QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that one who makes an imitation of the Shemen ha'Mishchah in order to give it to the Tzibur is not Chayav Kares.

The Gemara (5b) relates that the Shemen ha'Mishchah that Moshe Rabeinu made was used throughout history, for every occasion at which the Shemen ha'Mishchah was necessary. Why, then, is a person exempt from Kares when he makes Shemen ha'Mishchah for the Tzibur? Since the Tzibur has no need for his imitation Shemen ha'Mishchah, and his Shemen will not be used by the Tzibur, it should be no different from making it for himself and he should be Chayav!

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#14) answers that even though the Tzibur has no use for the Shemen ha'Mishchah, the person is still exempt from Kares. He is punished with Kares only when he makes Shemen ha'Mishchah for an individual's personal use.

(b) TOSFOS in Nazir (47a, DH v'Chen) answers that when the Beraisa says that one is exempt from Kares when he makes Shemen ha'Mishchah for the Tzibur, it refers only to one who makes it for the Tzibur in the times of Moshe Rabeinu, such as before Moshe Rabeinu himself made it.

(c) Tosfos there answers further that the Beraisa means that one is exempt when he makes Shemen ha'Mishchah in order to teach the Tzibur how to make Shemen ha'Mishchah. (That is, the words in the Beraisa, "Lilmod Bo," do not refer to a second case, but rather they are a description of the case of "l'Mosro l'Tzibur.") The Beraisa is not referring to one who makes Shemen ha'Mishchah for a Tzibur to use. (According to the answers of Tosfos, one is exempt from Kares only when the Tzibur needs the Shemen ha'Mishchah.)

(d) The RAMBAM seems to have another approach. The Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 1:4) writes, "One who makes Shemen ha'Mishchah... is Chayav Kares.... However, if he made it in order to learn or to give it to another person, he is exempt." While the Gemara states, "... or to give it to the Tzibur," the Rambam writes, "... to give it to another person." The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#109) infers from the words of the Rambam that he maintains that one is punished with Kares only when he makes the Shemen ha'Mishchah for his own personal use. There is no difference between making the Shemen ha'Mishchah for a Tzibur or for any other person besides himself.

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says, "How did Moshe make the anointing oil? They brought the ingredients of the incense and soaked them in water. They floated the oil upon them, and the oil absorbed the fragrance, and then they separated the oil and removed it from the incense." What was the purpose of soaking the ingredients in water first?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Shar'an) explains that they feared that the incense ingredients might absorb the small amount of oil that would be placed on them. As the Gemara earlier points out, the amount of oil was very small in proportion to the amount of incense ingredients. Therefore, they soaked the ingredients in water so that they would absorb water, which would prevent them from absorbing the oil afterwards. Even though the ingredients were saturated with water, they still would be able to give their fragrance to the oil.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 1:2) explains that they would soak the ingredients in water until all of the fragrance had entered the water. They then would boil the water (and not the ingredients) with the oil, until all of the water had evaporated and the oil remained with the fragrance. (The word "Kipchu" in the Gemara apparently means that they would evaporate the water through boiling.)

OPINIONS: The Beraisa teaches that a "Melech Ben Melech," one who becomes king by virtue of being the son of a king, does not need to be anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah. The Beraisa itself questions this from a number of cases in which a Melech Ben Melech was anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah (such as Shlomo ha'Melech; see following Insight). The Beraisa explains that whenever there is a dispute as to who should inherit the throne, the king is anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah, even when his father was king. Rav Papa derives this from the verse, "b'Kerev Yisrael" (Devarim 17:20), which implies that only when there is peace and harmony "among Yisrael" does the kingship pass from father to son without the need for anointing, but when there is controversy the king must be anointed.

Why does a king who is the son of a king not need to be anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah?

(a) RASHI (DH bi'Zeman) explains that when no one disputes the succession of the throne, the next king inherits his position and does not need to be anointed. When, however, there is disagreement concerning his right to the throne, the throne does not pass to him by inheritance (since it is not certain to whom this inheritance should go), and thus the new king must be anointed. Accordingly, the oil is used only to bestow upon him the status of king.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 1:11) writes: "A king who is the son of a king does not need to be anointed, because he inherits his father's position. If his inheritance of the kingship is disputed, then he is anointed in order to dispel the dispute and proclaim him unquestionably as king." It appears that the Rambam maintains that the anointment is not necessary to actually bestow upon him the status of king (that is, to transform him from a layman into a king), but rather its purpose is merely to dispel any doubts concerning his right to the kingship. Once he has been anointed, he is fit to inherit the kingship. (See also Insights to Shekalim 16:1.)

QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that a "Melech Ben Melech," one who becomes king by virtue of being the son of a king, does not need to be anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah. The Beraisa itself questions this from a number of cases in which a Melech Ben Melech was anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah, such as the case of Shlomo ha'Melech. The Beraisa explains that the reason why Shlomo ha'Melech was anointed, even though his father was David ha'Melech, was that Adoniyah disputed Shlomo's right to the throne. Whenever there is a dispute as to who should inherit the throne, the king is anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah, even when his father was king.

The Beraisa also says that the reason why Yeho'achaz was anointed, even though he was the son of Yehu, was that his brother Yehoyakim was two years older than he. The Gemara later asks how it was possible to make Yeho'achaz the king if he had an older brother. The verse in Divrei ha'Yamim II (21:3) relates that before Yehoshafat died he bequeathed the kingship to Yehoram "because he was the firstborn." This verse teaches that the kingship must be given to the firstborn. The Gemara answers that Yehoram became king not specifically because he was the oldest son, but because "he filled the place of his father," meaning that he was worthy of being king, and that is why he inherited the kingship. (The TOSFOS YESHANIM points out that although the verses relate that Yehoram was a Rasha, perhaps at the time he became king he was a Tzadik. The ARUCH LA'NER suggests that perhaps Yehoram was a Rasha even when he became king, but his brothers were even worse Resha'im.)

Why does the Gemara say that Shlomo was anointed because of Adoniyah's dispute? The Gemara should say that he needed to be anointed because he was younger than Adoniyah and his other brothers! Moreover, why does the Gemara not ask that Shlomo should not have been able to become king since he was younger than his brothers, as it asks with regard to Yeho'achaz?

(a) The MAHARSHA in Horayos (11b, DH v'Es) answers that the anointment of Shlomo ha'Melech was different because it was done according to the prophecy of Nasan ha'Navi. Since the anointment was based on the prophecy of the Navi, it was acceptable even though Shlomo was younger than his brothers. The only reason for anointing him with Shemen ha'Mishchah, therefore, was in order to refute the dispute of Adoniyah.

(b) The ARUCH LA'NER answers based on the Gemara here that asks what the source is for the requirement to anoint a Melech ben Melech when his right to the throne is disputed. Rav Papa explains that this is derived from the verse, "b'Kerev Yisrael" (Devarim 17:20), which implies that only when there is peace and harmony "among Yisrael" does the kingship pass from father to son without the need for anointing, but when there is controversy the king must be anointed.

This implies that when there is no dispute, the king is entitled to bequeath his position to any son he wants. This seems to contradict the statement of the Gemara that one cannot appoint a younger brother as king.

The Aruch la'Ner resolves this contradiction by asserting that when the king himself appoints his heir to the throne, he may appoint whichever son he wants. However, when the king does not announce his choice of successor before he dies, the people cannot appoint the younger brother as king.

The Aruch la'Ner writes that although the verse says that Yehoshafat gave the kingship to Yehoram "because he was the firstborn," which implies that even the king himself is not entitled to give the kingship to a younger son, the verse may be understood to mean that Yehoshafat chose to appoint Yehoram in the same way that the people appoint the king -- by giving the kingship to the firstborn. Had he wanted, he could have given the kingship to the son of his choice.

This also explains why the Gemara does not say that the reason why Shlomo needed to be anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah was that his brothers were older than he. David ha'Melech explicitly commanded before he died that Shlomo should be the heir to the throne. It was necessary to anoint him only because of the dispute with Adoniyah. (D. BLOOM)