Avi Wagner wrote:

Thank you again for the chidushim on kresis. I have a couple questions/comments:

(a) Rashi on 3a adresses how a woman could be chayav kares-- commnts similair to yours but slightly different are in the Mizrachi Parshas Acherei Mos 18:3.(I saw this brought down in a sefer I have on kresis called Maayanei Hatalmud, written by Harav Yitzchak Ralbag.)

(b) On daf 5 you quote the Minchas Chinuch(109) who understads shitas haRambam(Klei Hamikdash 1:4) to be that one is chayav kares only if shemen is made for one's own personal use. I thought that maybe it is possible to learn the Rambam in that perek halachah 5 to be saying that even shemen made levatalah is mechayev kares, otherwise why is it necessary to mention in the Yad and specifically in halachah 5? Do you have another possible understanding of this Rambam?

(c) On 5b you explain that the purpose of Shemen Hamishcha on a ben melech is a machlokes Rashi and the Rambam, Rashi holding only the shemen makes a shem melech chal on him, Rambam holding that shemen is only a birrur that he is the melech. Do you have any further insight into Rashi's svera? If you have time to respond I am anxious to hear. Have a chag kasher v'sameach!

Avi Wagner

The Kollel replies:

Hi again, Avi! Please forgive me for taking so long to get back to you. It took a while to get back into Kerisus and look over the Insights that you were referring to, I apologize. (As they say, "Kasha Atikta me'Chadata!")

I hope all is well with you, and you are still "Shteiging." I hear good reports about your brother, may both of you grow to be great Talmidei Chachamim and Yere'ei Shamayim, giving Hash-m and your families tremendous Nachas!

As for your comments:

(a) You mean 18:6, thanks! I see that the Gur Aryeh there suggests an approach almost identical to what we wrote in the Insights.

(b) The Rambam may mean to give a reasoning for the Torah's condition (Ta'ama d'Kra) that one brings a Korban only for smearing the oil that Moshe himself made, rather than any other Shemen ha'Mishchah. He explains that no other Shemen ha'Mishchah was ever made for the Tzibur.

(In fact, I'm not even sure I understand how it can be suggested that making Shemen ha'Mishchah l'Vatalah -- for no reason -- or for one's self is prohibited, but for a friend is not. What is the common denominator between the former, that does not include the latter?)

(c) Kingship is not a possession, that can pass from father to son. What is it then, and why does it normally pass to the child of the ruler? Perhaps it is a title that is conferred through national consensus. Tosfos (Yoma 12) writes that a Kohen Gadol was created in a similar a manner, through "pronunciation" rather than any other formal process. If so, the nation normally agrees that the son of the previous ruler is the natural choice, for an number of very logical reasons. If, however, for any reason there is a lack of consent as to who should rule, then the ruler must be chosen through Divine appointment, i.e. anointment by a prophet.

I hope you find these answers helpful, please feel free to send in more He'oros. I get much Nachas from them, even if I don't reply to them immediately!

Be well, and regards,

Rabbi Kornfeld