And was just one miracle performed with the anointing oil? But many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. He explains: Its initial preparation was only the measure of twelve log, and even so the Tabernacle and its vessels were anointed with it, and likewise Aaron and his sons were anointed with it all the seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations, and yet despite the reduction in the amount of oil during its preparation process, as well as its multiple uses throughout history, it all remains intact for its use in the future.

Rabbi Yehuda adds that this is as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The word zeh has a numerical value [bigimatriya] of twelve, which teaches that the original twelve log of oil that existed at the outset are extant throughout all the generations. If so, i.e., if such miracles were performed in connection with the oil, it is no wonder that its initial preparation was miraculous.

The Sages taught in a baraita: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, many miracles were performed with it, from its initial preparation to its end. Its initial preparation was only twelve log; consider how much of it a cauldron absorbs from what is cooked inside it, and how much of it the roots of the plants absorb, how much of it the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, and Aaron, and his sons were all anointed with it all seven days of the inauguration.

The baraita adds: And High Priests and kings were anointed with it, and even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing with the oil. But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. And if you say: If so, for what reason did they anoint King Solomon, who was the son of King David? It was due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to usurp the monarchy. And similarly Joash, son of Ahaziah, was anointed king (see II Kings 11:12) due to the threat of Athaliah, his paternal grandmother, who attempted to seize the monarchy for herself (II Kings 11:1–3). And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed as king (II Kings 23:30) due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than his brother, i.e., Jehoahaz. Ordinarily the older brother succeeds the father, but Jehoahaz was more worthy of the throne.

The Gemara clarifies several aspects of this baraita. The Master said earlier: And even a High Priest, the son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say merely: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is taught by the addition of the term “anointed”? This teaches us that even when the new High Priest is from among the sons of the previous High Priest, only that priest who is anointed with oil is the High Priest, but if he is not anointed with oil he is not the High Priest.

The Master said earlier: But one does not anoint a king, the son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that this is as it is written: In order that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, all the days in the midst of Israel (see Deuteronomy 17:20). The mention of a king’s sons teaches that the kingdom is an inheritance, which does not need to be confirmed by anointing.

The baraita further taught: And for what reason did they anoint King Solomon? Due to the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that in a situation where there is a dispute the new king requires anointing, and the current king cannot simply grant the kingship as an inheritance to whomever he desires? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his children in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). At a time when there is peace in Israel the monarchy transfers smoothly to the king’s son, but not when there is a dispute.

It was taught in a baraita: Also Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi, was anointed by Elisha the prophet only due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, who was the incumbent king, against whose reign Jehu rebelled (see II Kings 9:1–6). The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state this reason? Let the tanna of the baraita derive that Jehu required anointing due to the fact that he was the first king of his lineage, as Jehu was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings from the kingdom of Israel. And if you say: For what reason did Elisha anoint Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi? This was due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab.

The Master said earlier: One anoints the kings of the house of David with the anointing oil, but one does not anoint the kings of Israel. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointing of David: “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12). This king, i.e., any king from the house of David, requires anointing, but another king, i.e., from the kingdom of Israel, whose kings were not descendants of the house of David, does not require anointing.

The Master said earlier that Jehu was anointed due to the dispute with Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the dispute with Joram, son of Ahab, will we misuse consecrated property by anointing someone unnecessarily with the anointing oil, which is called “a sacred anointing oil” (Exodus 30:31)? After all, kings of the kingdom of Israel do not require anointing. The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa said with regard to Jehoahaz: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, rather than with the anointing oil. Here too, Elisha anointed Jehu with pure balsam oil, not the anointing oil.

It was further stated in the baraita: And Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than him. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim in fact older than Jehoahaz? But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” (I Chronicles 3:15); and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The one who is called Johanan in that verse is also called Jehoahaz, and the one who is called Zedekiah is the same as the one called Shallum. If so, Jehoahaz is the eldest son, not Jehoiakim. Why, then, was it necessary to anoint Jehoahaz?

The Gemara answers: Rather, Jehoiakim was actually older than Jehoahaz. And why does the verse call Jehoahaz the firstborn? This is referring to the fact that Jehoahaz was the firstborn with regard to the monarchy, i.e., he became king first. The Gemara asks: And do we establish the younger son as king before the older son? But isn’t it written with regard to Jehoshaphat: “And he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3)? The Gemara answers: Jehoram was one who filled the place of his fathers, i.e., he was fit to serve as king, and therefore as he was firstborn he received the kingship, whereas Jehoiakim was deemed unworthy of the honor, despite being the oldest among his brothers.

The Master said earlier: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah. The Gemara objects: But the Torah counts these individuals in a row, i.e., one after the other, as I Chronicles 3:15 mentions the first, second, third, and fourth sons. This indicates that they are different people. The Gemara answers: Shallum and Zedekiah are in fact one and the same, and what is the reason the verse calls Zedekiah the third? The reason is that he is third of the sons, i.e., the third in order of birth. And what is the reason the verse calls Shallum the fourth? The reason is that he is fourth to the kingship, because Jeconiah reigned before him. How so? Initially Jehoahaz reigned, and afterward Jehoiakim reigned, and afterward Jeconiah reigned, and afterward Zedekiah reigned. Accordingly, Zedekiah, called Shallum, was fourth to the kingship.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The one who is called Shallum is also called Zedekiah, and why was he called Shallum? Because he was perfect [shalem] in his good deeds. Alternatively, he was called Shallum because in his days the kingdom of the house of David was completed [shalam], as he was the last king in the Davidic dynasty. And what was his true name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylonia made Mattaniah, his father’s brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17).

The baraita explains: Why did the king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, call him by the name Zedekiah? The reason is that Nebuchadnezzar said to him: God will justify [yatzdik] the judgment over you if you rebel against me, as it is stated with regard to Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin: “And brought him to Babylon” (II Chronicles 36:10), and with regard to Zedekiah it is stated: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).

§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement that Jehoahaz was anointed: And was there anointing oil in the days of Jehoahaz? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yoma 2:15) that from when the Ark was sequestered, along with it was sequestered the jar of manna that was next to it (see Exodus 16:33), and the flask of the anointing oil, and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms (see Numbers 17:23).

The baraita continues: And also sequestered with the Ark was the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: “And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8). And who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it, as it is stated: And the king said to the priests: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, built (see II Chronicles 35:3).

And Rabbi Elazar says: How do we know that all these items needed to be sequestered together with the Ark? The halakha that the jar of manna was to be kept with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there.” The word “there” is stated with regard to the Ark: “Where I will meet with you there” (Exodus 30:6), and it is also stated with regard to the manna: “And put there” (Exodus 16:33).

The halakha that the anointing oil was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the words “generations” and “generations.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna: “To be kept throughout your generations” (Exodus 16:33), and also with regard to the anointing oil: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil to Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31).

Finally, the halakha that Aaron’s staff was to be kept together with the Ark is derived through a verbal analogy between the terms “to be kept” and “to be kept.” This term is stated with regard to the jar of manna, and also with regard to Aaron’s staff: “To be kept there, for a token against the rebellious children” (Numbers 17:25). All these items, which are connected through these verbal analogies, including the anointing oil, were kept by the side of the Ark, and therefore they were sequestered together with the Ark. If so, how was Jehoahaz anointed with the anointing oil? Rav Pappa said: They did not anoint Jehoahaz with the anointing oil, but with pure balsam.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One anoints the kings by placing the oil around the head in a shape similar to a crown, and one anoints the High Priests by placing the oil upon the head in the shape similar to chi. In explanation of this statement, Rav Menashya says: It is placed in a shape similar to the Greek letter chi, which looks like the letter Χ. It is taught in one baraita: First, one pours oil on the head of the High Priest, and afterward one places oil between his eyelashes. And it is taught in another baraita: First, one places oil between his eyelashes, and afterward one pours oil on his head. The baraitot contradict each other.

The Gemara explains: This is a matter of dispute between tanna’im, as there is a tanna who says: Anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and therefore comes first, and there is a tanna who says that pouring on the head is preferable to anointing between his eyelashes, and therefore comes first. What is the reasoning of the one who says that pouring on the head is preferable? As it is stated: “And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), which indicates that pouring is first, followed by anointing. And as for the one who says that anointing between his eyelashes is preferable to pouring on the head and precedes it, he holds that anointing is preferable in that its use is increased, i.e., it is performed on the service vessels, whereas pouring is not mentioned with regard to the service vessels.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to the opinion that anointing is preferable, isn’t it written: “He poured,” and ultimately: “He anointed” (Leviticus 8:12)? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: What is the reason for “he poured”? This action was made possible due to the fact that he had already: “Anointed him to sanctify him.” In other words, the pouring came after the anointing, which is the primary act.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is like the precious oil upon the head descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil shaped like pearls hung from Aaron’s beard. Rav Kahana says it is taught: When Aaron would speak his beard would move, and these drops would miraculously rise and sit on the roots of his beard, so that they would not fall to the ground. And with regard to this matter Moses, our teacher, was concerned, thinking: Perhaps, God forbid, I misused the anointing oil by pouring too much, which resulted in these two additional drops.

A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head, descending upon the beard; the beard of Aaron, that descends upon the collar of his garments, like the dew of the Hermon that comes down upon the mountains of Zion” (Psalms 133:2–3). This comparison serves to teach: Just as the Hermon’s dew is not subject to misuse of consecrated property, as it is not consecrated but can be used by all, so too, the anointing oil that descends upon Aaron’s beard is not subject to misuse of consecrated property.

And still Aaron himself was concerned, thinking: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property but I misused the oil, as the additional oil is on my body and I derive benefit from it. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property.

§ The Gemara cites a baraita which discusses the anointing of kings. The Sages taught: One may anoint kings only next to a spring. This is done as a fortuitous sign, so that their kingdom should continue uninterrupted just as the waters of the spring flow uninterrupted throughout the year. As it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon in the days of King David: And the king said to Benaiah: Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel (see I Kings 1:33–34). The Sages derived from here that all kings should be anointed near a spring.

Parenthetical to this matter of performing an act as a fortuitous sign, the Gemara cites that which Rav Ami says: One who desires to know if he will live through this current year or not should bring a lit candle during those ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and hang it in a house through which wind does not blow, and he should watch it carefully: If its light continues he shall know that he will live out his year.

And one who desires to conduct business and wants to know if his business will succeed or not should raise a rooster. If the rooster gets fat and beautiful he shall know that the venture will succeed.

This one who wishes to leave on a journey and wants to know whether he will return to his home should enter a dark house. If he sees