(Rav Ila): If one ate (outside Yerushalayim) Ma'aser (Sheni) of grain, wine and oil, he is lashed three times.

Question: One is not lashed (more than once) for Lav shebi'Chlalos!

Answer: Here is different, for there are extra words in the verse:

"V'Achalta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Ma'asar Degancha v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha" teaches that you must eat inside (Yerushalayim), and not outside;

Question: Why do we need "Lo Suchal le'Echol bi'Sh'arecha Ma'asar Degancha v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha"?

Answer: This is to be Mechalek.

Question: "Lo Suchal" is not extra. It is a Lav for eating outside. It is Lav shebi'Chlalos. We have no source for Chiluk!

Answer: It could have said "Lo Suchal Le'achlam." Rather, it says "Ma'asar Degancha v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha" to put a Lav on each.

(R. Yitzchak): If one eats bread, Kali (parched grain) and Karmel (soft grain rolled in the hand to remove the chaff), and all are Chodosh (from new grain before the Omer), he is lashed three times.

Question: One is not lashed for Lav shebi'Chlalos!

Answer #1: Here is different, for there are extra words in the verse (Kali and Karmel);

It could have said just bread, and we would have learned Kali and Karmel from it!

Rejection: We could not learn Kali and Karmel from bread, for they are not liable to Chalah like bread is!

Answer #2: Rather, we could learn bread and Karmel from Kali.

Rejection: We could not learn bread from Kali, for grain was changed to make bread, but Kali is intact;

We could not learn Karmel from Kali, for Kali is valid for Menachos (i.e. the Omer), but Karmel is not.

Answer #3: We could learn bread and Kali from Karmel!

Rejection: We could not learn either from Karmel, for it has not changed (by fire) from the way it grew.

Conclusion: We could not learn from any one of them.

Answer #4: One of them could be learned from the other two!

Suggestion: We could learn bread from the others!

Rejection: We could not learn from them, for they are intact.

Suggestion: We could learn Karmel from the others!

Rejection: We could not learn from them, for Menachos are brought from them.

Summation of answer: R. Yitzchak expounded Kali. It is extra, for we could learn it from the others.

Question: We could not learn Kali from bread, for it is exempt from Chalah!

Answer: Karmel Yochi'ach (answers this. It is exempt from Chalah, yet Chodosh applies to it.)

Question: We could not learn Kali from Karmel, for it has not changed from the way it grew!

Answer: Bread Yochi'ach (it changed, yet Chodosh applies to it. We could learn Kali from the Tzad ha'Shavah of bread and Karmel.)

Question: We should say that one is lashed for Kali by itself, for it is extra, and one is lashed only once for both bread and Karmel, since there is nothing to be Mechalek them!

Answer: If so, the Torah should have written Kali at the beginning or end;

Rather, it wrote Kali in the middle, to teach that the others are like it, and one is lashed for each one by itself.

(R. Yanai): Do not belittle Gezeirah Shavah. (Kares for eating) Pigul is among Gufei (vital laws of) Torah, yet we know this only from a Gezeirah Shavah!

(R. Yochanan): It says (regarding Nosar) "v'Ochlav Avono Yisa (... v'Nichresah)," and it says regarding Pigul "veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa";

Just like there is Kares for (eating) Nosar, also for Pigul.

(R. Simai): Do not belittle Gezeirah Shavah. Nosar is among Gufei Torah, yet we know Kares for eating it only from a Gezeirah Shavah! ("V'Ochlav... " does not explicitly mention Nosar. If not for a Gezeirah Shavah, we would think that it refers to Pigul, mentioned in the previous verse.)

It says "v'Ochlav Avono Yisa Ki Kodesh Hash-m Chilel," and it says "v'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh... Ki Kodesh". Just like the latter refers to Nosar, also the former.

(Abaye): Do not belittle Gezeirah Shavah. (Death through burning for relations with) one's daughter from a woman he raped (or enticed) is among Gufei Torah, yet we know it only from a Gezeirah Shavah!

(Rava): The Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah" forbids a man to his daughter (not from his wife). "Zimah-Zimah" teaches that he is burned for relations with her.

(Rav Ashi): Do not belittle Gezeirah Shavah. Death through stoning is among Gufei Torah, yet (in most cases) we know Sekilah only from a Gezeirah Shavah!

It says "Demeihem Bam" (regarding most Chayavei Sekilah), just like it says regarding Ov and Yid'oni (conjuring up the dead), which are Chayavei Sekilah.

(Mishnah): One who scents oil (just like Shemen ha'Mishchah).

(Beraisa): If one scents oil (like Shemen ha'Mishchah) in order to learn or to give it to the Tzibur, he is exempt;

If he did so to anoint, he is liable.

One is exempt for anointing with it. Liability for anointing is only with Moshe's oil.

Question: What is the source to exempt for scenting oil in order to learn or to give to the Tzibur?

Answer: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Maskunto-Maskunto" from Ketores;

Regarding Ketores it says "Lo Sa'asu Lachem". One may not make Ketores (just like that offered to Hash-m, and one is liable for this) for yourselves, but one who makes it to give to the Tzibur is exempt. The same applies to Shemen ha'Mishchah.

Question: We should learn about Ketores from Shemen ha'Mishchah!

Just like one who makes a half-Shi'ur of Shemen ha'Mishchah (only six Lugim) is exempt, one who makes a half-Shi'ur of Ketores should be exempt!

However, Rava taught that one who makes a half-Shi'ur of Ketores is liable, but one who makes a half-Shi'ur of Shemen ha'Mishchah is exempt!

Answer: Regarding Shemen ha'Mishchah it says "uv'Maskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu." Only making the same amount is forbidden;

Regarding Ketores it says "veha'Ketores Asher Ta'aseh" - whatever one makes (that is valid for Haktarah) is forbidden, and one may offer half a Maneh in the morning and half in the evening. (Shitah Mekubetzes - this is the norm, but even a k'Zayis is considered Haktarah, so one is liable for making a k'Zayis.) (A Maneh is the weight of 9600 barley seeds, less than half a kilogram.)

(Beraisa): The spices used to scent Shemen ha'Mishchah - 500 Manos of Mor Deror (myrrh, a tree resin; some say that it is musk), 500 Manos of Kidah (cassia (tree bark) or costus (Kosht, the root of an herb), 500 Manos of Kineman Besem (cinnamon; some say aloeswood), and 250 Manos of Keneh Vosem (fragrant cane - some say that this is sweet calamus), 1750 Manos in all.

Question: Does the Tana come to teach arithmetic?!

Answer: (It says "... v'Kinman Besem Machatziso Chamishim u'Masayim u'Keneh Bosem Chamishim u'Masayim.") One might have thought that the Shi'ur of Keneh Vosem should be two weighings of 250 Manos each, just like cinnamon, the total weight of the spices would be 2000 Manos. The Tana teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why don't we say so?

Answer: If so, the Torah would have written "v'Kinman Besem u'Keneh Bosem Mechtzah u'Mechtzah Chamishim u'Masayim."

Question (Rav Papa): Are the spices weighed evenly (with the weight on the other side of the balance scale), or with Hechra (the pan with the spices must be lower)?

Answer (Abaye): The Torah says "Bad b'Vad," the weights must be even!

Objection (and Answer #2 - Rav Papa): Rav Yehudah taught that Hash-m knows about (i.e. desires the extra weight needed for) Hechra (therefore, he commanded to weigh with Hechra)!

(Rav Yehudah): Why does the Torah command to weigh the 500 Manos of cinnamon half at a time, and not all at once?

Answer: This is in order that there will be two Hachra'os. Hash-m desires Hechra.

Question: What do we learn from "Bad b'Vad"?

Answer (Ravina): The spices must be weighed against weights, and not against spices (which were already weighed against weights).

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): To make the Shemen ha'Mishchah, Moshe cooked oil with the spices.

R. Yosi: A Hin (about six liters) of oil is not enough even to rub on the spices! (It is not even a hundredth of the volume of the spices - PF.)

Version #1 (Our text, Rambam): Rather, he cooked the spices in water. It absorbed the scent. He added the oil, and boiled away the water.

Version #2 (Rashi): Rather, he soaked the spices in water (to saturate them, so they would not absorb the oil), then put oil on the spices to absorb the scent, and then removed the oil.

R. Yehudah: There were many miracles with the Shemen ha'Mishchah! (We can say that another miracle was that the oil was not absorbed in the spices.)

Twelve Lugim were made, and 12 Lugim always remained, even though oil was used to anoint the Mishkan, its Kelim, Aharon and his children all seven days of the Milu'im, (subsequent) Kohanim Gedolim (until the oil was put in Genizah) and (some) kings;

All will remain intact in the future. It says "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yihyeh Zeh Li l'Doroseichem" - the Gematri'a of "Zeh" is 12.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Va'Yikach Moshe Es Shemen ha'Mishchah va'Yimshach Es ha'Mishkan" - there were many miracles with the oil that Moshe made;

From the beginning until the end there were 12 Lugim. If not for a miracle, the following would have diminished the amount:

Absorptions of the pot (in which it was cooked) and of the spices;

Oil that is (normally) boiled off during cooking;

Anointing of the Mishkan, its Kelim, Aharon and his children all seven days of the Milu'im;

Anointing Kohanim Gedolim and kings.

(Even) a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol must be anointed. A Melech ben Melech need not be anointed.

Question: Why was Shlomo anointed?

Answer: Adoniyahu was trying to reign.

Question: Why was Yeho'ash anointed?

Answer: Aslayah had seized power.

Yeho'achaz was anointed because his brother Yehoyakim was two years older.

Question: The Beraisa says that a Kohen Gadol ben Kohen Gadol must be anointed. What is the source of this?

Answer: "Veha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi''Vanav" teaches that even though his father was Kohen Gadol, he is not Kohen Gadol unless he was anointed.

(Beraisa): A Melech ben Melech need not be anointed.

(Rav Acha bar Yakov): "Lema'an Ya'arich Yamim Al Mamlachto Hu u'Vanav" teaches that it is an inheritance.

(Beraisa): Shlomo was anointed because Adoniyahu was trying to reign.

Question: What is the source that a son must be anointed when there is a dispute, and it does not suffice for the father to say who will succeed him?

Answer (Rav Papa): "Hu u'Vanav b'Kerev Yisrael" teaches that it is an inheritance (only) when there is peace in Yisrael.

(Beraisa): Also 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: If so, why was Yehu anointed?

Answer: This was because Yoram disputed his kingship.

Question: What is the source that we anoint only kings of Beis David, but not Malchei Yisrael?

Answer (Rava): "Kum Meshachehu Ki Zeh Hu" teaches that only this (royal line) must be anointed.

Question: Yoram's dispute does not justify Me'ilah (forbidden usage) of Shemen ha'Mishchah!

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

Question: The Beraisa said that Yeho'achaz was anointed because Yehoyakim was two years older. The verse contradicts this - "u'Venei Yoshiyahu ha'Bechor Yochanan ha'Sheni Yehoyakim ha'Shelishi Tzidkiyahu ha'Revi'i 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 - "v'Es ha'Mamlachah Nasan li'Yehoram Ki Hu ha'Bechor"!

Answer: Yehoram was a proper heir (but Yehoyakim was not).

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

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

Answer: He was the third oldest. He was the fourth to reign, for Yechanyah reigned before him:

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

(Beraisa): Shalom is Tzidkiyahu. He is called Shalom because his deeds were Meshulam (complete, i.e. righteous). Also, he Shalmah (finished) the line of Davidic kings.

Really his name was Matanyah - "va'Yamlech Melech Bavel Es Matanyah Dodo (Yechanyah's uncle) Tachtav va'Yasev Es Shemo Tzidkiyahu."

The name signified Yatzdik Kah (Hash-m will vindicate) the sentence (to exile the rest of Yisrael) if you rebel against me. (Hash-m would have already exiled the rest of Yisrael if not for the merit of Tzidkiyahu);

"Va'Yevi'ehu Vavelah; v'Gam ba'Melech Nevuchadnetzar Marad (Tzidkiyahu rebelled)."

Question: Yeho'achaz could not be anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah. It was hidden before he reigned!

(Beraisa): The following were hidden with the Aron - the jar of manna, the flask of Shemen ha'Mishchah, Aharon's staff that budded with flowers and almonds (after Korach's rebellion), and the chest that the Pelishtim sent as a gift when they returned the Aron - "v'Es Klei ha'Zahav Asher Hashevosem Lo Asham Tasimu va'Argaz mi'Tzido."

Question: Who hid the Aron?

Answer: Yoshiyahu Melech Yehudah hid it - "Tenu Es Aron ha'Kodesh... ."

(R. Elazar): We learn Gezeiros Shavos "Sham-Sham," "Mishmeres-Mishmeres," and "Doros-Doros" (teaching that the manna, Shemen ha'Mishchah, and Aharon's staff were also hidden).

Answer (Rav Papa): He was anointed with pure balsam oil (not Shemen ha'Mishchah).

(Beraisa): We anoint kings like a crown, and Kohanim like Chai.

(Ran Manshiya bar Gada): Chai means like the Greek letter "Chai" (like an English "X"; some texts say like a Hebrew "Chaf").

Beraisa #1: First they pour oil on his (the Kohen's) head, then they apply some (drawing a line) between his eyebrows.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): First they put between his eyebrows, then they pour oil on his head.

Answer: The Tana'im argue about whether the anointing is primary, or the pouring;

The opinion (Tana #1) that pouring is primary learns from "va'Yitzok mi'Shemen ha'Mishchah Al Rosh Aharon va'Yimshach Oso";

The opinion that anointing is primary learns from the Klei Shares. (They were anointed, but Shemen ha'Mishchah was not poured on them.)

Question: Regarding Aharon, it says "va'Yitzok" before "va'Yimshach"!

Answer: This teaches that the whole purpose of pouring was to anoint him.

(Beraisa): "Ka'Shemen ha'Tov Al ha'Rosh... (Zekan Aharon)" alludes to two drops of oil that hung on his beard.

(Rav Kahana): When he would talk (alternatively - trim his beard), these drops would rise to the roots of the hairs;

Moshe was concerned lest he transgressed Me'ilah (by putting two drops more than needed on Aharon). A voice from Heaven proclaimed "(like the good oil that descends on Aharon's beard... ;) k'Tal Chermon";

Just like there is no Me'ilah in the dew of Chermon, also in the Shemen ha'Mishchah in Aharon's beard.

Aharon was concerned lest he transgressed Me'ilah. (Perhaps the oil went where it was not needed, and he benefited from it.)

A voice from Heaven proclaimed "Hinei Mah Tov u'Mah Na'im Sheves Achim Gam Yachad" (equating the brothers). Just like Moshe did not transgress, also Aharon.

(Beraisa): We anoint kings only by a spring, (fors a sign that) their kingship should last - "v'Horadetem Oso El Gichon; u'Mashach Oso Sham."

(R. Ami): If one wants to know if he will survive the coming year, he should hang a lamp during the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur in a house in which wind does not blow. If all the oil burns, this shows that he will live.

If one wants to start a business venture, and wants to know if it will succeed, he should raise a rooster. If it grows fat, he will succeed.

If one wants to go on a trip, and wants to know if he will return, he should stand in a dark house. If he sees a shadow of his shadow, he will return.