Question (R. Yitzchak): Does the same apply to [joining] eating [within the time to eat] half-loaves?

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): R. Yitzchak's question is not [a question]! Does it depend on eating half-loaves?!

If he ate a half-k'Zayis in the time to eat this half-loaf, and a half-k'Zayis in the time to eat this half-loaf, is this anything?! (Surely they do not join to obligate him!)

[What is eaten over the time to eat several half-loaves does not join to obligate him. Similarly,] if he ate several k'Zeisim in the time to eat several half-loaves in one Helam, [we are not stringent to consider this like separate He'elamos]; he is liable only once!

(On Shabbos, one is liable for Hotza'ah of k'Grogeres of food. If one was Motzi a half-k'Grogeres, and was Motzi another half-k'Grogeres in the same Helam, Chachamim obligate. R. Yosi exempts if he was Motzi to two Reshuyos or in two He'elamos.) Rabanan of Kisarin compare this to eating Chelev (half-k'Zeisim eaten over the time to eat several half-loaves do not join. If he ate whole k'Zeisim over the time to eat several half-loaves in one Helam, he is liable only once,) and from this we learn to [other Melachos of] Shabbos;

If he wove one thread in this garment, and one thread in this garment, is this anything [to obligate him]?!

If he wove several threads in several garments in one Helam, he is liable only once.

Answer (to the question above, about one who ate a half-k'Zayis before Minuy, a half-k'Zayis after Minuy, and a half-k'Zayis after he was deposed, in one Helam.) A Chiyuv Korban came in the middle - will you say that they join?!

Rebuttal (R. Avun): There, a Chiyuv Korban [is in between]. Here, there is Shinuy Korban (when he was Nasi or Mashi'ach, he was obligated a different Korban).

If one ate a k'Zayis before Minuy, a k'Zayis after Minuy, and a k'Zayis after he was deposed, according to the Talmidim, who say that [R. Shimon exempts in our Mishnah because] ascent atones, ascent atoned for the first, and he is liable for the second and third;

According to R. Yosi, who says that [he exempts because] the sin and the Yedi'ah are not the same, he is exempt for the first and second, and liable for the third.

If one ate a k'Zayis, and it is a Safek it it was before Minuy or after Minuy, or it is a Safek it it was before he converted or after conversion, or a Safek before he brought two hairs [of adulthood] or after he brought two hairs, he brings Asham Taluy.

(Beraisa): If one ate a k'Zayis of Safek [Chelev], and it is not known if it was on Yom Kipur or before Yom Kipur, Yom Kipur atones for his Safek (he is exempt from Asham Taluy).

If [it is not known whether he ate] on Yom Kipur or after Yom Kipur, Talmidim say that Yom Kipur atones for his Safek.

Rebuttal (R. Masniyah): Yom Kipur atones only for a Safek of kinds of blood (one who was Chayav Asham Taluy. Here, perhaps he ate after Yom Kipur, and Yom Kipur did not atone!)

Support #1 (for Talmidim - Tosefta Kerisus 4:16): It was Shabbos and Yom Kipur, and he did Melachah Bein ha'Shemashos [he is exempt from Asham Taluy, for the entire day atones].

Rebuttal: [There, he is exempt] no matter what you will say! If [he did the Melachah] on Yom Kipur, it atoned. If [it was] a weekday (Erev or Motza'ei Yom Kipur), it is permitted (he did not transgress anything! We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Question (Beraisa): If he ate [a k'Zayis of Safek... Also this is even Bein ha'Shemashos of Motza'ei Yom Kipur, and it says that Yom Kipur atones]!

Note: This is not in the Tosefta. We must say that the Gemara did not cite the entire Beraisa, for it was known or understood.

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): It discusses eating Heter [so if he ate on Motza'ei Yom Kipur, it was permitted].

Note: If so, we must say that it discusses eating k'Koseves ha'Gasah (the volume of a big date), which is the Shi'ur to be liable for eating on Yom Kipur.

If one ate five k'Zeisim, and he found out before Minuy that they were Safek, and he found out after Minuy that they were Vadai, according to Reish Lakish he is liable. (He said that Safek Yedi'ah is Yedi'ah only to be stringent, but not to be lenient.) According to R. Yochanan he is exempt.

Objection: Must Reish Lakish say that he is liable, and not exempt?! (Perhaps he holds that Safek Yedi'ah is Yedi'ah even to be lenient!)

Correction: Rather, if one ate five k'Zeisim, and he found out after Minuy that they were Safek, and he found out after demotion that they were Vadai, according to Reish Lakish, he is exempt. According to R. Yochanan he is liable.

Note: Above (13a), the Gemara initially brought like this correction, challenged it, and corrected it to say like the initial version here. GILYON EFRAYIM brings from NO'AM YERUSHALMI that the text here should say like above. PNEI MOSHE explains our text and adds to it.

(Above (12b), we said that if one ate three k'Zeisim and thought that they were two, and he separated one Chatas, R. Yochanan holds that since he received Kaparah for part of the sin, he received Kaparah for all of it. Reish Lakish disagreed. The following discussion was taught above (13a), and is repeated here twice virtually verbatim.) All agree that if the first [Korban] was alive, it is Nidcheh (he offers only the latter).

Question: What do we do with it?

Answer #1 (R. Yosi): It depends on Kaparah. (Only after he offers the latter Korban, the first dies, for then it is a Chatas whose owner atoned through another Korban.)

Answer #2 (R. Ze'ira): Any [Korban] that cannot be offered, not it or its money (for he must atone through the latter), it dies immediately. (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Explanation: (Above, we said that all agree.) R. Yochanan agrees that if the first [Korban] was alive, it is Nidcheh (he offers only the latter).

Question: What do we do with it?

Answer #1 (R. Yosi): It depends on Kaparah.

Question: Based on this, R. Yosi bei R. Bun asked [a contradiction in R. Yochanan];

If one ate five k'Zeisim [in one Helam], and he found out about the first, and separated a Korban, and [he found out about] the second, and separated a Korban, and [he found out about] the third, and separated a Korban, and the fourth, and separated a Korban, and the fifth, and separated a Korban...

(R. Yochanan): He atones through the first, for it is before eating all of them, and the rest [graze until they get a Mum. They are redeemed, and the money goes to Nedavah, i.e. Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach];

(Reish Lakish): He atones through the last, for it is after eating all of them. The rest are Nidchim.

Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna [argued about Safek Yedi'ah]. Rav Chisda rules like R. Yochanan (it does not fix for Chatas), and Rav Hamnuna rules like Reish Lakish (it fixes for Chatas).

Question (Rav Chisda, against Rav Hamnuna): A Mishnah [seemingly] supports you and argues with me! If there was [Safek] Yedi'ah in the middle, just like he brings Chatas for each one, so he brings Asham Taluy for each one.

Summation of question: Had the Tana taught Asham (he brings Asham Taluy for each one) and learns from it [Chatas], properly (it would support you. Why did he teach oppositely? Rather, he disagrees.)

Explanation (R. Chinenah): Even so, [R. Yochanan explains that the Mishnah] teaches two cases. (Just like Vadai Yedi'ah obligates a Chatas for each, Safek Yedi'ah obligates an Asham for each.)

(R. Yochanan ben Zakai): "Asher Nasi Yecheta" - Ashrei (fortunate) is [the generation] whose Nasi brings a Chatas. He brings for his Shegagah, all the more so he brings (i.e. repents) from his Mezid sin!

[The generation's] Nasi brings a Chatas - all the more so the commoner [brings to atone for his Shegagah]!

Suggestion: Perhaps "Nasi" is the Nasi (head) of a Shevet, like Nachshon!

Rejection: "V'Asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m Elokav", and it says there "Lema'an Yilmad Leyir'ah Es Hash-m Elokav." We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Elokav-Elokav;

Just like Elokav said there, it discusses the Nasi who has no one over him, only Hash-m his G-d (i.e. the king), also Elokav said here, discusses the Nasi who has no one over him, only Hash-m his G-d.

"Asher Yesh Tzadikim [Asher Magi'a Alehem k'Ma'ase ha'Resha'im v'Yesh Resha'im Asher Magi'a Alehem k'Ma'ase ha'Tzadikim]" - Ashrei (fortunate) are Tzadikim that get in this world [punishments proper for] deeds of Resha'im, and woe to Resha'im who get [reward for their Mitzvos] in the world like deeds of Tzadikim.

A king of Yisrael (the 10 tribes) and a king of Yehudah are the same. This one is not greater than this one, and this one is not greater than this one.

What is the source? We learn from "u'Melech Yisrael vi'[Yhoshafat] Melech Yehudah Yoshvim... b'Goren" - like [Sanhedrin, who sit] like in a granary (each king with his entourage was in a half-circle, so they could see each other.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): [Malchei Yisrael have the law of Nasi] only until Yehu ben Nimshi [and his descendants].

What is the reason? "Benei Revi'im Yeshvu Lecha Al Kisei Yisrael" - after this, people seized [power] through murder (they are not considered kings).

(Mishnah): Who is a Mashi'ach? It is one anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah...

(Rav Huna): The six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom, [had he sinned] he would have brought a female lamb [or goat], like a commoner.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah bei R. Ila'i): The Shemen ha'Mishchah that Moshe made, miracles occurred with it from the beginning to the end;

Initially it was only 12 Lugim, for it says "v'Shemen Zayis Hin." This is not enough to rub on the spices! (The spices weighed 1750 Shekalim (about 30 kilograms, so their volume was roughly 50 liters, about 12 times as much as the oil's volume.) All the more so it was miraculous, for the fire consumes (evaporation during cooking), the pot absorbs and the spices absorb. (He holds that the spices were cooked in the oil.)

From it they anointed the Mishkan and all its Kelim, the Mizbe'ach and all its Kelim, the Menorah and all its Kelim, the Kiyor and its base. From it they anointed Aharon and his sons all seven days of the inauguration. From it they anointed Kohanim Gedolim and kings;

A new king must be must be anointed. A king who is the son of a king need not be anointed, for it says "Kum Mashchehu Ki Zeh Hu" - this one must be anointed, but his children need not be anointed;

Distinction: However, a Kohen Gadol the son of a Kohen Gadol, even until 10 [or any number of] generations, must be anointed.

All of [the oil] is intact for future use - "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Zeh Li l'Doroseichem." (The Gematriya of Zeh is 12, to hint that all 12 Lugim are intact.)

(Beraisa): We anoint kings only by a spring [for an omen that their kingship should last]. David commanded "v'Hirkavtem Es Shlomo Beni... [El Gichon] u'Mashach Oso Tzadok ha'Kohen v'Nasan ha'Navi l'Melech Al Yisrael."

We anoint a king [who is the son of a king] only due to a dispute [over the kingship]. Why was Shlomo anointed? It was due to the dispute of Adoniyahu (he tried to make himself king). Yo'ash [was anointed] due to Asalyah [who had seized reign], Yeho'achaz due to his brother Yehoyakim, who was two years older, and Yehu due to [the dispute of] Yoram.

Question: Was it not taught "Kum Mashchehu Ki Zeh Hu" - this (royal line, i.e. of David) must be anointed, but Malchei Yisrael need not be anointed?!

Question: (How could they anoint Yeho'achaz?) Yoshiyahu (his father) buried [the Shemen ha'Mishchah]?

Answer: This teaches that they were anointed with Afarsimon oil.

Note: The Bavli gives this answer also to the question from Yehu. Perhaps the plural "they were anointed" alludes to this. It seems that there is an omission in the text.

We anoint kings only from a horn. Sha'ul and Yehu were anointed with a flask, and their kingships passed (to others). David and Shlomo were anointed with a horn, and their kingships endured.

We do not anoint kings who are Kohanim.

(R. Yehudah Antodriyah): This is due to "Lo Yasur Shevet mi'Yehudah."

(R. Chiya bar Ba): [That does not disqualify Kohanim more than any other Shevet other than Yehudah! Rather,] it is due to "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim Al Mamlachto Hu u'Vanav b'Kerev Kol Yisrael", and it says afterwards "Lo Yihyeh la'Kohanim ha'Leviyim [Chelek v'Nachalah Im Yisrael]."

Question: [We said that Yehoyakim was two years older than Yeho'achaz. It says] "ha'Bechor Yochanan"!

Answer: [Yehoyakim was older. The verse calls Yochanan] the Bechor for kingship (he was the first of them to reign. Yochanan is Yeho'achaz.)

(R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu.

Question: It says "ha'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu ha'Revi'i Shalom"!

Answer: He was the third to reign, and the fourth to be born.

He is called Tzidkiyahu, for he justified the Din (the punishment Nebuchadnetzar gave to him for rebelling against him). He is called Shalom, for in his days Shalmah (was completed) Malchus Beis David.

His name is not Shalom, and not Tzidkiyahu, rather, Matanyah - "va'Yimloch Melech Bavel Es Matanyah Dodo Tachtav..."

[A Kohen Gadol] anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah was in Bayis Rishon. Merubah Begadim was in the last building (Bayis Sheni)

This is like Rav Ina said in the name of R. Acha - there were five matters in which Bayis Sheni lacked what was in Bayis Rishon.

What is the source? It says "Alu he'Har v'Haveisem Etz... v'EIkavdah" - it is written Ikaved, lacking a Hei! This alludes to five matters that were in Bayis Rishon and lacking in Bayis Sheni.

These are the matters - fire [from Shamayim], Aron, Urim v'Tumim, Shemen ha'Mishchah and Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.