כריתות 5

¹ that the Divine Law should write, ‘Thou mayest not [eat] . . .’ in order to make it the subject of a negative command. [The question thus] still [stands]. Is it not a collective prohibition? — If it were so, Scripture should have said, ‘Thou mayest not eat them within thy gates’, why specify, ‘the tithe of thy corn, thy wine and thine oil’, if not in order to establish separate prohibitions for each of them? Said R. Isaac: if one eats of the bread, of the parched corn and of the fresh ears, one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition? — This is an exception, as the text is redundant; for Scripture should have stated only ‘bread’, and ‘parched corn’ and ‘fresh ears’ would have been derived therefrom. But one might in this case have objected: ‘Bread’ is different because it is subject to hallah? — Then ‘parched corn’ alone should have been written omitting ‘bread’, and we would derive the others therefrom! — But ‘bread’ could not be derived from ‘parched corn’, because ‘parched corn’ is a produce in its natural state, while ‘bread’ is not in its natural state; similarly ‘fresh ears’ could not be derived from ‘parched corn’, because ‘parched corn’ is distinguished in that it is fit for meal-offerings, while ‘fresh ears’ are not fit for meal-offerings? — Then ‘fresh ears’ alone should have been written, and we could derive ‘bread’ and ‘parched corn’ therefrom! But,then, I would object, ‘fresh ears’ were different in that they retain their original character. It is thus established that from any single one the other two cannot be derived; but let us derive one from two? — Now, if ‘bread’ was not written, leaving it to be derived from ‘parched corn’ and ‘fresh ears’, I might object, these two were distinguished in that they are in their natural form. If ‘fresh ears’ was not written, leaving them to be derived from ‘bread’ and ‘parched corn’, I might object that these two were distinguished in that they are included in the law of meal-offering? — R. Isaac will tell you: [Scripture] should not have written ‘parched corn’, leaving it to be derived from ‘bread’ and ‘fresh ears. For what objection could then be raised? If you argued: ‘Bread’ was exceptional in that it is subject to hallah, ‘fresh ears’ will prove the contrary; and if that ‘fresh ears’ were exceptional because they retain their original character, ‘bread’ will prove the contrary. It is from this superfluous text that we learn that separate lashes are inflicted [for each specification]. But why not say then, that ‘parched corn’, the mention of which is superfluous, is singled out for flagellation, but if one eats them all, one is still liable only once to flagellation? — If this were so, Scripture should read in this order: ‘Bread!, ‘fresh ears’ and ‘parched corn’, or ‘parched corn’, ‘bread’ and ‘fresh ears’; why is ‘parched corn’ placed between the other two, apparently that we may understand it thus: For ‘bread’ just as for parched corn’ one is liable [to a separate flagellation], and for ‘fresh ears just as for ‘parched corn’ one is liable [to a separate flagellation]. Said R. Jannai: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law of piggul, which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah, has been derived through a gezerah shawah; even as R. Johanan said: Zabda son of Levi taught: Elsewhere we read, Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, and here we read, And the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity; as there the penalty prescribed is kareth, so also here it is kareth. Said R. Simai: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning nothar, which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah, has only been derived through a gezerah shawah. What is [the gezerah shawah]? — The derivation of kodesh [holy] from kodesh [in the following texts]: Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the holy thing of the Lord, and Thou shalt burn the nothar with fire, [it shall not be eaten] because it is holy. Said Abaye: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning a man's daughter from an outraged woman is one of the essential precepts of the Torah, and yet it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah,’ as Raba said: R. Isaac son of Abdimi told me: As to the prohibition, this law is derived from the similarity of the expression hennah, and with regard to the penalty of burning from the similarity of the expression zimmah. Said R. Ashi: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for death by stoning [as a penalty for many transgressions] is an essential regulation of the Torah, and yet [in several cases] it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah, as it has been taught: We find here the expression demehem bam and we find the same expression in connection with ob and yidde'oni: As in the latter case the penalty prescribed is stoning, so also in the former case it is stoning. WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS OIL [OF ANOINTING] . . . Our Rabbis have taught: If one compounds oil [of anointing] for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable; if for anointment he is culpable, though the person that anoints himself therewith is exempt, because the transgression concerning the use of the oil is limited to the oil of anointment which Moses himself compounded. The Master said: ‘If for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable’. Whence do we know this? — It is derived by means of the common expression mathkunto mentioned here and in connection with incense. And with reference to incense it is written, Ye shall not make unto yourselves, which implies that one is culpable only if compounded for oneself, but not with the intention to hand it over to the community; similarly with regard to the oil, if it is compounded with the intention to hand it over to the community, one is exempted. But why not then again derive incense from the oil: Just as in the case of the oil one is exempted if one compounded half the prescribed quantity, so also with incense, he should be exempted if he compounded half the prescribed quantity; why then did Raba say: If one compounds incense in half the quantity prescribed, he is culpable, but if one compounds oil in half the quantity, he is exempt? — Raba will reply: In connection with oil it is written, Ye shall not make any like it according to the composition thereof’ ‘Like it’ it is prohibited, but in half the prescribed quantity it is permitted; but in connection with incense, it is written, And the incense which thou shalt make: All compounding of incense [is forbidden], for one can offer up half the quantity in the morning and half in the evening. Our Rabbis have taught: [The composition of the] oil of anointment is [as follows]: Five hundred shekels of flowing myrrh, five hundred of cassia, five hundred of sweet cinnamon and two hundred and fifty of sweet calamus, together one thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. Was it necessary for the Tanna to state the sum total? — To obviate the following assumption, for one might say, Sweet calamus was like sweet cinnamon: as with sweet cinnamon the figure two hundred and fifty [mentioned in the text] is half the prescribed quantity, so also with reference to sweet calamus, in which case the total weight would be two thousand. And indeed why not say so? Then it should have written: ‘Sweet cinnamon and sweet calamus, half so much of each, even two hundred and fifty shekels’. R. Papa asked Abaye: When one weighs [the incense], does one weigh it with’ overweight or exactly? — He replied: The Divine Law has written, ‘Of each shall there be a like weight’, and you say that there shall be an overweight. But did not Rab Judah say, The Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight [in incense], which obviously implies that it had an overweight? — Rather, said R. Judah: Why are the five hundred shekels of sweet cinnamon taken in two portions of two hundred and fifty each? Since the total quantity is five hundred, why not bring the whole at a time? From the fact that sweet cinnamon is brought in two portions we may infer that there was an overweight each time, and [to be sure] the Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight. And what is the meaning of, ‘Of each shall there be a like weight’? — Said Rabina: That one should not weigh first with the weight and use afterwards the weighed amount as a weight for the others. The Rabbis have taught: The oil [of anointment] which Moses compounded in the wilderness was boiled with the roots [of the spices]; thus the view of R. Judah. Said to him R. Jose: Surely the oil would not suffice even for smearing the roots; what then did he do? He boiled the roots in water, poured over them the oil, which thus absorbed the scent, and wiped off [the oil from the roots]. R. Judah said to him:^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒ}

² Is this the only miracle that occurred in connection with the oil of anointment? Was it not attended by many miracles from beginning to end! There were only twelve logs of oil and yet with it were anointed the Tabernacle and its vessels, Aaron and his sons throughout the seven days of the consecration, and the high priest and kings, and yet it remained whole for the days to come, as it is written: This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations. [The numerical value of] Zeh [this] is twelve, meaning that this quantity was preserved. Our Rabbis taught: And Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle. R. Judah said: Many miracles attended from the beginning to the end the anointing oil which Moses made in the wilderness. There were originally only twelve logs; [consider] how much of it must have been absorbed in the boiler, how much in the roots of the spices, and how much of it was burnt by the fire, and yet with it were anointed the Tabernacle and its vessels, Aaron and his sons throughout the seven days of the consecration, and the high priests and kings. Even a high priest who is the son of a high priest requires anointing, though a king who is the son of a king does not require anointing. And if you ask, Why then was Solomon anointed? Because Adoniah disputed his right of succession; similarly Jehoash [was anointed] by reason of Athaliah's [claim to the throne], and Jehoahaz by reason [of the claim to the throne] of his brother Jehoiakim who was two years his senior. The Master said: ‘Even the high priest who is the son of a high priest requires anointing’. Whence do we know this? — It is written: And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. The text should have stated: ‘And the priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons’, why [add] ‘anointed’, if not to let us know that even from among his sons only the one that is anointed can be high priest, but he who is not anointed cannot be high priest. The Master said: ‘A king who is the son of a king does not require anointing’. Whence do we know this? — Said R. Abba b. Jacob: It is written, That he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, for all days; it is an inheritance. ‘Why then was Solomon anointed? Because Adoniah disputed his right of succession’. ‘Whence do we know that in a case of dispute anointing is required, and that it does not suffice that the king entrusts his kingdom to whomsoever he chooses? — Said R. Papa: It is written there, In the midst of Israel; only if there is peace in Israel [is it an inheritance]. A Tanna taught: Also Jehu son of Nimshi was anointed only by reason of the claim to the throne by Joram son of Ahab. Was it indeed for this reason? ‘Was he not the first king of the dynasty? — The text is incomplete and should read thus: Kings from the House of David were anointed but not the kings of Israel. And if you ask: ‘Why then was Jehu son of Nimshi anointed? Because of the dispute of Joram son of Ahab. The Master said: ‘Kings from the House of David were anointed, but not the kings of Israel’. ‘Whence do we know this? — It is written: Arise, about him, for this is he: This one requires anointing but not others. The Master said: ‘By reason of the claim to the throne by Joram’. Were we indeed justified to commit sacrilege with the oil of anointing solely by reason of the claim to the throne by Joram son of Ahab? — As R. Papa replied elsewhere: It was done with pure balm; so here too: It was done with pure balm. ‘And Jehoahaz by reason of the claim to the throne by his brother Jehoiakim who was two years his senior’. ‘Was he indeed older, is it not written: And the sons of Josiah: the first-born Johanan, the second Johoiakim, the third Zedekiah and the fourth Shallum; upon which R. Johanan remarked that Johanan was identical with Jehoahaz and Zedekiah with Shallum! — Jehoiakim was indeed older, and [the other] was called first-born, because he was first in succession. But is it permitted to install the younger son in preference to the older? Is it not written: And the kingdom he gave to Jehorom for he was the first-born? — That one followed in his forefather's footsteps. The Master said: ‘Shallum is identical with Zedekiah’. But are not the sons enumerated in numerical order? — He [Zedekiah] is called ‘the third’, because he was the third among the sons, and he is called ‘the fourth’, because he was the fourth to reign, for Jeconiah reigned before him: Jehoahaz was the first successor, then followed Jehoiakim, then Jeconiah and then Zedekiah. Our Rabbis taught: Shallum is identical with Zedekiah; and why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect [‘shalem’] in his deeds; or according to another explanation, because the kingdom of the House of David ended [shalem] in his days. ‘What was his real name? — Mattaniah, as it is written, And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah, for the king [Nebuchadnezzar] said to him, God may deal severely with thee, if thou wilt rebel against me, as it is written, And he brought him to Babylon, and also, And He also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear by the Lord. But was there any oil of anointing at that time? Has it not been taught: ‘When the holy ark was hidden there disappeared with it the jar of manna, the flask of the oil of anointing, the rod of Aaron together with its almonds and blossoms, and the coffer which the Philistines had sent as a present to the God of Israel, as it is written: And put the jewels of gold, which ye return Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by the side thereof. ‘Who hid it? Josiah, king of Judah, hid it, as it is written: And he said, put the holy ark [in the house which Solomon the son of David did build: there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders]. [As to the other articles:] R. Eleazar said: [Their disappearance is] inferred by the common expressions of sham, doroth and mishmereth. Replied R. Papa: It was done with pure balm. Our Rabbis have taught: In anointing kings one draws the figure of a crown, and with priests in the shape of the letter chi. Said R. Menashia: The Greek-[letter] chi is meant. One [Tanna] teaches: The oil was first poured over the head and then smeared between the eye-lids; whereas another [Tanna] teaches: The oil was first smeared between the eye-lids and then poured over the head. [On this point there is] a dispute of Tannaim: One holds that the anointing has preference; the other holds that the pouring has preference. What is the reason of him who holds that the pouring has preference? He derives it from: And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron's head [and anointed him to sanctify him]. And he who maintains anointing has preference holds [his view] because this was the method employed in connection with the vessels of ministry. But is it not written first: ‘And he poured’, and then, ‘and anointed’? — This is what it means: ‘Wherefore did he pour the oil, because he had already anointed him to sanctify him. Our Rabbis have taught: It is like the precious oil upon the head [coming down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard]. Two drops of the oil were hanging down like pearls from Aaron's beard. Said R. Kahana; It was taught, ‘When he [Aaron] spoke, the drops moved upwards and rested by the roots of his beard. This caused anxiety to Moses. Perhaps, Heaven forfend, [he said] I have committed sacrilege with the oil of anointing! But a heavenly voice was heard, saying: Like the dew of the Hermon, that cometh down upon the mountains of Zion; as the dew is not subject to sacrilege, so the oil that cometh down upon the beard of Aaron is not subject to sacrilege. Yet Aaron was still worried: ‘Although Moses did not commit sacrilege, I myself am guilty of sacrilege’. Thereupon the heavenly voice pronounced: Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity: As Moses is not guilty of sacrilege, so thou too art not guilty of sacrilege. Our Rabbis have taught: Kings are anointed only by the side of a spring, so that their rule be prolonged, as it is written: And the king said unto them . . . and bring him down to Gihon . . . and anoint him there. Said R. Ammi: ‘When one wishes to know whether he will survive the coming year or not, let him take a burning lamp during the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement and place it in a house where there is no draught; if the lamp burns out to the end, he will know that he will survive the year. And if one is about to engage in business and wishes to know whether he will succeed or not,let him get a cock and feed it; if it grows fat and handsome, he will know that he will succeed. When one is about to go on a journey and wishes to know whether he will return home, let him enter a darkened room; if he can perceive^{ᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉ}