1)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak rules that someone who eats "Lechem, Kali (roasted grain) and Karmel (fresh grain that has been rolled in the hand but not roasted in fire)" before the Omer - receives three sets of Malkos.

(b)The problem with this is that - it seems to be a La'av she'bi'Kelalus (like we asked on the previous ruling).

(c)We reject the suggestion that the Torah could have written just "Lechem" inasmuch as we could not learn Kali or Karmel from Lechem - because Lechem is Chayav Chalah, which the other two are not.

(d)Had the Torah only written "Kali", we could not have learned from it ...

1. ... Lechem - which has been ground, effecting a change from its original form.

2. ... Karmel - because it (Kali) is eligible for the Minchas ha'Omer (which Karmel is not, unless it has been heated).

2)

(a)Nor could we learn ...

1. ... Lechem from Kali and Karmel - since it has been changed (whereas they have not).

2. ... Karmel from Lechem and Kali - which are eligible for the Minchas ha'Omer (whereas it is not).

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak therefore learns that one is Chayav three Malkos for transgressing all three - from the fact that Kali (which we can learn from the other two) is superfluous.

(c)The Torah could not have inserted "Kali" to teach us that although one receives Malkos for eating all three of them, one also receives Malkos for eating Kali alone (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5) - because then, it ought to have placed "Kali" either at the beginning or at the end. Placing it in the middle suggests that it goes together with both Lechem and Karmel, to teach us that if one eats Kali together with either one, he will receive two sets of Malkos.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan, citing a Beraisa learned by Zavda bar Levi (see Shitah Mekubetzes 8) learns from ...

1. ... the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avono" (from the Pasuk in Tzav in connection with Pigul)"ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa") "Avono" (from the Pasuk in Kedoshim in connection with Nosar "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa") that - one is Chayav Kareis for eating Pigul (of Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano).

2. ... "Mimenu" (in the former Pasuk) that - one is not Chayav for Pigul of Chutz li'Mekomo.

(b)Rebbi Yanai comments with regard to the Gezeirah-Shavah that - seeing as we learn Kareis for something as vital as Pigul, one should take great care not to underestimate the importance of Gezeiros-Shavos in general.

(c)The Pasuk "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa" (with regard to Nosar) is not clear, until we have Darshened another Gezeirah-Shavah (which we will cite shortly) - since it appears to refer to Pigul (of Chutz li'Mekomo) that precedes it.

(d)Rebbi Sima'i issues the same comment about this Gezeirah-Shavah as Rebbi Yanai made concerning the previous one. We learn from "Kodesh" ("ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa ki Kodesh Hash-m Chilel" in Kedoshim) "Kodesh" ("ve'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish ... ki Kodesh hu", in Tetzaveh) that - the first Pasuk refers to Nosar and not to Pigul Chutz li'Mekomo.

4)

(a)Abaye too, stresses the importance of a Gezeirah-Shavah, based on Rava quoting Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns Bito me'Anusaso from a Gezeirah-Shavah - with reference to the Din of Sereifah regarding the Arayos under discussion.

(b)The Torah does not mention Bito me'Anusaso (the daughter of a woman whom he raped) in this connection - only Bas Bito me'Anusaso .

(c)We learn from ...

1. ... "Heinah" from "Heinah" that - Bito me'Anusaso has the same Din as Bas Bito me'Anusaso (just like Bito me'Ishto has the same Din as Bas Bito me'Ishto, as the Torah specifically records).

2. ... "Zimah" "Zimah" that - just as someone who commits incest with his mother-in law is sentenced to burning, so too is Bito me'Anusaso.

(d)We cannot learn the Chiyuv Sereifah by Bito me'Anusaso with a Kal-va'Chomer from Bas Bito - due to the principle Ein Onshin min ha'Din(One cannot learn a punishment from a Kal va'Chomer).

(e)The last Amora to stress the importance of a Gezeirah-Shavah is Rav Ashi. When he says that we learn most Chayvei Sekilah from Ov ve'Yid'oni, he means that - in most cases of Sekilah, the Torah only writes "Demeihem bam" (such as by incest with one's mother and daughter-in-law), which we interpret as Sekilah only because of the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Demeihem bam" "Demeihem bam".

5)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who makes a replica of the Shemen ha'Mishchah in order to learn how to manufacture it, or in order to hand it over to the Tzibur - is not Chayav, whereas someone who does it order to anoint with it, is.

(b)The Tana rules that someone who actually anoints with it - is Patur ...

(c)... and when our Mishnah includes Sach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah among the K'risos, he us referring to - anointing with the actual oil that Moshe made.

(d)We learn the first Halachah from a Gezeirah-Shavah "be'Maskunto" "be'Maskuntah" (both in Ki Sissa) from the Ketores, and we know that someone who makes a replica of the Ketores to hand over to the Tzibur is Patur - because the Torah writes "Lo Sa'asu lachem", implying that one is Chayav only if he manufactures it for his personal use.

6)

(a)Rava draws a distinction between someone who makes a replica of half the Shemen ha'Mishchah - who is Chayav, and one who makes a replica of half the Ketores - who is Patur.

(b)Half of ...

1. ... the Shemen ha'Mishchah is - six Lugin.

2. ... the annual quota of the Ketores is - a hundred and eighty four Manin (one Manah = a hundred Dinrim).

(c)The problem with the distinction that we just made is that, based on the Gezeirah-Shavah that we just learned - one ought also to be Chayav for making half the Ketores.

(d)We resolve the discrepancy, based on the Torah's wording used in each respective case. We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with the Shemen ha'Mishchah) "u'che'Maskuntah Lo Sa'asu Kamohah" that - one is only Chayav for making a replica of the full amount (but not half).

2. ... (in connection with the Ketores) "ve'ha'Ketores asher Ta'aseh" that - one is Chayav even for making half of the amount, because one may also make a Shi'ur P'ras [half a Manah] each morning and a Shi'ur P'ras in the afternoon [see Rashash and Shitah Mekubetzes]).

7)

(a)Having listed the four ingredients of the anointing oil "Mor D'ror (distilled myrrh), 500 Shekalim; Kidah (cassia), 500 Shekalim; Kinmon-Besem (fragrant cinnamon), 500 (the Torah writes half - 250) Shekalim and K'nei-Bosem (fragrant cane), 250 Shekalim", the Beraisa nevertheless finds it necessary to mention the total (1750 Shekalim) - to preclude the suggestion that the ingredients should total 2000 Shekalim, because just as, when the Torah mentions 250 Shekel by the Kinmon-Besem, it is only referring to half of the ingredients (as the Torah writes "Machtziso"), so too, does the 250 Shekel mentioned by the "K'nei-Bosem" refer to only half of the total ingredients, and that one is therefore obligated to take 500 Shekalim weight of K'nei-Bosem.

(b)We know that this is not the case, because, if the Torah wanted to say that, it would have written "Kinmon-Besem u'K'nei-Bosem Mechtzah u'Mechtzah Chamishim u'Masayim".

(c)When Rav Papa asked Abaye whether the amounts were exactly as specified by the Torah or whether they added a little, Abaye replied that - since the Torah writes "Bad ve'Bad Yih'yeh", it is clear that the amounts must tally exactly with those specified in the Pasuk, and no more.

(d)Rav Papa rejected this however, based on a statement by Rav Yehudah 'Hakadosh Baruch Hu Yode'a Hachra'os - meaning that the little bits extra that one gave, were not weighed separately and added later, but by allowing the scales to tip slightly (and Hash-m knew exactly how much extra had been added).

8)

(a)When Rav Yehudah made his statement, he was referring to the problem why the Torah gives the measurement of the Kinmon-Besem in halves, which he found particularly puzzling - because the other three measurements are given in measurements of a full hundred, so why does the Torah go out of its way to turn this measurement into a fraction of a hundred?

(b)The reason that it does so is - because Kinmon Besem requires not just the one customary Hachra'ah, but two. Incidentally, this is the source from which we learn that the Shemen ha'Mishchah requires Hachra'ah.

(c)Ravina therefore explains "Bad be'Vad Yih'yeh" to mean that - one must weigh each of the ingredients against the metal weight, and not against one of the ingredients that has already been weighed.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, they prepared the Shemen ha'Mishchah by simply boiling the oil together with the spices. Rebbi Yossi objected to this explanation on the grounds that - the measure of oil that they used was not even sufficient to anoint the spices, let alone to produce a Hin of anointing oil.

(b)Rebbi Yossi therefore maintains that, in order to prepare the anointing oil, they would boil the above-mentioned spices in water, and pour the oil on top, to allow it to absorb the fragrance of the boiled spices from the water, before skimming it off.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah counters Rebbi Yossi's argument - by pointing out that this was not the only miracle that occurred with the Shemen ha'Mishchah.

(d)We know that ...

1. ... the anointing oil which Moshe Rabeinu made comprised twelve Lugin of oil - because the numerical value of the word "Zeh" (in the Pasuk Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yih'yeh Zeh Li") is twelve.

2. ... it was destined to last forever - from the words "Zeh Li le'Dorosam".

(e)Other miracles that occurred to it were that - the Mishkan together with all its Keilim were anointed from it, as were Aharon and his sons during the seven days of Milu'im, all the Kohanim Gedolim and many kings, yet it remained completely intact.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa, describes the miracles that took place with the Shemen ha'Mishchah at its inception, beginning with the fact that it only consisted of twelve Lugin to begin with - in which case the caldron ought to have absorbed some, the spices some more, and then one would have expected the fire to take its toll as well. Yet it ended up twelve Lugin just as it began.

(b)The Beraisa requires a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol to be anointed - but not a Melech ben Melech.

(c)Nevertheless, they anointed ...

1. ... Shlomoh - because of his brother Adoniyah, who was attempting to usurp the throne.

2. ... Yeho'ash - because of Queen Asalyah, who had usurped the throne.

3. ... Yeho'achaz - because of his brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior.

(d)The ...

1. ... Tana learns from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav" that - only a Kohen Gadol who has been anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah has the Din of a Kohen Gadol (even though he is the son of the previous Kohen Gadol), whereas ...

2. ... Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim al Mamlachto Hu u'Vanav" - that the son of a king inherits the throne automatically ...

3. ... unless there is a dispute in the matter (Yisrael are not in full agreement regarding the appointment of the next king), as Rav Papa learns from the Pasuk "be'Kerev Yisrael",

11)

(a)The problem with the Beraisa's statement that they also anointed Yeihu ben Nimshi because of the Machlokes of Yehoram ben Achav is that - he was not a Melech ben Melech, in which case he required anointing anyway.

(b)We therefore amend the Beraisa, adding that - it is only Kings of Yehudah who are anointed with the anointing oil, and not kings of Yisrael ...

(c)... which we learn from the word "Zeh" (in the Pasuk in Shmuel, in connection with Shmuel's anointing of David, "Kum Mashcheihu ki Zeh Hu").

(d)The only king not from Malchus Beis David to be anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah was Shaul ha'Melech. This was - because he was crowned before David ha'Melech) and the prohibition to anoint other kings with the Shemen ha'Mishchah began only with the anointing of David (as we saw from the source of the Halachah).

12)

(a)We object to the statement that Yeihu had to be anointed because of the Machlokes of Yehoram ben Achav in that - seeing as the holy anointing oil was not meant to anoint kings of Yisrael, using it to crown Yeihu (whatever the reason) would constitute Me'ilah.

(b)We resolve the problem - by taking our cue from Rav Papa, who (to answer a similar question) will explain later that the oil that was used there was pure Afarsemon oil (and not olive oil, like the Shemen ha'Mishchah).

(c)The Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim lists Yoshiyah ha'Melech's four sons "Yochanan the B'chor, Yehoyakim, Tzidkiyah and Shalum". In fact, the Pasuk does not omit Yeho'achaz - who is alias Yochanan.

(d)Yoshiyah really had only three sons - since Tzidkiyah and Shalum are one and the same.

13)

(a)We reconcile the Beraisa, which describes Yehoyakim as being Yeho'achaz (alias Yochanan)'s senior by two years, with the Pasuk, which refers to Yochanan as the B'chor - by interpreting the latter to be referring to the Malchus, which he was the first to receive.

(b)We learn from the words "ki He ha'Bechor" (in the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "ve'es ha'Mamlachah Nasan li'Yehoram ki He ha'Bechor") that - the oldest son has first rights to the throne.

(c)And the reason that Yeho'achaz was crowned before Yehoyakim is - because the latter was not yet worthy to succeed his father.

(d)Tzidkiyah is indeed alias Shalum, and when the Pasuk refers to the one as the third, and the other as the fourth, it means - the third in age, but the fourth to reign ...

(e)Even though there were only three sons, he was the fourth to rule - since Yechonyah (his nephew) was crowned before him.

14)

(a)Yechonyah was the son of - Yehoyakim.

(b)The Beraisa gives two reasons as to why Tzidkiyah was called Shalum; one, because he was perfect in deed, the other - because Malchus Beis David came to an end in his days.

(c)In fact, his real name was Matanyah - and it was Nevuchadnetzar who changed his name to Tzidkiyahu, as a warning that G-d would be Matzdik the Din (give him his desert) should he rebel against him ...

(d)... which he did, as a result of which Nevuchadnetzar subsequently exiled Tzidkiyah to Bavel.

15)

(a)Yoshiyah ha'Melech hid the Aron ha'Kodesh some years before the destruction of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash - to prevent it from going into exile to Bavel, from which he knew it would not return.

(b)Besides the jar of Manna and the bottle containing the Shemen ha'Mischah - Aharon's stick with its almonds and blossoms and the box containing the golden mice that the P'lishtim sent as a gift when they returned the captured Aron in the days of the Shoftim) were hidden together with it.

(c)The significance of Rebbi Elazar's statement 'Asya "Sham" "Sham", "Meshmeres" "Mishmeres", "Doros" "Doros" ' is that - it is from these Gezeiros-Shavos that we incorporate all the four above-mentioned items in the fate of the Aron.

(d)Consequently, seeing as Yeho'achaz's father (Yoshiyah) had already hidden the bottle containing the Shemen ha'Mishchah, Rav Papa explains, Yeho'achaz must have been anointed (like Yeihu ben Nimshi before him) with Afarsemon oil.

16)

(a)The Beraisa describes the anointing process, whereby a king was anointed in the shape of a crown - a Kohen Gadol like a Greek 'Chi' (an x).

(b)One Beraisa says that first oil is poured on the Kohen Gadol's head and then some is placed between his eye-brows. Another Beraisa - inverts the order.

(c)Either way, one then joins the two lots of oil in the shape of a Greek Chi.

17)

(a)The basis of the current Machlokes Tana'im is - whether the pouring is the predominant Mitzvah or the anointing.

(b)The Beraisa which considers the pouring more significant, bases it on the Pasuk in Tzav "va'Yitzok mi'Shemen ha'Mishchah al Rosh Aharon ... va'Yimshach oso Lekadsho" (giving the pouring precedence). The other Tana explains that - the Pasuk is coming to inform us that the purpose of the pouring of the oil on the Kohen Gadol's head is in order to anoint him (even though it was performed last).

(c)Rav Kahana cites a Beraisa in connection with the Pasuk in Tehilim "ka'Shemen ha'Tov al ha'Rosh Yored al ha'Zakein Z'kan Aharon". When Aharon spoke (or cut his hair), the two drops of oil that resembled pearls moved - from the tip of his beard to the roots.

(d)The significance of the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "ke'Tal Chermon she'Yored al Harerei Tziyon" is that - just as dew is not subject to Me'ilah, neither was Moshe Mo'el by placing too much oil on Aharon's beard (thereby allaying Moshe's fears that maybe he had been Mo'el).

2. ... "Hinei Mah Tov u'Mah Na'im Sheves Achim Gam Yachad" is - to reassure Aharon (who was afraid that perhaps he had been Mo'el, presumably from benefiting from its fragrance) that he was not Mo'el either.

18)

(a)A king is anointed beside a spring - as a sort of prayer that just as a spring keeps on flowing, so too, should his Malchus last long.

(b)Shlomoh was anointed beside the spring of Gichon ...

(c)... on his father David's orders).

19)

(a)Rav Ami prescribed a test entailing lighting a lamp in a house where there is no draft - during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, to ascertain whether one will survive the forthcoming year or not.

(b)He prescribed a different test to discover if a business venture will succeed or not - by rearing a rooster, and gauging his success by whether it turns out to be fat and good or not.

(c)And his third test requires standing in a dark room - where one hopes to see his shadow's shadow, a sure sign that he will return home from his forthcoming trip, safe and sound.

(d)We conclude however, that it is unwise to make these tests - because they may turn out to be negative, causing depression (which generates the harmful results that one would rather avoid).