(R. Chiya bar Aba): Hash-m rewards even for modest words.

Lot's older daughter shamelessly called her son Mo'av (like me'Av, from father). The Torah said "do not besiege Mo'av, and do not wage war against them." War is forbidden, but we may afflict them;

Lot's younger daughter modestly called her son Ben Ami (the son of my nation). The Torah said "do not besiege (Amon), and do not instigate a quarrel with them." We may not pain them at all.

(R. Chiya bar Avin): One should always be quick to do a Mitzvah. Because Lot's older daughter slept with Lot one night before her sister, she merited to have a descendant in Yisrael (Oved, the son of Rus the Mo'avis) four generations earlier (than Rechav'om, the son of Na'amah the Amonis).

(Beraisa): "From the common people" excludes a Mashu'ach and a Nasi.

Question: The Torah already taught that a Mashu'ach brings a Par, and a Nasi brings a Sa'ir (unlike commoners)!

Answer (part 1): One might have thought that a Mashu'ach brings a Par when he sins through Hora'ah, and a Se'irah or Kisvah for Shogeg. The Tana teaches that this is not so.

Question: This does not explain why we must exclude a Nasi. He brings only for Shogeg!

Answer (part 2 - Rav Zvid): The case is, he ate a k'Zayis of Chelev when he was a commoner, and then he was appointed Nasi, and then learned of his sin. One might have thought that he brings like a commoner. The Tana teaches that this is not so (he is exempt).

Question: This is like R. Shimon, who follows (says that the law depends on his status at) the time he learns of his sin;

However, Chachamim follow the time of his sin. If so, he brings like a commoner. When do we exempt a Nasi from a Se'irah or Kisvah?

Correction (Rav Zvid): Rather, he ate a half k'Zayis of Chelev when he was a commoner, then he was appointed Nasi, he ate another half k'Zayis (the entire k'Zayis was eaten within the normal allotted time to be liable for eating a k'Zayis), and then learned of his sin. One might have thought that he brings like a commoner. The Tana teaches that this is not so (he is exempt).

Question (Rava): Does being Nasi separate (acts of eating, so they will not join)?

Question: What is the case?

Answer: He ate a half k'Zayis of Chelev when he was a commoner, he was appointed Nasi, he was deposed, and then ate another half k'Zayis (all within the allotted time) and then learned of his sin.

Perhaps the two eatings do not join when his status was not the same for both, but here, both times he was a commoner!

Or, perhaps in either case, the eatings do not join.

Suggestion: We can settle this from Ula's law!

(Ula): A man ate Chelev; he (later realized this and) separated a Chatas, became a Mumar (idolater) then repented. Since the Korban could not be offered when he was a Mumar, it is permanently disqualified.

Rejection: We cannot learn from there. A Mumar cannot bring a Korban, but a Nasi can (just it is different)!

Question (R. Zeira): If a commoner ate Safek Chelev, and he was appointed Nasi, and then learned of his (Safek) sin, what is the law?

Obviously, according to Chachamim, who follow the time of the sin, he brings an Asham Taluy (like a commoner).

The question is according to R. Shimon. Since his law changed regarding a definite sin, does it also change regarding a Safek sin?

Or, perhaps his law changes only in the definite case, but not in a case of Safek?

This question is unsettled.

(Beraisa): "From the common people" excludes a Mumar;

R. Shimon bar Yosi says, "(a Mitzvah) that one may not do it, and he forgot, and sinned" - one brings a Korban only if he would not have sinned had he known (that this is forbidden).

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Rav Hamnuna): They argue about whether a Mumar to eat Chelev (one who wantonly eats Chelev) brings a Korban for eating blood.

The first Tana holds that since he is a Mumar to eat Chelev, he is also a Mumar regarding blood;

R. Shimon bar Rebbi Yosi holds that since he would not have eaten blood knowingly, he brings a Korban.

Question: Rava holds that all agree that a Mumar to eat Chelev is not a Mumar to eat blood!

Answer #2: The case is, he is a Mumar to eat Neveilah l'Te'avon (for pleasure). He intended to eat Kosher meat, and accidentally ate Neveilah.

The first Tana holds, since he intentionally sins l'Te'avon, he is like a (standard) Mumar (i.e. idolater);

R. Shimon bar Yosi holds, since he does not sin when he can fulfill his desire in a permitted way, he is not a Mumar.

(Beraisa): If a man ate Chelev, he is a Mumar;

Who is a Mumar? It is one who eats Neveilos, Treifos, Shekatzim u'Rmasim (insects and swarming rodents), or drinks Yayin Nesech (wine offered to idolatry. Tosfos ha'Rosh - since it is so spiritually revolting, he must be a Mumar; Merumei Sadeh - we discuss wine poured on the ground in front of idolatry);

R. Yehudah says, even one who wears Sha'atnez is a Mumar.

Question: The first Tana contradicts himself!

Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): It means, if a man ate Chelev because he desired it, he is a Mumar. If he ate to anger Hash-m, he is a Tzeduki;

What kind of Mumar is assumed to be a Tzeduki? It is one who eats Neveilos, Treifos, insects, Shekatzim u'Rmasim, or drinks Yayin Nesech;

R. Yehudah says, even one who wears Sha'atnez is a Mumar.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about one who wears Sha'atnez mid'Rabanan. Chachamim say that one is Mumar only for Sha'atnez mid'Oraisa;

R. Yehudah says, since this is a well-known Isur, he is a Mumar even for Sha'atnez mid'Rabanan.

Rav Acha and Ravina argued. One said that one who sins l'Te'avon is a Mumar, and one who sins to anger Hash-m is a Tzeduki;

The other said, even one who sins to anger Hash-m is a Mumar.

Question: What does he consider to be a Tzeduki?

Answer: An idolater is a Tzeduki.

Question (against the first opinion - Beraisa): One who eats a flea or mosquito is a Mumar.

Surely, this is to anger Hash-m, and he is only a Mumar!

Answer: He does this only to taste what is forbidden, but not to anger Hash-m.

(Mishnah): Nasi is a king.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Nasi" refers even to the head of a Shevet, such as Nachshon;

Rejection: It says regarding the Nasi "Hash-m Elokav"; like it says about a king;

Just like a king has only Hash-m over him, also a Nasi.

Version #1 - Question (Rebbi): Would I be considered a Nasi?

Answer (R. Chiya): No. You have a counterpart in Bavel (the Reish Galusa, i.e. the executive head of Yisrael in exile).

Question (Rebbi - Beraisa): Kings of (the 10 tribes of) Yisrael and kings of the Davidic line both bring the Korban of a Nasi.

Answer (R. Chiya): They were not submissive to each other, but we are submissive to Bavel.

Version #2 (Rav Safra) Question (Rebbi): Would I be considered a Nasi?

Answer (R. Chiya): No. (The Reish Galusa of) Bavel is the staff (executive authority). Eretz Yisrael (which you head) is (only) the lawmaker.

(Beraisa): "The staff will not depart from Yehudah" is the Reish Galusa of Bavel, who subjugates Yisrael with a staff;

"The lawmaker (will not depart) from (Yehudah)" are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah to multitudes.

(Mishnah): Which Kohen Gadol is considered Mashu'ach? It is one anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah, but not Merubah Begadim (he was not anointed. His inauguration was through wearing the extra garments of a Kohen Gadol.)

The only difference between a Mashu'ach and Merubah Begadim is that the former brings a Par (for Hora'ah).

(If the Kohen Gadol is Tamei or sick on Yom Kipur, another Kohen does the Avodah in his stead. When the former becomes Tahor or healthy, he resumes being Kohen Gadol. He is called the serving Kohen Gadol. The latter is called Kohen she'Avar.) The only difference between them is that serving Kohen pays for the Par (that atones for for the Kohanim) on Yom Kipur and Asiris ha'Efah (the daily Minchah of the Kohen Gadol);

The following apply to both of them;

He may offer the Korbanos on Yom Kipur, he is commanded to marry a virgin, a widow is forbidden to him, he may not become Tamei if a relative dies, he does not grow his hair or tear his clothes over a Mes, and Shogeg murderers in Arei Miklat (refuge cities) go free when he dies.

(Gemara - Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): To make Shemen ha'Mishchah in the Midbar, they cooked the spices in the oil;

R. Yosi: There was not even enough oil to rub on the spices! (The spices weighed 1750 Shekalim (about 30 kilograms, so their volume was roughly 50 liters), and there was only one Hin (about four liters) of oil - Shmos 30:23,24.) Rather, they soaked the spices in water, then put the oil on them to absorb the fragrance, then scraped off the oil.

R. Yehudah: We know that other miracles occurred with Shemen ha'Mishchah (so we can say that also the cooking was a miracle)!

Only 12 Lugim of oil were made. They used it to anoint the Mishkan, its Kelim, Aharon, and his sons all seven days of the inauguration, and the full measure lasted for all generations!

"Zeh (this) will be to Me for generations" (the Gematri'a of "Zeh" is 12).

(Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah): "Moshe took the Shemen ha'Mishchah and anointed the Mishkan and everything in it" - several miracles occurred with the Shemen ha'Mishchah;

They started with only 12 Lugim. Much should have been lost through absorptions into the pot (in which they cooked it) and the spices, through evaporation during the cooking, through anointing the Mishkan, its Kelim, Aharon and his sons all seven days of the inauguration, and through anointing Kohanim Gedolim and kings;

A Kohen Gadol must be anointed even if his father was Kohen Gadol, but we do not anoint a king succeeding his father.

Question: Some kings who succeeded their fathers were anointed!

Question (continued): Why did they annoint Shlomo?

Answer: (In each case, this was to silence a dispute over the kingship.) Adoniyahu tried to usurp Shlomo's kingship;

Asalyah had seized reign in place of Yeho'ash;

And Yehoyakim expected to reign before Yeho'achaz, for he was two years older.

All the oil is intact for future use: "Zeh will be to Me for generations."

Question: The Beraisa requires anointing a Kohen Gadol who succeeds his father. What is the source of this?

Answer: "The Kohen ha'Mashi'ach in place of him from his children" - even though he succeeds his father, he is Kohen Gadol only if he was anointed. (Keren Orah - surely, anointing is not Me'akev (essential). The Gemara means that he is not Kohen Gadol due to inheritance unless he was anointed. Note - we said that a Merubah Begadim is a Kohen Gadol, even though he was not anointed. However, one could have explained that until the Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden, it was Me'akev.)

Question: The Beraisa says that we need not anoint a king who succeeds his father. What is the source?

Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov): "In order that his kingship will last (he and his children)" - it is an inheritance.

Question: What is the source that we must anoint his son when there is a dispute, and it does not suffice to say which son will succeed him?

Answer (Rav Papa): "He and his children b'Kerev (amidst) Yisrael" - it is an inheritance (only) when there is peace in Yisrael.

(Beraisa): Yehu ben Nishmi was anointed because Yoram disputed his kingship.

Question: In any case, he needed to be anointed. His father was not king!

Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means that we anoint kings of the Davidic line, but not Malchei Yisrael.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rava): "Go anoint (David) for this one..." - only this (royal line) must be anointed.

Question: If Malchei Yisrael are not anointed, Yoram's dispute is no justification for Me'ilah (forbidden usage) of Shemen ha'Mishchah!

Answer: We answer like Rav Papa did (to answer a different question). He was anointed with pure Afarsimon oil (not Shemen ha'Mishchah).

Question: The Beraisa said that Yehoyakim expected to reign before Yeho'achaz, for he was two years older. The verse contradicts this!

"The sons of Yoshiyahu - the firstborn was Yochanan, the second was Yehoyakim, the third Tzidkiyahu, and the fourth Shalom.

(R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu (this will be explained). Yochanan is Yeho'achaz.

Answer: Yehoyakim was older. The verse calls Yochanan the firstborn regarding kingship (i.e. he was the first of them to reign).

Question: A younger son may not reign before an older son - "he gave the kingship to Yehoram, for he is the firstborn"!

Answer: Yehoram was a proper heir (he was a Tzadik when he became king). Yehoyakim was not.

(R. Yochanan): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu. Yochanan is Yeho'achaz.

Question: "The third Tzidkiyahu, and the fourth Shalom" shows that they are different!

Answer: He was the third oldest, and he was the fourth to reign.

First Yeho'achaz reigned, then Yehoyakim, then Yehoyakim's son Yechanyah (he is also called Yehoyachin), and then Tzidkiyahu.

(Beraisa): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu;

Version #1: He is called Shalom because his deeds were Meshulam (complete, i.e. righteous).

Version #2: He is called Shalom because he Shalmah (finished) the line of Davidic kings.

Really his name was Matanyah - "Melech Bavel appointed Matanyah, his (Yehoyachin's) uncle to be king in place of him (Yehoyachin), and changed his name to Tzidkiyahu."

The name signified Kah (Hash-m) will be Matzdik (justify) the sentence (Maharsha - to exile the rest of Yisrael) if you rebel against me. (Some Yisre'elim were already exiled, and Hash-m would have exiled the rest of Yisrael if not for the merit of Tzidkiyahu.)

"(Tzidkiyahu) rebelled against Melech Nebuchadnetzar, who had imposed on him an oath in Hash-m's name."