Horayot

Rabbi enquired of R. Hiyya: 'Is one like myself to bring a hegoat?'  'You have your rival in Babylon,'  the other replied. 'The Kings of Israel and the Kings of the House of David,' the first objected, 'bring sacrifices independently of one another!' 'There,' the other replied, 'they were not subordinate to one another, here,  however, we are subordinate to them.' R. Safra taught thus: Rabbi enquired of R. Hiyya, 'Is one like myself to bring a he-goat?'  'There,'  the other replied, 'is the scepter; here  only the law giver;' as it was taught. The scepter shall not depart from Judah  refers to the exilarch in Babylon who rules Israel with the scepter; nor the ruler's staff from between his feet  refers to the grandchildren of Hillel  who teach the Torah to Israel in public. MISHNAH. AND WHO IS THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST?  HE WHO WAS ANOINTED WITH THE ANOINTING OIL  AND NOT HE [WHO MERELY MINISTERS] IN MORE GARMENTS.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HIGH PRIEST WHO IS ANOINTED WITH THE ANOINTING OIL AND THE [ONE WHO MERELY MINISTERS] IN MORE GARMENTS IS THE BULLOCK  THAT IS OFFERED FOR [THE UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION OF] ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS.  AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTING, AND THE RETIRED  HIGH PRIEST IS THE BULLOCK ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT AND THE TENTH PART OF THE EPHAH.  THEY  ARE BOTH EQUAL IN THE TEMPLE SERVICE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, AND BOTH ARE COMMANDED TO MARRY A VIRGIN  AND ARE FORBIDDEN TO MARRY A WIDOW.  BOTH MAY NOT DEFILE THEMSELVES FOR [THE DEAD BODIES OF] THEIR RELATIVES,  NEITHER MAY THEY LET THEIR HAIR GROW WILD, NOR MAY THEY REND  THEIR CLOTHES, AND BOTH ENABLE THE MANSLAYER TO RETURN. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The anointing oil which Moses prepared in the wilderness  was used for the boiling of  the roots;  these are the words of R. Judah. R. Jose said: Surely it did not suffice even for the dabbing of the roots!  But the roots were soaked in water and over its surface the oil was poured, which thus absorbed the scent and retained it. Said R. Judah to him: Did, then, only one miracle happen with the anointing oil? Surely, it was originally only twelve logs and with it was anointed the Tabernacle and its furniture, Aaron and his sons, throughout the seven days of consecration, and all of it still remained intact for the time to come, as it is said, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generation. Another [Baraitha] taught: And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein,  R. Judah said: With the anointing oil which Moses prepared in the wilderness there occurred many miracles from the beginning to the end. Originally it only measured twelve logs. Now, consider how much the pot absorbed, how much the roots absorbed, and how much the fire burned, and yet it sufficed for the anointing of  the Tabernacle and its furniture, and Aaron and his sons, throughout the seven days of consecration; and High Priests and kings also were anointed with it. And even a High Priest who was the son of a High Priest must be anointed,  but a king who was the son of a king need not be anointed. And if it be asked: Why was Solomon anointed?  It was due, [it may be replied], to the dispute of Adonijah; and so was Joash anointed on account of the claims of Athaliah, and Jehoahaz on account of Jehoiakim who was older than he by two years; and that oil remains for the time to come, as it is said, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations,  the numerical value of Zeh  is twelve — logs. The Master said, 'And even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest must be anointed.' Whence is this deduced? — [From the Scriptures] wherein it is written, And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons;  Scripture should have stated, 'And the priest that shall be in his stead  from among his sons,' why, then, the anointed? Consequently it must have been intended to imply  that even the son  of a High Priest succeeds to his father's office only if he was anointed: otherwise  he does not. The Master said, 'But a king who is the son of a king need not be anointed.' Whence is this deduced? R. Aha b. Jacob replied: [From Scripture] wherein it is written, To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom [he and his children] etc.  which implies that the kingship is an inheritance. Whence is it deduced that in cases of dispute anointing is required, and that the king is not entitled to transmit the kingship as he desires? — R. Papa replied: Scripture stated, He and his children in the midst of Israel,  only when there is peace in Israel may the text, He and his children, be applied to him even though no anointing had taken place. A Tanna taught: Jehu the son of Nimshi also was anointed only on account of the dispute of Joram. This surely could have been deduced from the fact that he was the first of a dynasty! — There is a lacuna in the text and the following should be inserted: 'The kings of the House of David were anointed: the kings of Israel were not anointed.'  Whence is this deduced? — Raba replied: Scripture stated, Arise, anoint him; for this is he, etc.,  only he requires anointing but no other [who is not of the Davidic dynasty] requires anointing. The Master said, 'Jehu the son of Nimshi also was anointed only on account of the dispute of Joram.' Is it permissible to make inappropriate use  of the sacred oil on account of the dispute of Joram the son of Ahab? — As R. Papa said elsewhere  that the anointing was performed with pure balsam,  so here also it was performed with pure balsam. 'And Jehoahaz on account of Jehoiakim who was older than he by two years.' But was he older than he? Surely it is written, And the sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,  and R. Johanan said that Shallum is identical with Zedekiah, and Johanan with Jehoahaz! — Jehoiakim was in fact older, but the meaning of firstborn  is 'first in succession to the kingship.' Do, however, younger sons succeed to kingship before the older ones? Surely, it is written, But the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn!  — Jehoram was worthily filling the place of his ancestors;  Jehoiakim was not worthily filling the place of his ancestors. The Master said, 'Shallum is identical with Zedekiah, and Johanan with Jehoahaz.' Were they not, however, enumerated individually, for it is written, the third, the fourth?  — 'Third' means third of the sons, and 'fourth' means fourth in succession to the kingdom, since Jehoahaz reigned first, then Jehoiakim, then Jekoniah and finally Zedekiah. Our Rabbis taught: Shallum is identical with Zedekiah. Then why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect  in his deeds. Others say: Shallum implies that the kingdom of David came to end  in his days. And what was his real name? Mattaniah; as it is stated, And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.  He said to him, 'May God justify  my judgment against you, should you rebel against me,' as it is said, And he  brought him under an oath;  and it is also written, And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.