מַה לְּהַלָּן שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו, אַף נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו.

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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּגוֹן אֲנִי מַהוּ בְּשָׂעִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי צָרָתְךָ בְּבָבֶל. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַלְכֵי בֵית דָּוִד, אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִים לְעַצְמָם וְאֵלּוּ מְבִיאִים לְעַצְמָם! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כָּיְיפִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָכָא אֲנַן כָּיְיפִינַן לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ.

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 .

רַב סָפְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּגוֹן אֲנִי מַהוּ בְּשָׂעִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם ״שֵׁבֶט״, הָכָא ״מְחוֹקֵק״, וְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה״ – זֶה רֹאשׁ גּוֹלָה שֶׁבְּבָבֶל, שֶׁרוֹדֶה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַקֵּל; ״וּמְחוֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו״ – אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל הִלֵּל, שֶׁמְּלַמְּדִים תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בָּרַבִּים.

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׳ וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַמָּשִׁיחַ? הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, לֹא הַמְרוּבֶּה בִּבְגָדִים. אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִמְרוּבֶּה בְּגָדִים – אֶלָּא פָּר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת.

And who is the anointed 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.

וְאֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר – אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה;

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.

זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וּמְצוּוִּים עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וַאֲסוּרִים עַל הָאַלְמָנָה, וְאֵינָם מִטַּמְּאִים בִּקְרוֹבֵיהֶם, וְלֹא פּוֹרְעִים וְלֹא פּוֹרְמִים, וּמַחֲזִירִין הָרוֹצֵחַ.

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 and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home

גמ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר, הָיוּ שׁוֹלְקִים בּוֹ אֶת הָעִיקָּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא לָסוּךְ אֶת הָעִקָּרִים אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵק! אֶלָּא שׁוֹרִין אֶת הָעִקָּרִים בַּמַּיִם, וּמֵצִיף עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן וְקוֹלֵט אֶת הָרֵיחַ וְקִפְּחוֹ.

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי נֵס אֶחָד נַעֲשָׂה בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? וַהֲלֹא תְּחִלָּתוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין, וּמִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה נִמְשַׁח מִשְׁכָּן וְכֵלָיו אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״.

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.

תַּנְיָא אִידָךְ: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וַיִּמְשַׁח [אֶת] הַמִּשְׁכָּן [וְאֶת] כָּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ״ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר, כַּמָּה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ בּוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, תְּחִלָּתוֹ לֹא הָיָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין, רְאֵה כַּמָּה יוֹרָה בּוֹלַעַת וְכַמָּה עִקָּרִים בּוֹלְעִים וְכַמָּה הָאוּר שׂוֹרֵף, וּבוֹ נִמְשַׁח מִשְׁכָּן וְכֵלָיו וְאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וּבוֹ נִמְשְׁחוּ כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּמְלָכִים.

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.

וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה, וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִים מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ; וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה מָשְׁחוּ אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה? מִפְּנֵי מַחֲלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל אֲדוֹנִיָּה, וְאֶת יוֹאָשׁ – מִפְּנֵי עֲתַלְיָה, וְאֶת יְהוֹאָחָז – מִפְּנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים; וְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁמֶן קַיָּים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״, ״זֶה״ – בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוּגִּין הָווּ.

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.

אָמַר מָר: וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, נֵימָא קְרָא ״וְהַכֹּהֵן מִתַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, מַאי ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״? קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, דְּמִבָּנָיו דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל אִי הָוֵי מָשִׁיחַ – הָוֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְאִי לָא – לָא הָוֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.

§ 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.

אָמַר מָר: וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ. מְנָלַן? אֲמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל מַמְלַכְתּוֹ״ וגו׳, יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָכֶם. וּמְנָלַן דְּכִי אִיכָּא מַחֲלוֹקֶת בָּעֵי מְשִׁיחָה, וְלָאו כָּל דְּבָעֵי מַלְכָּא מוֹרֵית מַלְכוּתָא לִבְנֵיהּ? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא וּבָנָיו בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁשָּׁלוֹם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״הוּא וּבָנָיו״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּלֹא מְשִׁיחָה.

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.

תָּנָא: אַף יֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי לֹא נִמְשַׁח אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַחֲלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם. וְתֵיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא! חַסּוּרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מַלְכֵי בֵית דָּוִד מְשׁוּחִין, מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְשׁוּחִין. מְנָלַן? אֲמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״קוּם מְשָׁחֵהוּ כִּי זֶה״ וגו׳, זֶה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה וְאֵין אַחֵר טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה.

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.

אָמַר מָר: אַף יֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי לֹא נִמְשַׁח אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַחֲלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם. וּמִשּׁוּם מַחֲלוּקְתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב נִמְעוֹל בַּשֶּׁמֶן? כְּדַאֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא, הָכִי נַמִי בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא.

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,

וְאֶת יְהוֹאָחָז מִפְּנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים, שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וּמִי קַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ הַבְּכוֹר יוֹחָנָן הַשֵּׁנִי יְהוֹיָקִים הַשְּׁלִישִׁי צִדְקִיָּהוּ הָרְבִיעִי שַׁלּוּם״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ הוּא יוֹחָנָן הוּא יְהוֹאָחָז! לְעוֹלָם יְהוֹיָקִים קַשִּׁישׁ, וּמַאי ״בְּכוֹר״? בְּכוֹר לַמַּלְכוּת.

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.

וּמִי מָלְכֵי זוּטָּרֵי מִקַּמֵּי קַשִּׁישֵׁי? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמַּמְלָכָה נָתַן לִיהוֹרָם״ כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר! יְהוֹרָם מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם אֲבוֹתָיו הֲוָה, יְהוֹיָקִים לָאו מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם אֲבוֹתָיו הֲוָה.

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.

אָמַר מָר: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ הוּא יוֹחָנָן הוּא יְהוֹאָחָז. וְהָא חַד חַד קָא חָשֵׁיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַשְּׁלִישִׁי…הָרְבִיעִי״! מַאי שְׁלִישִׁי? שְׁלִישִׁי לַבָּנִים, וּמַאי ״רְבִיעִי״? רְבִיעִי לַמַּלְכוּת, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מָלַךְ יְהוֹאָחָז וּלְבַסּוֹף יְהוֹיָקִים וּלְבַסּוֹף יְכָנְיָה וּלְבַסּוֹף צִדְקִיָּהוּ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא שַׁלּוּם הוּא צִדְקִיָּהוּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁלּוּם? שֶׁהָיָה מְשׁוּלָּם בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שַׁלּוּם – שֶׁשָּׁלְמָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד בְּיָמָיו, וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ? מַתַּנְיָה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּמְלֵךְ מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל אֶת מַתַּנְיָה דּוֹדוֹ תַּחְתָּיו וַיַּסֵּב אֶת שְׁמוֹ צִדְקִיָּהוּ״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהּ יַצְדִּיק עָלֶיךָ אֶת הַדִּין אִם תִּמְרוֹד בִּי, (שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ויבאהו בבלה״), וּכְתִיב: ״וְגַם בַּמֶּלֶךְ נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר מָרָד אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבִּיעוֹ בֵּאלֹהִים״.

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).