages challenge: And let him derive that Jehu was anointed due to the fact that he was the first of his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that the verse states: “Arise, anoint him, for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: This king, David, requires anointing, but another king does not require anointing.

אמר מר אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם ומשום מחלוקתו של יורם בן אחאב נמעול בשמן כדאמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא ה"נ באפרסמא דכיא

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oil and anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is like that which Rav Pappa said in another context: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. So too, with regard to Jehu, they anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.

ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומי קשיש מיניה והכתיב (דברי הימים א ג, טו) ובני יאשיהו הבכור יוחנן השני יהויקים השלישי צדקיהו הרביעי שלום וא"ר יוחנן הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז לעולם יהויקים קשיש ומאי בכור בכור למלכות

The baraita teaches: And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim older than Jehoahaz? But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” (I Chronicles 3:15), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; these are two names for one person. Likewise, he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz, who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz. And what is the meaning of the term “firstborn” written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of a firstborn in terms of ascent to the kingship.

ומי מלכי זוטרי מקמי קשישי והא כתיב (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור יהורם ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה יהויקים לאו ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה

The Gemara asks: And do younger sons rule before elder sons? But isn’t it written: “And the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: Jehoram was a surrogate for his ancestors as he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. Jehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors; he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him.

אמר מר הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז והא חד חד קא חשיב דכתי' (דברי הימים א ג, טו) השלישי הרביעי מאי שלישי שלישי לבנים ומאי רביעי רביעי למלכות דמעיקרא מלך יהואחז ולבסוף יהויקים ולבסוף יכניה ולבסוף צדקיהו

The Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the verse enumerate them individually, as it is written: “The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,” indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of third? It means the third among the sons. And what is the meaning of fourth? It means the fourth to ascend to the kingship. How so? Initially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately, after him, Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Zedekiah, who was fourth to the kingship.

ת"ר הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו ולמה נקרא שמו שלום שהיה משולם במעשיו איכא דאמרי שלום ששלמה מלכות בית דוד בימיו ומה שמו מתניה שמו שנאמר (מלכים ב כד, יז) וימלך מלך בבל את מתניה דודו תחתיו ויסב את שמו צדקיהו א"ל יה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי (שנאמר (מלכים ב כה, ז) ויביאהו בבלה) וכתיב (דברי הימים ב לו, יג) וגם במלך נבוכדנצר מרד אשר השביעו באלהים

The Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum? It is due to the fact that he was perfect [meshullam] is his actions. Some say: He was called Shallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [sheshalema] during his days. And what was his actual name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? He said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).