In Keritot, 14b, we begin on the third wide line: “Rabbi Abba said: There are three mentions of blood for which one is liable to excision.” The Torah mentions this three times: once in Leviticus 7:27, once in Leviticus 17:10, and again in that same passage, Leviticus 17:14.
The Gemara explains that one mention refers to ordinary blood, one to the blood of consecrated offerings, and one to the residual blood that emerges after the initial gush of blood at the time of slaughter. Ordinary blood is the blood of unconsecrated animals. The blood of consecrated offerings is the blood of an animal brought as an offering. The residual blood is the blood that comes out after the initial flow produced by the slaughter.
One might have thought that only the blood of slaughter is prohibited so severely, because that is the blood placed on the altar. The residual blood, however, is not placed on the altar, so perhaps it should not be considered as severe as ordinary blood. The verse therefore teaches us that the residual blood is also considered blood and that one is liable to excision for consuming it.
We can understand this with regard to the first flow of blood, which is called the blood of the soul. That is the blood that emerges during the initial slaughter and is collected for placement on the altar. I might have thought that only the blood of the soul is included. The Gemara therefore teaches that the residual blood is included as well.
The Gemara asks: This is understandable according to the opinion that an additional verse comes to include blood. But a teaching states that the residual blood is subject to a prohibition, while another opinion maintains that one is liable to excision for it. According to the first opinion, the residual blood has only a prohibition and no liability to excision. According to the second opinion, the additional verse teaches that there is liability to excision even for the residual blood.
According to the Rabbis, there is an additional mention of blood in the verse. Since the Rabbis do not require that extra mention specifically for the residual blood, they use it to teach that liability to excision applies to all forms of blood. The verse says, “Any person who eats any blood.” The question is what the additional word “any” comes to include.
The teaching explains that without the additional expression, I would have thought that the verse referred only to the blood of the soul—the initial flow that emerges at the time of slaughter and is placed on the altar. The additional expression teaches that ordinary blood and the residual blood of consecrated offerings are included as well, even though they are not placed on the altar.
How do we know that these forms of blood are also included and that one is liable to excision for consuming them? The verse says, “Any blood.” Thus, liability to excision is derived from the single expression “any blood.” According to this view, even the opinion that generally requires three verses does not need the other two verses here, because everything can be derived from the expression “any blood.”
The Gemara therefore proposes a different explanation: one verse refers to ordinary blood, one to the blood of consecrated offerings, and one to covered blood—the blood of a slaughtered animal that must be covered. One might have thought that once the blood was covered, it was no longer considered blood. For example, if the blood was covered and then became uncovered, perhaps a person who consumed it would not be liable, because it had ceased to be blood when it was covered. The verse teaches that even covered blood remains blood for this purpose.
The Gemara continues by listing five separate prohibitions concerning blood. One appears in Leviticus 3:17: “You shall not eat any fat or any blood.” A second appears in Leviticus 7:26: “You shall not eat any blood.” A third appears in Leviticus 17:14: “You shall not eat the blood of any flesh.” A fourth appears in Leviticus 12:16: “Only the blood you shall not eat.” A fifth appears in Deuteronomy 12:23–24: “Only be strong not to eat the blood.”
Why are there so many prohibitions? One prohibition refers to ordinary blood, one to the blood of consecrated offerings, one to covered blood, one to the blood of separated limbs, and one to the residual blood.
There is a well-known law concerning the blood of the limbs that have separated from the flesh. If the blood emerged from the meat and then returned into it, it is prohibited. If it never emerged, the Torah prohibition does not apply. Technically, according to Torah law, if a person took a raw piece of meat that had never been salted and bit into it, the blood that entered his mouth would be permitted. This is the blood of the limbs that had not separated from the flesh. Did the Rabbis in earlier times not eat raw meat? What was that raw meat? It was meat containing blood that had not separated.
We are speaking of blood that emerged—for example, through cooking—and then returned into the meat. That is the blood prohibited by Torah law. This is why the meat must be salted: once the meat is cooked, there is a concern that the blood will emerge and then return into it. This is the blood of the separated limbs. The fifth category is the residual blood.
Not all these forms of blood carry liability to excision. Only the forms mentioned earlier carry that liability. The other verses establish separate prohibitions, but they do not all establish the penalty of excision.
We now turn to another example, concerning the second tithe. Rabbi Ila said that if a person eats second-tithe grain, wine, and oil outside Jerusalem, he receives three sets of lashes. Grain refers to wheat, wine refers to wine, and oil refers to olive oil. All three are different forms of second tithe, and he ate all three outside Jerusalem.
At first glance, however, there is only one prohibition. The verse says, “You may not eat within your gates,” and that prohibition applies to all three items. This is a single prohibition that includes several matters, and the general principle is that one does not receive separate lashes for every item included in such a prohibition.
The Gemara answers that the passage contains additional verses. One verse says, “You shall eat before the Lord your God in the place that He will choose,” and then lists “your grain, your wine, and your oil.” From this we know that these items must be eaten in Jerusalem and not outside it. Why, then, does another verse repeat, “You may not eat within your gates,” and again list the grain, wine, and oil?
The additional verse must be coming to divide the prohibition, teaching that there is a separate prohibition for each item. Rabbi Judah rejects this explanation. If the matter were derived only from the positive commandment, “You shall eat,” I would not necessarily know that there is a prohibition involved. I might have thought that one who eats these foods outside Jerusalem violates only the positive commandment, because the verse says, “You shall eat.” The additional verse, “You may not eat,” is therefore needed to teach that there is also a prohibition.
But if that verse is needed merely to establish the prohibition, how can we know that there are three separate prohibitions when one eats all three items? The Gemara answers that the verse could have said simply, “You may not eat them within your gates.” Since it instead lists the grain, wine, and oil separately, it comes to designate a separate prohibition for eating each one.
Rabbi Yitzchak gives another example. If a person eats bread, roasted grain, and fresh grain before the Omer offering has been brought, he receives three sets of lashes. The Torah says, “You shall eat neither bread nor roasted grain nor fresh grain until this very day.” These are three forms of the new crop. Bread is grain made into bread. Roasted grain is grain roasted while the kernels remain distinct. Fresh grain is grain taken directly from the stalk in its fresh state.
Again, this appears to be a single prohibition that includes several items. The Gemara asks why the Torah had to mention bread explicitly. It could have written, “Roasted grain and fresh grain,” and we could have derived bread from them.
The Gemara answers that bread has a special stringency: the obligation to separate challah applies to bread, whereas it does not apply in the same way to the other two forms. I might therefore have thought that the laws of the new crop apply only to roasted grain and fresh grain, while bread is excluded because it has a separate law of challah. The Torah therefore mentions bread explicitly.
The Gemara then asks why the Torah did not mention roasted grain explicitly and derive bread and fresh grain from it. It answers that roasted grain has its own possible stringency, because the kernels have not yet been ground. I might have said that the prohibition of the new crop applies specifically to roasted grain, which remains in its original form, but not to bread, which has already been processed. The Torah therefore mentions bread as well.
As for fresh grain, it cannot be derived from either of the others because fresh grain is the form used for the Omer offering. The Torah therefore had to mention all three forms.
The Gemara asks whether the Torah could have mentioned only two of the three forms and allowed us to derive the third. It answers that one cannot derive one from the other two because each pair has a distinctive feature. The Torah therefore repeats the forms in a way that teaches that each is independently included.
In the end, the Gemara focuses on the fact that roasted grain appears in the middle: bread, roasted grain, and fresh grain. Since roasted grain is singled out, the forms on either side of it—bread and fresh grain—are compared to it. Just as eating roasted grain creates a separate liability, eating bread creates a separate liability, and eating fresh grain creates a separate liability.
Why did the Torah place roasted grain in the middle rather than list the items in another order? The middle position teaches that both items beside it are similar to it. Thus, all three forms carry separate prohibitions.
Abaye says: One should never treat a verbal analogy lightly. He says that many important laws are known only through verbal analogies, so a person should not dismiss them as though they were insignificant.
Consider the law of sacrificial disqualification through improper intent. Everyone knows that consuming such an offering carries liability to excision, yet the Torah does not state explicitly that this consumption carries that penalty. Rabbi Yohanan transmitted in the name of Zeiri, who transmitted it in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, that the penalty is derived through a verbal analogy from the law of leftover sacrificial meat.
Concerning leftover sacrificial meat, the verse says, “The one who eats it shall bear his sin.” Concerning the offering disqualified through improper intent, the verse likewise says, “The person who eats from it shall bear his sin.” Just as the expression in the first case refers to liability to excision, so too the same expression in the second case refers to liability to excision. This entire law is derived through the verbal analogy.
Rabbi Simai likewise says: One should never treat a verbal analogy lightly. The law of leftover sacrificial meat itself is known through a verbal analogy. The Torah does not state its penalty explicitly in the passage where the prohibition is introduced.
How, then, is the penalty derived? One verse says that the one who eats the leftover meat “shall bear his sin,” and another verse describes something as “holy.” A different verse concerning leftover meat says, “It shall not be eaten, because it is holy.” The word “holy” in the two passages creates a verbal analogy. Since the second passage is clearly referring to leftover meat, the first passage is also understood to refer to leftover meat, and the penalty is derived through that analogy.
Abaye gives another example. The prohibition involving a daughter born from a woman whom a man violated is a fundamental Torah law, yet it is not stated in a completely explicit form. It is derived through the verbal analogy of the words “they are.”
The verse says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for they are your own nakedness.” The wording includes a daughter of any kind and therefore includes a daughter born from a woman whom the man violated. The word “they are” is then compared with the same expression used concerning the daughter of one’s wife, teaching that the two cases are equally prohibited.
Thus, there is no distinction between a daughter born from an illicit relationship and a granddaughter born from such a relationship. The Torah uses the same formulation for both. The prohibition is learned through the verbal analogy “they are,” and the punishment is derived through a second verbal analogy involving the word “abomination.”
Regarding the daughter of a priest, the Torah says that if she engages in such an act, she is to be burned. The same expression is used in the case under discussion, and therefore the punishment of burning is derived through the verbal analogy of “abomination” and “abomination.”
Abaye again says: One should never treat a verbal analogy lightly. Consider those who are executed by stoning. The law of stoning is a fundamental Torah law. The Torah is described as being connected to tablets of stone, and the law of stoning is itself an essential part of the Torah. Nevertheless, certain cases of stoning are known through a verbal analogy.
For example, the punishments for relations with one’s father’s wife, for relations between a man and another male, and for relations with an animal are expressed in the Torah with the words, “Their blood is upon them.” The Torah does not state the particular method of execution in each of those passages.
Regarding a medium and a practitioner of forbidden divination, however, the Torah explicitly states that they are to be put to death by stoning. Since the same expression, “Their blood is upon them,” is used in both passages, the verbal analogy teaches that the other cases also carry the punishment of stoning. This demonstrates again how many important laws depend on verbal analogy.
We now turn to the Mishnah and the anointing oil. The anointing oil was made from various spices, with precise quantities specified by the Torah. A person may not prepare anointing oil at home, and he may not use it on his body. If someone prepares the exact quantity and composition of the anointing oil specified by the Torah, he is liable to excision.
There is an exception. If he prepares it in order to study and understand how it was made, or in order to provide it for the community so that it could be used for its proper communal purposes, he is exempt. The community itself used anointing oil for the anointing of kings and priests.
When is a person liable? If he prepares the anointing oil with the intention of applying it to his own body, he is liable even if he never actually applies it. The preparation itself, when done with that intention, creates the liability. The person who ultimately applies it, however, is exempt if the oil was not the original oil prepared by Moses.
The reason is that the Torah says, “It shall not be made like it,” and, regarding applying it, “Whoever puts some of it on an outsider shall bear his sin.” The expression “some of it” refers specifically to the anointing oil prepared by Moses. If a person applies any later oil that was prepared in imitation of it, there is no liability to excision for the application.
Thus, when the Mishnah says that one who applies the oil is liable, it refers either to the original oil prepared by Moses or to a person who prepares the oil with the intention of applying it. If he prepares it in order to study its preparation or to provide it for the community, there is no liability to excision. Such a person is exempt and permitted; this is not a prohibition comparable to the laws of Shabbat.
The commentators explain that “for the community” means that it may be prepared for use in anointing kings and priests. The same principle applies to the incense. Just as one may not reproduce the anointing oil for personal use, one may not reproduce the incense for personal use. The Torah uses similar language concerning the recipe of each, teaching that one may not duplicate either one for private purposes.
Someone who prepares the incense for personal use is exempt from excision, just as one who prepares an imitation of the anointing oil for personal use is exempt. The same is true of a person who prepares it in order to study how it was made. Studying the process is considered a personal use, but it does not create the liability that applies when one prepares it in order to use it on his body.
The Gemara now asks: If the law of the anointing oil is derived from the law of the incense, perhaps the derivation should work in the other direction as well. The law of one should teach us something about the other.
With regard to the anointing oil, if a person prepares only half the quantity, he is exempt. Perhaps the same should apply to the incense: if he prepares only half the quantity, he should also be exempt.
Rabbah rejects this comparison. He says that if one prepares half the quantity of incense, he is liable, whereas if one prepares half the quantity of anointing oil, he is exempt. The distinction is derived from the wording of the verses.
Regarding the anointing oil, the Torah says, “According to its formulation, you shall not make anything like it.” The expression “like it” teaches that the full formulation is prohibited, but a half formulation is not. Regarding the incense, however, the Torah says, “The incense that you shall make.” Every act of preparing the incense is included, even if it is prepared in a smaller quantity.
There is also a practical reason for this distinction. It is possible to prepare the incense in half-portions, because the daily service used half in the morning and half in the afternoon. The anointing oil, by contrast, does not have such a naturally divided daily measure. Therefore, preparing half the quantity of incense can still constitute a complete act of preparing incense.
This is not necessarily the only view. We recite every day that incense prepared in half the quantity is valid. The view being discussed here appears to maintain that incense prepared in half the quantity is prohibited when a person prepares only that half as the complete act. If the person already has half a quantity remaining and prepares another half in order to restore the full amount, however, that is a different case and may be permitted.
The discussion then turns to the ingredients and measurements of the anointing oil. The verse lists the spices and their quantities: five hundred units of myrrh, two hundred and fifty units of aromatic cinnamon, two hundred and fifty units of another cinnamon-like spice, and five hundred units of cassia. The total, according to this calculation, is 1,750 shekels.
The teaching is not merely providing a calculator. The verse itself is not completely straightforward. It gives one ingredient as five hundred, another as half of five hundred, and another as two hundred and fifty. The question is whether the final two hundred and fifty should be understood as another half-measure of the same ingredient or as a separate quantity.
One possible reading would produce a total of 2,000 units. Another reading understands the two hundred and fifty associated with the first spice as half of a five-hundred-unit measure, while the final two hundred and fifty remains an independent quantity. That produces the total of 1,750.
The teaching comes to establish that the first ingredient is five hundred and the last ingredient is only two hundred and fifty. If the Torah intended both to be five hundred, it could have written the two ingredients together and then stated that half the measure was two hundred and fifty. The fact that it separated the expressions indicates that they are not measured in the same way.
Rav Papa asks how the spices were weighed. Did they weigh each ingredient exactly, equal against equal, or did they tip the scale slightly in favor of the spices by adding a little extra? When a person measures, there is a practice of giving slightly more than the exact amount. The question is whether that was done here as well.
The Gemara answers that they did add something extra, although only the Holy One knows precisely how much extra was added. The proof is that the Torah states a half-measure of two hundred and fifty rather than simply stating five hundred. If the spices were measured exactly in one operation, the Torah could have given the complete quantity. Since it describes the measurement as two separate halves, this indicates that each weighing involved its own slight addition.
This weighing is called tipping the scale in favor of the spices, as opposed to measuring exactly. The term “an eye for an eye” in this context refers to measuring equally, while giving an additional amount is tipping the scale in favor of the spices.
Rav Yehudah says that the phrase “measure for measure” sounds as though the weights must be exactly equal. The Gemara answers that the statement that only the Holy One knows the amount added teaches that the measurement was not mathematically exact. The people added a little, but only God knew the precise amount.
Why does it matter that God knew how much extra was added? It teaches that the addition was part of the required procedure. The people themselves could not identify its exact amount, but the fact that the Gemara says that God knew the amount indicates that there was a recognized practice of tipping the scale.
The Gemara returns to the expression that half of the measure of the cinnamon-like spice was two hundred and fifty. Why not simply say to bring five hundred? The answer is that the five hundred was weighed in two separate operations. Each time, the scale was tipped slightly in favor of the spices. This teaches that the measurement was performed with that addition rather than by placing a single five-hundred-unit weight against the entire amount.
The Gemara then clarifies that “measure for measure” does not mean that the spices were measured against one another. Each spice had to be weighed against the standard weights. Once the five hundred units of myrrh had been measured, one could not simply use the myrrh itself as the weight against which the next spice was measured. Each ingredient had to be measured individually against the weights.
Rashi explains that the weights were placed on one side and the spice on the other, with the scale tipped slightly in favor of the spice. Another commentary, attributed to Rabbenu Gershom, explains the two portions differently. According to him, one should not combine two separate quantities of two hundred and fifty and then weigh the total against a five-hundred-unit weight. Each portion is measured separately.
The discussion then turns to the miracle involved in preparing the anointing oil. The ingredients included roots and other fragrant parts of the spices. The roots were boiled so that their fragrance would be absorbed into the oil. But the total amount of anointing oil was only twelve logs, a relatively small quantity. If the roots absorbed the oil, and the pot absorbed some as well, and some evaporated during cooking, how could there have been enough oil for all the uses that followed?
The anointing oil was used to anoint the entire Tabernacle, its vessels, Aaron, his sons, and the priests during all seven days of the inauguration. It was also used for future High Priests and kings. Nevertheless, the original twelve logs remained available. This was a miracle: the oil did not diminish despite all the uses made of it.
One explanation is that the roots were first placed in water, allowing them to absorb water completely. They therefore could not absorb additional oil. The same was done with the vessel: it was filled with water first, so that it would not absorb the oil. The oil was then placed on top, and afterward it was collected again.
In any event, numerous miracles occurred with the anointing oil from beginning to end. It was originally only twelve logs, yet it was used for all the anointings of the Tabernacle, the vessels, Aaron and his sons, the priests, the High Priests, and the kings. Even in the future, the same twelve logs will remain. The Gemara says that the numerical value of the words “twelve logs” hints that the oil will still be present in the future.
The Gemara teaches that the oil did not evaporate, disappear, or become lost over time. It remained intact even after being used for all these purposes. It was a miraculous oil.
A teaching states that when Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle, many miracles occurred with it from beginning to end. At the outset, there were only twelve logs. How much does a pot absorb when something is cooked in it? How much did the roots absorb? How much was lost through evaporation? Nevertheless, the oil was used to anoint the Tabernacle, its vessels, Aaron, his sons, all seven days of the inauguration, future High Priests, future kings, and even a High Priest who was the son of a High Priest. The oil remained sufficient for all of them.
A High Priest, even the son of a High Priest, requires anointing. A king, however, is not anointed if he is the son of a king. The Gemara asks how we know this. The verse says, “The priest who is anointed in his place from among his sons.” The word “anointed” teaches that even the son of a High Priest must be anointed before becoming High Priest.
Why does the verse say “the priest who is in his place from among his sons”? It could simply have said “the son of the priest.” The additional word “anointed” teaches that even a son must receive anointing. Without anointing, he does not become High Priest.
Regarding a king, however, the verse says that he and his sons will prolong their days upon the throne. This teaches that the kingship is inherited, just as an inheritance passes from father to son. Therefore, a son who succeeds his father as king does not require anointing.
The Gemara asks why Solomon was anointed if the son of a king does not require anointing. The answer is that there was a dispute. Adonijah sought the throne, and Solomon’s succession was contested. Whenever there is a dispute among potential heirs, anointing is required to establish which person is the king.
The same applies to Joash. He was the son of Ahaziah, but Athaliah was attempting to eliminate the royal descendants. Since the succession of the Davidic dynasty was threatened, Joash had to be anointed.
Jehoahaz also had to be anointed, even though his father, Josiah, had been king. The reason was that Jehoahaz had an older brother who was two years older. Although the older brother was not necessarily fighting for the throne, the ordinary order of inheritance might have placed the kingship with him. Therefore, transferring the kingship to Jehoahaz required anointing.
The Gemara then asks how we know that even the son of a High Priest requires anointing. The verse says, “The priest who is anointed in his place from among his sons.” The word “anointed” is unnecessary if the son automatically becomes High Priest. It therefore teaches that even a son requires anointing.
The Gemara returns to the principle that a son of a king does not require anointing. The verse says that the king and his sons will have long days upon the throne. The phrase “he and his sons” indicates inheritance, and inheritance passes automatically from father to son.
Why, then, was Jehu son of Nimshi anointed? He was not from the Davidic dynasty and was not simply succeeding his father. The Gemara answers that he was anointed because of the dispute involving Jehoram son of Ahab. The question is that if kings from the northern kingdom do not normally require anointing, why was Jehu anointed merely because of a dispute?
The Gemara answers that the text is missing a phrase and should be understood as follows: kings of the House of David are anointed, but kings of Israel are not anointed. The law of anointing applies primarily to the Davidic kings. Jehu, as a king of Israel, would ordinarily not require anointing, but because a dispute had arisen concerning the kingship, he was anointed to establish his authority.
Another teaching states that kings of the House of David are anointed, while kings of Israel are not. The proof is the command given to Samuel: “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.” The expression “this is he” distinguishes David from his brothers and from the kings of Israel who do not require anointing.
The Gemara asks: If Jehu was anointed because of the dispute involving Jehoram, was the sacred anointing oil used? Would that not constitute misuse of consecrated property? The answer is that they did not use the actual sacred anointing oil. They used fragrant balsam oil as a substitute, a kind of symbolic anointing. The oil smelled like the anointing oil but was not the sacred oil itself.
The Gemara had earlier taught that the sacred oil was reserved for its proper uses. The use of ordinary fragrant oil in this case was therefore not misuse of consecrated property. It established the anointing symbolically without using the oil prepared by Moses.
A question is raised in the name of the Ben Ish Chai: How could there be misuse of the anointing oil if the oil never diminished? Misuse normally involves deriving benefit from consecrated property. The answer is that misuse does not require the object to be destroyed or diminished. A person can derive benefit from it even if it remains intact. The fact that the twelve logs remained does not mean that no benefit was derived from using them.
The Gemara continues with the kings who were anointed. Jehoahaz was anointed because he was placed before his older brother. The Gemara asks about the chronology and whether Jehoahaz was actually older or whether another figure was older. The answer is that the reference to being “older” concerns his position as heir to the throne, not necessarily his age.
Josiah had several descendants, and the succession passed through different members of the family. Jehoahaz was called first because he was considered the appropriate heir, even though another brother was older. The Gemara explains that a person who is not worthy of the kingship does not automatically take precedence merely because he is older. The kingship is given to the son considered fit to continue the path of his father.
This is why Jehoahaz was placed before the older son. Jehoahaz was viewed as the one who would continue Josiah’s character and conduct, whereas the older son was not considered equally worthy.
The Gemara then discusses the names of the kings who descended from Josiah. One person is recorded with two names, and what appear to be two separate descendants are actually the same individual. Zedekiah was also called Shallum and Mattaniah. He was the last king of the Davidic line before the destruction of the Temple.
His original name was Mattaniah. Nebuchadnezzar changed his name to Zedekiah when he appointed him king. Nebuchadnezzar warned him that if he remained loyal, he would be acting righteously, but if he rebelled, the punishment that would come upon him would be justified. The name Zedekiah expressed that threat.
Zedekiah did rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, and as a result Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. He was punished for his rebellion. He was also called Shallum because the kingship of the House of David came to an end in his time.
The Gemara now asks: If Jehoahaz was anointed, then the anointing oil must still have existed in his time. How could that be, if the anointing oil had already been hidden away by Josiah?
When Josiah realized that the Temple would eventually be destroyed, he concealed several sacred objects. When the Ark was hidden, it was hidden together with the jar containing the manna from the wilderness, the anointing oil, the staff of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and the gift that the Philistines had sent when they returned the Ark.
When the Philistines captured the Ark, it remained in their possession for seven months. A plague then struck them, and they sent the Ark back together with golden objects as a gift to appease the God of Israel. Those golden objects were also placed in concealment.
The verse describes the Philistines placing the Ark on a wagon together with the gold objects they were sending as a guilt offering. The Ark then returned on its own to the Jewish people. These items were later concealed together with the other sacred objects.
Who concealed them? Josiah, king of Judah, concealed them. He instructed the Levites to place the Ark in a secure location, saying that it should no longer be carried on their shoulders. It was to be placed in the Temple that Solomon had built.
Rabbi Elazar derives this through a verbal analogy. Concerning the Ark, the verse says, “Place it there.” Concerning the jar of manna, the verse also says, “Place it there.” The same expression connects the two, teaching that they were concealed together.
Another verbal analogy connects the expression “for safekeeping” concerning the manna with the expression “for your generations” concerning the anointing oil. The same terminology is also used concerning the staff of Aaron. Thus, the Ark, the manna, the anointing oil, and the staff of Aaron were all placed in concealment.
If the anointing oil had already been concealed from the time of Josiah, how could Jehoahaz have been anointed? The Gemara again answers that he was not anointed with the actual sacred oil. He was anointed with ordinary fragrant balsam oil.
Why did they not prepare a new batch of sacred anointing oil? The tradition was that the oil prepared by Moses was not to be reproduced for ordinary use. Although the community could theoretically prepare oil for communal needs or for study, they did not prepare a new batch. They preserved the original oil and concealed it.
The Gemara then teaches how kings and priests were anointed. Kings were anointed in the form of a crown, with the oil placed around the head in a circle. Priests were anointed in the form of the Greek letter chi. Some explain this as an X-shaped marking, while others describe it as a particular pattern made with the oil.
The oil was poured on the head, and the anointer then placed oil between the eyes and joined the two areas with his finger. The result was the shape of the Greek letter chi.
A teaching records two opinions about the order of the procedure. According to one opinion, the oil was first poured on the head, and then a mark was made between the eyes. According to the other opinion, the oil was first placed between the eyes, and only afterward was the anointing performed on the head.
The dispute is whether the pouring of the oil or the anointing itself is the primary act. One opinion gives priority to the pouring because the verse states that oil is placed between the eyes and then the person is anointed. The other opinion gives priority to the anointing because in some cases anointing was performed without the additional mark between the eyes.
The Gemara cites the verse, “Like precious oil upon the head, flowing down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron.” What is this precious oil, and whose beard is being described? The Rabbis explain that it refers to the anointing oil and to two drops that descended onto Aaron’s beard.
When the oil was poured over Aaron, two drops remained suspended in his beard. When Aaron spoke, the drops would rise and remain near the flesh of his beard so that they would not fall. The oil moved with him but did not leave his beard.
Moses was concerned that he might have misused the anointing oil by placing too much on Aaron’s head. He worried that the excess oil that descended to Aaron’s beard represented an unauthorized addition.
A heavenly voice then declared, “Like the dew of Hermon that descends upon the mountains of Zion.” Just as there is no misuse in the dew that rests on Hermon and Zion, there was no misuse in the oil that descended upon Aaron’s beard. Moses had not violated the prohibition.
The verse continues, “How good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.” Just as Moses had not misused the oil, neither had he caused Aaron to misuse it. The brotherly love between Moses and Aaron was itself part of the praise expressed by the verse.
The commentators ask what was troubling Moses. Was there any possibility of misuse merely because extra oil flowed onto Aaron’s beard? The explanation is that Moses was not concerned only with the technical measurement. He was concerned that perhaps he had added something beyond the proper amount while anointing his brother.
Moses had originally been designated to serve as High Priest during the first seven days, and there had been a possibility that he would retain that position permanently. After Moses argued with God concerning the Exodus, however, God told him that Aaron would be the High Priest. Moses therefore lost that role.
One might have expected Moses to feel some resentment when Aaron was anointed, especially because the anointing represented the position Moses had once been expected to hold. Instead, Moses rejoiced completely in Aaron’s appointment. He felt that the honor being given to Aaron was being given to him as well.
That is the meaning of “How good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.” Moses felt no jealousy and no sense of loss. He experienced Aaron’s elevation as his own joy. Even the concern that he might have added too much oil expressed his desire to perform the anointing perfectly, not any resentment toward Aaron.
Aaron, too, was not considered to have misused the oil. The two drops on his beard were part of the miraculous anointing, and the brotherhood between Moses and Aaron was not treated as personal benefit or misuse. It was the harmony and love between brothers that made the entire event “good and pleasant.”