Jewish audio on chabad.org. Sinned b'shogeg from the nation of the land. מעם הארץ פרט למשיח. The pasuk says מעם הארץ, from the people of the land, which means that not every person would be included in this din of bringing a קרבן חטאת, it comes to exclude the כהן משיח. The כהן גדול would not bring this קרבן חטאת as the pasuk says there, which is the regular קרבן חטאת of a כשבה or a שעירה. מעם הארץ, this word מעם הארץ also comes to teach us פרט לנשיא, to exclude the נשיא, that the נשיא, the king, if he does an עבירה בשגגה, he is not included in that korban that the parsha speaks about there, which is the regular חטאת of a יחיד, but he has his own special חטאת. And then the Gemara asks, הלא יצאו משיח לידון בפר נשיא לידון בשעיר, why do we have to have this pasuk to exclude the כהן גדול from the regular חטאת, and to exclude the נשיא from the regular חטאת, when the Torah itself excludes them? The Torah itself has a whole parsha there to tell us what kind of korban the כהן משיח brings, which is a different korban than the regular חטאת. The כהן משיח brings a פר, while the regular חטאת is a כשבה or שעירה. And also by the נשיא, the Torah has a whole parsha telling us what korban the נשיא brings, a שעיר, which is not the same קרבן as the regular חטאת, which is a כשבה or a שעירה. So why do we have to have this פסוק מעם הארץ to exclude a כהן משיח and a נשיא? And the answer is שיכול, because I would have thought, משיח העלם דבר עם שגיגת מעשה מייתי פר, that when does the כהן משיח bring his special קרבן, the פר? Only if there was העלם דבר with שגיגת מעשה, as we've been learning the whole time, that a כהן גדול only brings his קרבן if he didn't just do the עבירה בשגגה, first he פסקנ'ט בשגגה wrong, and then he followed his פסק דין, so then he brings his קרבן. But שגיגת מעשה לחוד מייתי כשבה ושעירה, I would think, but if he only did the עבירה בשגגה without a previous פסק דין, so then he doesn't bring his פר, so I would think then he brings a regular קרבן חטאת, a כשבה or a שעירה, like a regular יחיד, תלמוד לומר מעם הארץ, that's why we have to have the פסוק מעם הארץ פרט למשיח, to exclude the כהן משיח, that even then he doesn't bring the regular קרבן. So

what happens if it is just שגיגת מעשה? He doesn't bring any קרבן. And then the Gemara asks, we also said מעם הארץ פרט לנשיא, that the word מעם הארץ come to exclude the נשיא, that he doesn't bring the regular חטאת of כשבה ושעירה, why do we need that פסוק to exclude him? תינח משיח, we understand why we need the פסוק to exclude the כהן משיח from the regular חטאת as we said before, because by כהן משיח there's a special דין that his קרבן he only brings if there was העלם דבר עם שגיגת מעשה, so there would be a hava amina to say that if there was just שגיגת מעשה he brings a regular קרבן, so we need the פסוק to exclude that. אלא נשיא, but the נשיא בשגיגת מעשה הוא דמייתי, for the נשיא his special קרבן is brought when there was just שגיגת מעשה, so here there is no hava amina to say that if there was just שגיגת מעשה he would bring the regular קרבן חטאת, because his שעיר that he brings, his special חטאת, is brought only when there is שגיגת מעשה. He is not like the כהן גדול that brings his קרבן when there was העלם דבר ושגיגת מעשה. By the נשיא we don't need העלם דבר, even just for שגיגת מעשה he brings his שעיר. So when would there be a hava amina that he should be included in the regular קרבן חטאת of a יחיד? אמר רב ביבי משמיה דרבא, so רב ביבי said in the name of רבא, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case, again for instance, שאכל כזית חלב כשהוא הדיוט, that he ate a כזית of חלב when he was still an ordinary person before he became the נשיא, ונתמנה, and then he was appointed to become the נשיא, ואחר כך נודע לו, and then he found out that he ate the כזית of חלב before, salka da'atech amina, so I would think, נייתי כשבה ושעירה, he should bring a regular קרבן חטאת, a כשבה or a שעירה, because he did the עבירה when he was still an הדיוט. Ka mashma lan, that's what we need the פסוק מעם הארץ for, to teach us that even though he did the עבירה when he was a הדיוט, but since he found out when he was already a נשיא, he is not included in the כשבה ושעירה of the regular קרבן חטאת of a הדיוט, and that's what the פסוק מעם הארץ comes to teach us. And then the

Gemara asks, הניחא, this is only good Rabbi Shimon, according to רבי שמעון, דאזיל בתר ידיעה, that he says we follow the ידיעה, we follow the time when he found out, which means as we learned before in the Mishnah that Rabbi Shimon says that if he did the aveirah before he became a נשיא, but found out after he became a נשיא, he is patur from a korban, and the reason is because Rabbi Shimon needs the חטא and the ידיעה both at the same time, at the same stage while he's in the same מעמד, and therefore since he did the aveirah when he was an הדיוט and he found out when he was a נשיא, so according to Rabbi Shimon he is patur from a korban. So the לימוד that we just said, מעם הארץ, that comes to teach us that in this case you are patur from the regular חטאת, would fit according to Rabbi Shimon. אלא לרבנן, but according to the רבנן, דאזלי בתר חטאה, that they follow the time of the עבירה, מאי איכא למימר, what can we say? Because according to the רבנן in this case, when he did aveirah when he was still a הדיוט, and found out about the aveirah after he was a נשיא, he would bring the regular כשבה ושעירה. Because by the רבנן, the עיקר is the time of the חטא, so according to them we cannot say that the פסוק מעם הארץ comes to exclude this case, that he would not bring the regular korban, because the רבנן hold that he would bring a regular korban in this case. So what does the פסוק מעם הארץ come to exclude the נשיא for?

אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, so Rav Zevid said in the name of רבא, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we are talking in the case, כגון שאכל חצי כזית חלב כשהוא הדיוט, he ate a half a כזית of חלב when he was still a הדיוט, ונתמנה, and then he was appointed to become the נשיא, והשלימו, and then he ate another half a כזית, ואחר כך נודע לו, and then he found out that he ate the חלב. He found out about the first half that he ate before he was appointed and about the second half that he ate after he was appointed. סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think מצטרף, let's combine them both, that נייתי כשבה ושעירה, and he should bring the קרבן כשבה ושעירה as a הדיוט would bring, since the first half was eaten when he was still a הדיוט. So let's combine the second half to the first half, and he should bring the regular קרבן חטאת of a הדיוט כשבה ושעירה, קא משמע לן, that's what we need the מעם הארץ to tell us, that in a case like this he's excluded from the כשבה ושעירה and he doesn't bring this חטאת. Then the Gemara says, בעי מיניה רבא מרב נחמן, רבא asked a she'eilah of רב נחמן, נשיאות מהו שתפסיק? What is the din, would נשיאות, would becoming a נשיא be מפסיק? Would that be an interruption in the עבירה? And he explains, היכי דמי, what is the case? כגון, for instance, שאכל חצי כזית חלב כשהוא הדיוט, he ate a half a כזית חלב when he was still a הדיוט, ונתמנה, and then he was appointed as נשיא, ועבר, they took him away from being נשיא, for whatever reason now he is not a נשיא anymore, והשלימו, now that he's back a הדיוט, he was משלים, he completed the כזית. So the question is, is he חייב like a regular person a כשבה ושעירה, or is he פטור? And he explains what the reasoning behind the she'eilah is. התם, in that case we mentioned before, that he ate a half a k'zayit when he was a hedyot, and the other half when he was a נשיא, and we said before he is patur from the korban chatat, we understand why. Over there, הוא דלא מצטרף, there we say that we don't combine the two חצי כזיתים, דאכלי פלגא כשהוא הדיוט ופלגא כשהוא נשיא, because he ate half while he was a hedyot and half when he was a נשיא, so you can't combine the two halves because each one was eaten at a different stage. אבל הכא, but here, דאידי ואידי כשהוא הדיוט אכלי, because in both cases, which means both halves, he ate while he was a hedyot. The first half he ate before he was a נשיא, and the second half he ate after he was a נשיא, but then he turned back into a hedyot and he ate it while he was a hedyot. So here we would say מצטרף, it is combined, because they were both eaten in the same situation. אי דילמא, or maybe לא שנא, there is no difference. Since he became a נשיא in between, so then the first half already is finished, you can't combine the first half to anything because since he became a נשיא his situation changed and that first half is off, now when he ate later the other half as a hedyot, so that is a separate thing and we can't combine the two. So מאי, what is the din? The Gemara says, תפשוט ליה, you could answer this question, you could resolve it, מהא דאמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן, from what Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: אכל חלב והפריש קרבן, a person ate chalav and he separated a korban, he put aside a korban chatat for his חלב, והמיר, and then he became a mumar, the din is that a mumar cannot bring a korban chatat. A mumar is a person, as the Gemara will explain later, who does aveirot, he doesn't care about the Torah and he does aveirot. So if he ate chalav and then he separated his chatat, but before he managed to bring his korban chatat he became a מומר, וחזר בו, and then he did teshuvah, so on one hand we could say that since lemafre'a when he did the aveirah he wasn't a mumer, when he separated the korban he wasn't a mumer, now that he wants to bring the korban he's not a mumer either. The only thing is, in between he was a mumer. So is the korban good or not? So he said,

הואיל ונדחה ידחה, since the korban was pushed away when he became a mumer, so then the korban was not ra'ui, was not fit at that time. So now even though he did teshuvah, the korban is still not fit, because as soon as the korban is pushed away and not fit to be brought, so then he cannot bring it now either. The same thing would be here also, that since when he became a nasi, he was nidche from the korban of a hedyot, so then later on even though he is not a nasi anymore, he's back to a hedyot, but since at a point he was a nasi, he was nidche from the korban of כשבה ושעירה, the regular korban chatat, so then later on the second half a kezayit cannot be mitztaref to the first and to say that he should be able to bring the regular korban. The Gemara says, הכא השתא, what kind of comparison is it? מומר לאו בר אתויי קרבן הוא. In the case where he became a mumer in between, so then he became a person that is not fit to bring a korban, because a mumer is not at all in the category of of a korban. But hai, this person, when he became a נשיא, בר אתויי קרבן הוא, he's still a person that brings a korban. The only thing is, since he became a nasi, so now the type of korban he would have to bring for an aveirah he would do now would be a different korban, a korban sa'ir. But still, he is in the category of a korban. So maybe in a case like that we don't say that he was nidche and therefore he should be נדחה completely. So we can't prove it from the case of a מומר, when there was a time in between when he was completely out of the category of a korban, to the time when he became a נשיא, when he's still in the category of a korban, just that at that time he would have to bring a different korban. Then the Gemara says,

בעי מיניה רב זביד מרב ששת, רב זביד asked a she'eilah of רב ששת, אכל ספק חלב כשהוא הדיוט, if he ate a ספק חלב while he was a הדיוט. He ate a piece of fat which is a safek whether it was חלב or שומן. And this is an aveirah which warrants an אשם תלוי. Now had he found out that he did this ספק חלב, he would have to bring an אשם תלוי. But the case is that he did it when he was a הדיוט and didn't find out yet. ונתמנה, and then he became a נשיא. ונודע לו על ספיקו, and then he found out about the safek that he did. מאי, what is the din? And the Gemara explains, אליבא דרבנן דאזלו בתר חטא, according to the רבנן who follow the time of the חטא, לא תיבעי לך, I don't even ask the question, דמייתי אשם תלוי, I know for sure that he would bring an אשם תלוי. Since the רבנן hold that if he did an aveirah while he was a הדיוט and he found out after he became a נשיא, he brings the korban chatat of a הדיוט, in other words the רבנן follow only the time of the cheit concerning the korban chatat, the same thing would be concerning the אשם תלוי. That since he did the aveirah that needs an אשם תלוי before he became a נשיא, while he was a הדיוט, so even though he found out after he became a נשיא, definitely he would have to bring an אשם תלוי. אלא כי תיבעי לך, when do I ask my question? אליבא Rabbi Shimon, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that we follow both, when is he חייב a קרבן? Only if the חטא and the ידיעה happened before he was appointed as a נשיא. So the question is in this case, do we say מידי דהוה אשתני לודאי אשתני לספיק, that since his status was changed concerning a ודאי, which means concerning a קרבן חטאת which comes for a ודאי עבירה, so he was also changed concerning the ספק, which means concerning the אשם תלוי, which comes for a ספק עבירה. Which means that just like he was changed concerning a קרבן חטאת, because a נשיא brings a different type of קרבן חטאת, so too he was changed concerning אשם תלוי. And even though a נשיא does bring an אשם תלוי, as we learned before, if a נשיא does a ספק עבירה while he is a נשיא, he does bring an אשם תלוי. But לפועל, he was changed from being a הדיוט to being a נשיא, so his status changed. And according to Rabbi Shimon, when do you bring a קרבן? Only if the חטא and the ידיעה came at the same status. And therefore, since the חטא in this case happened while he was a הדיוט, the ידיעה of this חטא, which is a ספק חטא, happened after he became a נשיא, so it's like a different person found out the חטא that a different person did. So then he would not bring the אשם תלוי. או דילמא, or maybe, כי אשתני לודאי, why did he change his status concerning a ודאי? Because אשתני קרבניה דהאי, because his קרבן is different. Before he was a הדיוט, and the קרבן of a הדיוט is a כשבה or a שעירה. Now he became a נשיא, so he has a different קרבן for his חטאים that he would do now, which is a שעיר. And therefore we say, if he did the עבירה while he was a הדיוט, when the obligation is one type of קרבן, he found out about the עבירה when he was a נשיא, which is a different type of קרבן, so that's when Rabbi Shimon says he doesn't bring any קרבן. אבל הכא, but here, דלא אשתני קרבניה דהאי, that his קרבן is not changed. In other words, even when he is a נשיא, if he would do the עבירה now, he would still be חייב an אשם תלוי. So a נשיא and a הדיוט are equal concerning an אשם תלוי. So he did not really change concerning this קרבן. אימא, I say, ליתי אשם תלוי, that he should bring an אשם תלוי, even though he did this ספק עבירה when he was a הדיוט, and found out about it when he became a נשיא, but what difference does it make? Concerning an אשם תלוי, he is the same person, because a הדיוט and a נשיא, they both bring the same אשם תלוי. And therefore it doesn't matter that he did the עבירה while he was a הדיוט and found out about it when he became a נשיא already, because concerning the אשם תלוי it's the same thing. So then he would have to bring the אשם תלוי in this case. And the Gemara says teiku, this question remains unanswered. Then the Gemara says,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, the פסוק says מעם הארץ, concerning the קרבן חטאת of a yachid, it says the words that if a person מעם הארץ does an aveirah, so the pasuk says מעם הארץ, from the nation of the land, which means that not all people would be included in this din of being mechuyav to bring a קרבן חטאת, פרט למומר, it comes to exclude a mumar. רבי שמעון בר יוסי אומר משום רבי שמעון, רבי שמעון בר יוסי said in the name of רבי שמעון, that we learn it out from a different pasuk. The pasuk The pasuk says that he will do an עבירה אשר לא תעשינה, that you shouldn't do. If you go on, he will do it בשוגג, ואשם, and he sins, so then the pasuk says he brings his chatat. So from this pasuk we know השב בידיעתו, someone would return because of his knowledge, מביא קרבן על שגגתו, he brings a korban for his shogeg. Only a person that when he finds out that he did the aveirah, he does teshuvah, he regrets why he did it, and had he known before he did it that this was wrong he wouldn't have done it, a person like that has to bring a korban. לא שב בידיעתו, if he doesn't return because of his yediah, which means that even after he finds out about it he still doesn't mind because he's a mumar, and therefore, had he known before he did the act that it was an aveirah he still would have done it, a person like that אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו, doesn't bring a korban for his shogeg. So this is the pasuk that teaches us that a mumar doesn't bring a korban, because a mumar is not שב בידיעתו. Since he's a mumar he doesn't do teshuvah, and he would have done the aveirah even if he would have known that this is an aveirah. מאי בינייהו, what is the difference from which pasuk we learn out that a mumar doesn't bring a korban? אמר רב הונא, so Rav Huna said the difference is מומר לאכול חלב ומביא קרבן על הדם איכא בינייהו. If he's a mumar concerning chelev, he doesn't do all aveirot, he's just a mumar concerning chelev, he doesn't mind eating chelev, but the korban that he's bringing now is for eating dam, so that is the difference which pasuk we learn it out from. Mar savar, one holds, כיוון דמומר לאכול חלב לדם נמי מומר הוי, since he is a mumar to eat chelev, l'dam nami mumar havei, he's a mumar for dam also. We learn it out from the pasuk מעם הארץ, that a mumar doesn't bring a korban. It is not because he won't do teshuvah for this aveirah that he's bringing the korban for, it is a general din that since he has the title mumar, he cannot bring a korban. So therefore, even though he's a mumar concerning chelev and the korban is for dam, but lafo'al he still is a mumar. So he has this title mumar, and the pasuk excludes a mumar, so he would be patur from a korban. U-mar savar, the other one who learns it out from the other pasuk, he holds, לדם מיהא שב בידיעתו הוא, concerning dam, he would do teshuvah, since he is only a mumar for chelev. So therefore, he does teshuvah for the aveirah of dam, and before he ate the dam, had he known it was dam he wouldn't have eaten it, because he is not a mumar for דם. So he is not excluded from this pasuk, and he would be chayav to bring the korban for דם. And then the Gemara asks, והא רבא, didn't רבא say דכולי עלמא, that everyone agrees that מומר לאכול חלב לא הוי מומר לדם, and if he's a mumar to eat chelev, he is not considered a mumar for דם, and therefore he would have to bring this korban. So how can we say that according to one opinion he wouldn't bring the korban? So obviously this is not the difference between these two מ”ד. אלא, what is the difference? הכא באוכל נבלות לתיאבון, a person who is a mumar, but he only eats נבילה לתיאבון, for his desire, for his תאווה, which means he only eats it if he doesn't have any kasher meat, that's when he will eat נבילה. But if he has a choice of eating נבילה or eating kasher, he would eat the kasher meat. He is not a מומר להכעיס. להכעיס means he does in spite, that even if he's able to eat kasher he doesn't mind and he goes ahead and eats treif. A מומר לתיאבון is he, if he has kasher he will eat kasher, if he doesn't have kasher and he wants to eat meat he will eat a נבילה. And that's the kind of mumar we're talking about. דנתחלף לו בשומן ואכליה, and lefoal he ate the נבילה or the chelev, but not because he wanted to eat chelev at this point, he thought it was שומן, he thought it was kasher meat, and that's why he ate it. So קמיפלגי, in this is the machloket from which pasuk we learn it out. מר סבר, one holds, כיוון דלתיאבון אכל במזיד, since לתיאבון he would eat במזיד, in other words the same piece of meat, had he known that it is non-kosher meat, but he wouldn't have had any kosher meat, he would have eaten it anyway. So therefore mumar hu, he's considered a mumar concerning what he

ate, because since לתיאבון he does eat non-kosher meat במזיד, so ממילא even though he ate it בשוגג, but he's still considered a mumar. ומר סבר, and the other one holds, כיוון דאי לא אשכח דהיתירא, since had he found kosher meat לא אכל דאיסורא, he wouldn't have eaten the איסור, לאו מומר הוא, he's not a mumar. And this is a machloket whether we learn it out from the first pasuk or from the second pasuk. The one that learns it out from the first פסוק מעם הארץ to exclude a mumar, so לפועל he is a mumar because he does eat non-kosher meat במזיד, and therefore he would not bring a korban for this that he did. Even though לפועל he ate this בשוגג, he thought it was שומן and he ate it, and now he wants to bring a korban for it, so we tell him you are a mumar. If you wouldn't have any kosher meat, so then even you would have known that this is not שומן but חלב, you still would have eaten it. So you are a mumar and you can't bring the korban. But the second מ”ד who learns it out that it has to be שב בידיעתו, so this person is considered to be שב בידיעתו. Since סוף כל סוף if he would have kosher meat he wouldn't want to eat the טריפה meat, and לפועל he ate it b'shogeg, so he is considered שב בידיעתו. He does regret why he ate it because if there was and he would have to bring the korban. Then the

Gemara says תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, אוכל חלב, a person who eats חלב, זהו מומר, this is the person who we consider a מומר. And the beraita continues ואיזהו מומר, who is a מומר? אוכל נבלות וטרפות, eats נבלות and טרפות, שקצים ורמשים, reptiles and creepy crawlers, ושתה יין נסך, and he drank wine that was poured for עבודה זרה, that is a מומר. And the Gemara will explain later what the beraita means, because the beraita started off by saying what is a מומר, and then the beraita asks who is a מומר and answers this answer. Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yehuda says, אף הלובש כלאים, also a person who wears כלאים, who wears שעטנז. Sha'atnez is a garment that has a mixture of wool and flax together, and the Torah says you're not allowed to wear it. And Rabbi Yehuda says, if a person wears כלאים, he's also considered a מומר. אמר מר, the Gemara explains now, we said before אוכל חלב זהו מומר, if he ate חלב that is a מומר, then it says ואיזהו מומר, who is a מומר? אוכל נבלות וכו', if he eats נבלות and טרפות and drinks יין נסך etc. The Gemara asks מאי קאמר, what's he saying? He starts off by saying if you eat חלב you're a מומר, and then he asks who's a מומר and explains if he ate נבלות וכו'. אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan,

הכא קאמר, this is what it meant: אוכל חלב לתיאבון, if he ate חלב out of desire, not because he wants to do the aveirah, he does in spite of the Torah, in spite of the din of חלב, he ate it because he likes it, הרי זה מומר, then he's considered a מומר. להכעיס, if he eats it in spite, הרי זה צדוקי, then he is considered a צדוקי, or as it says hagahah in the bottom of the Gemara that it's supposed to be מין, then he is considered a מין. A מין is worse than a מומר. Then he continues, ואיזהו מומר דבסתמא צדוקי, who is considered a מומר that בסתם is a צדוקי, which means what happens if he eats something which is forbidden, but he doesn't give his intentions or we can't see his intentions whether it is לתיאבון, just for his appetite, or it is להכעיס, in spite? So the Gemara's question here is which is a מומר, which means which ענינים if a person eats it, which is considered a מומר if it's done לתיאבון, but if we don't know, מן הסתם he would be a צדוקי. In other words, as long as we don't see that he's doing it לתיאבון, we assume that he's doing it להכעיס, and therefore בסתם he would be considered a צדוקי. What would be the case for that? The baraita says אוכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים ושתה יין נסך, that if he ate נבלות, טרפות or שקצים ורמשים, and he drinks יין נסך. Why do we say here that מן הסתם he is considered a צדוקי, which means מן הסתם he's doing it להכעיס? Because as Rashi says, when you eat נבלות וטרפות, שקצים ורמשים, these are things which a person doesn't like. שקצים ורמשים definitely a person has no ta'avah to it. And even נבלות וטרפות, it is speaking in a case when they are stink and they are things which people don't usually eat. So if you see a person eat it, and you don't know whether he's eating it lete'avon or lehach'is, we have to assume he's eating it lehach'is. And concerning יין נסך, even though that is fit to be drank, but as the Tosafot HaRosh says, we're talking here in a case where he actually drank real יין נסך, because we know concerning יין נסך there are two levels: one is wine that was actually poured for עבודה זרה, that is אסור מדאורייתא, then you have סתם יינם. That if a גוי touched wine, then the רבנן אסר this as a גזרה you might come to intermarry, and also as a גזרה for יין נסך, etc. So here we're talking about a person who ate, drank real יין נסך, wine that was actually poured for עבודה זרה, which is a very strict issur. So min hasetam, if you see a person drink such a wine, we assume that probably he is doing it lehach'is. Then it continues, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

אומר, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה said, אף הלובש כלאים, also a person who wears כלאים, who wears shatnez is also considered a mumar. The Gemara asks מאי בינייהו? What is the difference between Rabbi Yosi barbi Yehuda and the Tanna Kama? The Tanna Kama says if he eats chelev he's considered a mumar, and chelev is an issur. So we have to assume that according to the Tanna Kama, a person who does any issur he is considered a mumar. It is not דוקא חלב that he means, it's an example that he gives. So according to the Tanna Kama, it would come out that if he wears shatnez, which is also an issur, he is also a mumar. So what is the pshat that רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה adds, also if you wear כלאים, obviously the Tanna Kama holds if you wear כלאים you're not a mumar, but why? In what is the machloket that the Tanna Kama holds if you wear כלאים you're not a mumar, and Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda would hold that the person who wears כלאים is a mumar? And the Gemara answers איכא בינייהו, the difference between them is כלאים דרבנן. If a person wears כלאים which is only אסור מדרבנן. Because מדאורייתא, if you only have one thread of wool in a flax blanket, it is not אסור. It is only אסור if it has שוע טווי ונוז as Rashi explains. But מדרבנן, it is also אסור if there is just one thread of one kind mixed into the other. So here, we are talking in a case when he was wearing this כלאים דרבנן.

מר סבר, one holds מדאורייתא הוה מומר, that if he's עובר on an איסור דאורייתא he's considered a mumar. דרבנן, if he only is עובר on an איסור דרבנן, לא הוה מומר, he's not a mumar. That's the opinion of the Tanna Kama, and he says Because at that time, many of the Yidden lived in Bavel, so in Eretz Yisrael they had the נשיא, and in Bavel they had what they called the Reish Galuta, the head of the exile. And he was the head of the Yidden there. And he was equal in authority, or even more, than the נשיא of the Yidden in Eretz Yisrael. And that's what he said to him, you are not מחוייב in a שעיר, because you are not like a מלך, because there is somebody equal to you in Bavel. מיתיבי, I will ask you a kashya: מלכי ישראל ומלכי בית דוד, we

learned that the kings of ישראל and the kings of בית דוד, אלו מביאין לעצמן ואלו מביאין לעצמן, these bring for themselves and these bring for themselves, which means they both would have to bring the שעיר. They are both equal in authority, and therefore, if a מלך from ישראל would do an עבירה בשוגג, he would bring a שעיר, even though he has a rival of the מלכי יהודה, and if a king from מלכות בית דוד would do an עבירה בשוגג, he would also be מחוייב in a שעיר like a מלך, even though he had a rival doesn't take away the דין of having to bring a שעיר. אמרו ליה, they said to him, התם, over there, לא כייפי הדדי. They were not subordinate one to another. הכא, but here, אנן כייפינן להו לדידהו. We are subordinate to them. In other words, the authority of the ריש גלותא is greater than the authority of the נשיא in ארץ ישראל, and he was משועבד and under the authority of the ריש גלותא, and therefore he is not considered in the level of having to bring a שעיר. איכא דמתני לה הכי. איכא דמתני learned it this way: דבעי מיניה רבי מרבי חייא, רבי asked of רבי חייא, כגון אני, מהו בשעיר? For instance, I, would I have to bring a שעיר? אמר ליה, they said to him, התם שבט, הכא מחוקק. Over there in Bavel, the ריש גלותא is considered שבט. שבט means a sceptre, a stick. הכא, here, the נשיא in ארץ ישראל is considered מחוקק. מחוקק means a חכם. And since the way they act over there is through a שבט, through a stick, through a sceptre, they control the Yidden more than you because your greatness is only concerning the חכמה, you are the head of the yeshivot. But over there, they actually control the Yidden, and therefore they are greater than you, and you would not be chayav to bring a שעיר. Because who brings a שעיר? Only the מלך שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלקיו, and there is nobody on top of him but ה'. But here, since you are under them, and the reason is because you are only a מחוקק and they are שבט, they really control the Yidden, and therefore you wouldn't have to bring. דתניא, and we learned, לא יסור שבט מיהודה, the pasuk says that the sceptre will never be taken away from שבט יהודה. Who does that refer to? The Reish Galuta of Bavel. That refers to the Reish Galuta, the Reish Galuta of Bavel will always be from the family of יהודה. And why is he called שבט? שרודה את ישראל במקל, who rules over the אידן with a stick. And when the פסוק continues, ומחוקק מבין רגליו, that never will there be taken away the chacham from amongst his feet of יהודה, אלו, that refers to בני בניו של הלל, to the grandchildren of הלל, שמלמדין תורה לישראל ברבים, who teach Torah to the אידן in public. And that refers to the נשיאים that came from the family of Hillel who came from the family of יהודה. So we see there that the Reish Galuta of Bavel is considered שבט, so he really controls the אידן more than the נשיא of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the נשיא of Eretz Yisrael would not be chayav in a שעיר if he would have lived in the time of the Beit haMikdash and would have done an עבירה בשוגג. And now we will continue the Mishnah. ואיזהו משיח? Now,

who is considered the כהן משיח or the כהן גדול? Only המשוח בשמן המשחה, if he was anointed with the שמן המשחה, with a special oil that משה רבינו made to anoint, ולא המרובה בגדים, not the כהן גדול who is only a כהן גדול with the fact that he wears more clothes. The difference between a כהן גדול and a כהן הדיוט is a כהן הדיוט when he does the עבודה in the בית המקדש, he wears ד' בגדים, he only wears four garments, while the כהן גדול when he does the עבודה must wear ח' בגדים, eight garments. In addition to that, when he becomes a כהן גדול, he is anointed with the שמן המשחה. But in the second בית המקדש they didn't have the שמן המשחה, so the only way he was appointed a כהן גדול was by being dressed in the extra garments, in the eight garments. So when there is a דין of a כהן גדול that he has to bring the special קרבן if he did an עבירה בשוגג with העלם דבר, שגגת מעשה, it only refers to the כהן גדול who was anointed with the שמן המשחה, not to the כהן גדול who was only a כהן גדול because he was given the extra clothes, which means that the כהנים גדולים from the second בית המקדש would not bring that special פר כהן משיח. And then the משנה continues, אין בין כהן המשוח בשמן המשחה למרובה בגדים, there is no difference in הלכה between the כהן who was anointed with the שמן המשחה לגבי the כהן who wore the extra בגדים, אלא פר הבא על כל המצות, only concerning this דין of the פר that is brought if you don't do one of the מצות. Only concerning this קרבן חטאת is there a difference between the כהן גדול who was anointed or the Kohen Gadol who was just put on the extra clothes. ואין בין כהן המשמש לכהן שעבר, and there's no difference between a Kohen Gadol who is actually in active duty לגבי a Kohen Gadol who was taken away from his position. For instance, if the Kohen Gadol couldn't do the avodah at one point, one year the Kohen Gadol, so what they would do is they would appoint another Kohen Gadol instead of him. Then when he was able to come back to his position, they would give the position back to the first Kohen Gadol. So the first Kohen Gadol would be called a כהן המשמש, and the second Kohen Gadol would be called a כהן שעבר, because he was a Kohen Gadol, and now he gave up his position. He can't become a regular כהן הדיוט, because we have a rule, מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין, we only go up in kedushah, in holiness, we don't go down. So since he was elevated to the level of a Kohen Gadol, we can't take him down to bring him back to the level of a כהן הדיוט. So he remains in the level of a Kohen Gadol. So really there is no difference in level between the כהן who is משמש לגבי the כהן גדול שעבר, אלא פר יום הכפורים, only concerning the פר of Yom Kippur, because in On Yom Kippur when the Kohen Gadol brings the different חטאות, so he brings a special קרבן for himself. So the פר כהן גדול only applies to the Kohen Gadol who is in active duty, and not to the Kohen Gadol who is a כהן שעבר. And also ועשירת האיפה. Concerning the קרבן עשירת האיפה, we know that the Kohen Gadol has to bring every day the מנחת חביתין, which was עשירת האיפה, tenth of an איפה of flour. So that קרבן is only brought by the Kohen Gadol who is in active duty, not the כהן שעבר. But זה וזה שוים בעבודת יום הכפורים, they're both equal concerning עבודת יום כיפור. We know that on Yom Kippur the avodah in the בית המקדש must be done through the כהן גדול, so either of them could do it. ומצווין על הבתולה, and they are both commanded to marry only a virgin. For the pasuk says, כי אם אשה בבתוליה יקח, a Kohen Gadol must only take a virgin, so both of these must take a virgin. ואסורין על האלמנה, they are both forbidden to marry a widow, because we know a Kohen Gadol can't marry a widow, this issur applies to both. ואינן מטמאין לקרוביהן, and both of them are not allowed to become tamei to their relatives. We know a Kohen is not allowed to become tamei to a met, but there are seven relatives that a Kohen is allowed to become tamei. But that is only concerning a Kohen hedyot, not concerning a Kohen Gadol. So this issur of a Kohen Gadol becoming tamei to his relatives applies to both of these Kohanim Gedolim. ולא יפרעו, they are not allowed to have long hair. ולא יפרומו, they are not allowed to tear their clothes. This is a din only concerning a Kohen Gadol, and this din applies to both Kohanim Gedolim. ומחזירין את הרוצח, and both of them make the murderer return. The din is if somebody killed somebody else b'shogeg, unintentionally, he has to run away to ערי מקלט, and he must live in ערי מקלט till the death of the Kohen Gadol. When the Kohen Gadol dies, that's when he is free to leave that city. Now both of these Kohanim Gedolim would return the rotze'ach. In other words, if either of them died, the rotze'ach who is in ערי מקלט is free to leave the city. And now we'll learn the Gemara.

Gemara: תנו רבנן, the Rabbanan learned, שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר, the shemen hamishchah that Moshe Rabbeinu made in the desert, because it says in the Chumash that Hashem said to Moshe to make a certain oil. The pasuk says, שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי, that this should be to Me שמן משחת קדש. So it was oil, then He told him certain spices to take and mix with the oil. Now how did they do it? So he says, היו שולקין בהן את העיקרין. They cooked the roots of the different spices as the Torah says, in the oil, and the oil absorbed the smell of these roots, and that was the שמן המשחה. דברי רבי יהודה, these are the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda. רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says, how can you say that? והלא לסוך את העיקרין אינו סופק. Even if you were just smear these roots of these spices, there wouldn't be enough oil, because all he took was 12 לוגין of oil, and the roots of the spices were very many. So even if you just use these 12 לוגין of oil to smear these roots, and since they get absorbed inside the roots, you wouldn't have enough oil for that either. So how could you say that they cooked these roots in this oil? אלא שורין את העיקרין במים, therefore Rabbi Yosi holds, they first soaked these roots in water. After they soaked in the water and it absorbed all the water, now these roots couldn't absorb anything else. And then, ומציף עליהן שמן, then he poured the oil over it. Now these roots would not have absorbed the oil, because they were full of water, they couldn't absorb anymore, so he just poured the oil over its surface, וקולט את הריח, and the oil would absorb the smell. וכפחן, and he took them off right away, scraped off the oil from the roots. So now they had the oil, had a good smell. אמר לו רבי יהודה, so Rabbi Yehuda said to him, the whole question was that there wasn't enough oil to cook the roots in. וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה? Was there only one miracle that happened with the שמן המשחה? There were many miracles that happened, so this was also another miracle, even though it was only 12 לוגין and the roots were many, there was enough to cook the roots in this oil. And how do we see there were many miracles? שהרי מתחלתו שנים עשר לוגין היו, it only started with 12 לוגין, וממנו היה נמשך, and from that they had enough to anoint the משכן, וכליו, and the vessels of the משכן, אהרן ובניו, אהרן and his children, כל שבעת ימי המלואים, all seven days of מלואים. The seven days before they put up the Mishkan permanently, they had the seven ימי המלואים that they had to anoint the kohanim all these days. וכולו קיים לעתיד לבא, and still all of it, all the 12 לוגין of oil, still existing for the לעתיד לבא, for the future. שנאמר, because the pasuk says, שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדרתיכם, that the שמן משחת קדש should be to Me for all generations. In other words, this oil remained for all generations, and it still exists לעתיד לבא. So we see that there was a miracle happened. Meileh this could be another miracle, that even though there were a lot of roots and not too much oil, still they were able to cook those roots in the oil. תניא אידך, we learned in another baraita: ויקח משה את שמן המשחה, the pasuk says Moshe took the שמן המשחה, וימשח את המשכן ואת כל אשר בו, and he anointed the Mishkan and everything that was in it. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says: שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר, the שמן המשחה that משה made in the מדבר, כמה ניסים נעשו בו מתחילה ועד סוף, many miracles happened to it from the beginning to the end. תחילתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוגין, it only started with 12 לוגין, וראה כמה יורה בלעה, look how much does the pot absorb, וכמה עיקרין בלעו, and how much did the roots absorb, וכמה האור שרף, and how much did the fire burn, and still they had enough, ובו נמשח משכן וכליו, and with it nevertheless was anointed the משכן and its כלים, ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים, and אהרן and his children all seven days of מלואים, ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים, and with it all the כהנים גדולים from the later generations were anointed, ומלכים, and all the kings. Because we know that a שמן המשחה was never made again, and they always used the same שמן המשחה that משה רבינו made. So, this is a miracle that happened to the שמן המשחה, that it lasted for so much. ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול, and even a כהן גדול, the son of a כהן גדול, טעון משיחה, would also need to be anointed. But

ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך, but they don't anoint a king who is the son of a previous king. ואם תאמר, and if you're going to say, if so, מפני מה משחו את שלמה, so why did they anoint Shlomo since he was the son of David who was a king, so they shouldn't have anointed him? מפני מחלוקתו של אדוניהו, because of the machloket of Adoniyahu. Because the din is that you don't anoint a king if he's the son of a previous king unless there was a machloket against him. So, in the case of Shlomo there was a machloket, therefore they anointed him. And the reason they anointed ואת יואש, מפני עתליה, because of Atalyah had a machloket. ואת יהואחז, the reason they anointed יהואחז, מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים, because he was older than him two years, so there was a possibility to make him the king, and nevertheless they made the king Yehoachaz, and that's why they had to anoint him. And after all that, ואותו שמן קיים לעתיד לבוא, and that same oil still exists לעתיד לבוא, שנאמר, as the pasuk says, שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדרתיכם, that the שמן משחת קדש should be this for me for all generations, so we see that it lasted for all generations. But how do we know if all of it lasted for all generations? That the same 12 login still remained completely 12 login? Because ז״ה בגימטריא תריסר לוגין הוו. The word zeh is b'gematria 12, so when it says that זה לי לדרתיכם, which means that the 12 lugin will be for all generations. So, all of it is kayam l'atid lavo. Now, the Gemara says, אמר מר, what we have learned in the beraita before,

ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה, even the kohen gadol, the son of a kohen gadol also has to be anointed. מנלן, how do we know that? It's see because the pasuk says, והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו, the kohen who was anointed instead of him from his children, which means that the kohen gadol that will take over the position of kohen gadol from the previous one. So, the Torah says the dinim concerning the kohen gadol. So, the question is, נימא קרא, let the pasuk say, והכהן מתחתיו מבניו, the kohen that will be instead of him from his children. מאי המשיח, why does the pasuk have to mention the anointed one? קא משמע לן, so the Torah tells us, דמבניו דכהן גדול, even from the children of the כהן גדול, אי הוי משיח, if he's anointed, הוי כהן גדול, he is a kohen gadol. ואי לא, if he's not anointed, לא הוי כהן גדול, he's not a kohen gadol. So, here we see that a kohen gadol must be anointed even if he is מבניו, even he's the son of the kohen gadol. And the Gemara continues, אמר מר, what we've learned before, ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך, but they do not anoint the king if he is the son of a previous king. מנלן, how do we know that? אמר רב אחא בר יעקב, that Rav Acha bar Yaakov said, it's see because the pasuk says, למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו וגו׳, that he should have long days on his kingdom, and the pasuk continues, הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל, he and his children amongst the Yidden. But the pasuk says, he and his children, that teaches us that ירושה היא לכם, it is like a yerushah, like an inheritance, that the son takes over from his father, the king, like a person inherits from his father. So that teaches us that there's nothing that has to be done in order for him to be king, just like when a child inherits from his father, you don't have to do anything. The fact that he is his son, he inherits. So here too, he inherits it without anything done. So that teaches us that they do not have to anoint him. But then the Gemara asks, מנלן, how do we know דכי איכא מחלוקת, if there is a

מחלוקת, בעיא משיחה, you do have to anoint, ולאו כל דבעי מוקי, and not anybody that the king wants, מוריש מלכותא לבניה, would inherit the malchut to his son? Because in the case of David, for instance, he wanted Shlomo to take over, and nevertheless they had to anoint him. So how do we know that if there is a machloket of somebody else, so then, even though the father said that he should take over, nevertheless you have to anoint him again? אמר רב פפא, Rav Pappa said, אמר קרא, because the pasuk says, הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל, that he will have long days on his malchut, he and his children amongst the Yidden. So we darshenan the words בקרב ישראל, amongst the Yidden, that בזמן ששלום בישראל, when there is peace amongst the Yidden, then קרינן ביה הוא ובניו, then we consider it הוא ובניו, that he and his children, that his Even without being anointed. But if there is no shalom amongst the Yidden, which means there is a machloket against him becoming king, then we do not consider it הוא ובניו, and therefore, in order for him to be the king, he must anoint him. And the Gemara continues, תניא, we learned in a ברייתא,

אף יהוא בן נמשי, also יהוא, the son of נמשי, לא נמשך did not get anointed, אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם, because there was a machloket of Yoram, and that's why they anointed him. But then the Gemara asks, ותיפוק ליה משום דרישא הוא? Let's say it is because he was the first? We said that when don't you have to anoint a king? If he is the son of a previous king. So then, unless there was a machloket, you don't have to anoint him. But if he is the first in the family, then you do have to anoint him. So why do we say here that יהוא בן נמשי was anointed because of the machloket of Yoram? Why don't we say he was נמשך, he was anointed, because he was the first? The Gemara says, חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, there is something missing in this Beraita and this is what it's supposed to say, that מלכי בית דוד משוחין, the kings from the family of דוד, they were anointed. מלכי ישראל אינם משוחין, the kings from ישראל were not anointed, and therefore, Yehu didn't have to be anointed at all. And that's what the Beraita means. So why was Yehu anointed? Since he was from מלכי ישראל, he didn't have to be anointed. And the answer is, because there was a מחלוקת of Yoram, that's why they anointed him. But then the Gemara asks, מנלן? How do we know that only מלכי בית דוד are anointed and not מלכי ישראל? אמר Rav Sheshet, Rav Sheshet said, אמר קרא, because the pasuk says that Hashem said to שמואל, קום משחהו, go and anoint him, כי זה הוא, because he is going to be the king. So we דרש'ן, זה טעון משיחה, he needs משיחה, ואין אחר טעון משיחה, but somebody else doesn't need משיחה. Which means only דוד needs משיחה, but another king who is not from the house of דוד doesn't need משיחה. Then the Gemara says, אמר מר, we have learned before, אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשך אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם, that Yehu ben Nimshi was not anointed only because of the מחלוקת of Yoram. But the Gemara asks, ומשום מחלוקתו של יורם בן אחאב נימעול בשמן? And because of the מחלוקת of Yoram ben Achav, should we be מועל in the שמן המשחה? The שמן המשחה is not allowed to be put on anybody unless he is one of those that the דין is you have to anoint him. And if the שמן המשחה is put on anybody, is used for anything, you are מועל in the שמן, there is a מעילה. Now, since we said that מלכי ישראל are not anointed, and therefore Yehu shouldn't have been anointed. Nevertheless, we said that the reason he was anointed was because of the machloket of Yoram. But since he didn't have to be anointed, so to anoint him means that you are מועל in the oil, that you are מועל in the שמן המשחה. So the question is, because of the machloket of Yoram, you are allowed to be מועל in the שמן המשחה? The Gemara answers, כדאמר רב פפא, just like Rav Papa said concerning a different question, that באפרסמא דכיא, that the anointing was done not with the שמן המשחה, but with אפרסמא דכיא, with pure balsam. הכא נמי, here too, באפרסמא דכיא, with pure balsam. That when they anointed Jehu, because of the machloket of Yoram, it wasn't with the שמן המשחה, it was with אפרסמא דכיא. And then it said also, that יהואחז מפני יהויקים, and the reason they anointed Jehoahaz was because of his brother יהויקים, דהוה קשיש מיניה שתי שנין, that he was older than him with two years, so that's why they anointed the younger one. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to anoint him. And the Gemara's question is, ומי קשיש מיניה? Was he really older than him? והכתיב, doesn't it say, ובני יאשיהו, the children of יאשיהו, הבכור יוחנן, the oldest one was יוחנן, השני יהויקים, the second one was יהויקים, השלישי צדקיהו, the third one was צדקיהו, הרביעי שלם, the fourth one was Shallum. ואמר רבי יוחנן, and Rabbi Yochanan said, הוא שלם הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז, that Shallum, Zedekiah, and Johanan, and Jehoahaz, it's all the same person. So when it says that הבכור was Johanan, really, that is Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim was the second one. So how can we say that Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz with two years? And the Gemara says, לעולם יהויקים קשיש, באמת יהויקים was older. אי הכי, it says בכור יוחנן, so מאי בכור? What does it mean בכור? בכור למלכות, he was the firstborn for the מלכות. That means he was the first to be the king. He took over the kingdom and not his brother Jehoiakim, but really, his brother Jehoiakim was older than him. Then the Gemara asks, ומי מוקמינן זוטרא מקמי קשישא? Do we appoint as king the younger one before the older one? והכתיב, doesn't the pasuk say, ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור, he gave the kingship to Jehoram because he was the בכור. So we see that you give it to the בכור. The Gemara answers, יהורם ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה. Jehoram was a ממלא מקום of his parents, which means he filled up the place of his parents, he was equal in level to his parents, and therefore, he was given the kingship, the ממלכה. But יהויקים לאו ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה. Jehoiakim, even though he was the older one, but he wasn't in the level of a ממלא מקום to his parents, he didn't fill up the place of his parents, he wasn't as great as his father was, and therefore they gave it to the younger brother because he was a ממלא מקום of his father. Then the Gemara says, אמר מר, we have learned before, הוא שלם הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז, that when it mentions these four people, really, it's all the same person. The same person is Shallum and Zedekiah and Johanan and Jehoahaz. But the Gemara asks, והא חד חד קא חשיב? But doesn't he mention each one separately? It says, דכתיב, because it says says השלישי הרביעי. The first two, it's okay. The first one is Johanan, that's the first time he's mentioned, and then it says that the second one is Jehoiakim, but then we say the third is Zedekiah, and the fourth is Shallum, but we're saying that Zedekiah and Shallum are really the same person as Johanan, so how come it says the third and the fourth? The Gemara answers, מאי שלישי שלישי לבנים. What do we mean he was third? He was the third of the children. ומאי רביעי, what do we mean he was the fourth? רביעי למלכות, he was the fourth to the kingdom, because דמעיקרא מלך יהואחז, first Yehoachaz was king, ולבסוף Yehoiakim, and then Yehoiakim, ולבסוף Yechanyah, then Yechanyah, ולבסוף Tzidkiyahu, then Tzidkiyahu. He was fourth to the kingdom, that's why he's called fourth also. Then the Gemara continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learns, הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו. He is שלום, he is צדקיהו, he's the same person. ולמה נקרא שמו שלום, why is he called שלום? שהיה משולם במעשיו, that he was complete in his actions, he was a צדיק. איכא דאמרי, some say שלום, why was he called שלום? ששלמה מלכות בית דוד בימיו, that מלכות בית דוד was finished in his time. ומה שמו, what was his real name? מתניה שמו, his name is Matanyah. שנאמר, as the pasuk says, וימלך מלך בבל את מתניה דודו, that the king of Bavel gave the kingship to Matanyah his uncle, תחתיו, instead of him, ויסב את שמו צדקיהו, and he changed his name to Tzidkiyahu. אמר ליה, he said to him, כה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי. Why did he call him Tzidkiyahu? It comes from the two words צדק and י-ק, which means כה, י-ק ה' should justify my דין against you, אם תמרוד בי, if you will revolt against me. שנאמר, as it says in פסוק, ויביאהו בבלה, or as it says, וגם במלך נבוכדנצר מרד, that he did revolt against the מלך נבוכדנצר, אשר השביעו באלקים, that he made him swear by ה''s name. So we see that he did make him swear by ה''s name that he shouldn't revolt, and that's why he called him צדקיהו, to say that if you will revolt me, ה' should justify my judgment that I will do against you. Concerning what we learned before, that normally you do not have to anoint a king if he's the son of another king, but nevertheless, if there was a machloket on the second king, you do have to anoint him. So Rashi in the Gemara Keritot דף ה' עמוד ב' says that the reason is, because כי איכא מחלוקת לאו ירושה היא ובעי משיחה בתחילה, because if there was a מחלוקת, then when the second king takes over it's not considered a ירושה, and therefore, you have to have a משיחה like when you start a king. Just like when you appoint a king the first time you have to have משיחה, it is only later his children don't need, but if there was a מחלוקת it is not considered a ירושה, and therefore you have to anoint him again. But the Rambam in Hilchot Klei Hamikdash פרק א' הלכה י"ד, and it's similar to that in the end of the first פרק in Hilchot Melachim, he says a לשון, that אם היתה שם מחלוקת מושחין אותו, if there was a מחלוקת you do have to anoint him, כדי לסלק המחלוקת, in order to take away the מחלוקת, ולהודיע לכל שזהו מלך לבדו, and to notify everybody that he is the only king. So in the Acharonim, the Divrei Nechemia and in the Avnei Nezer and in the Eretz Tzvi, they explain that this is really a מחלוקת between Rashi and Tosafot. According to Rashi, if there was a מחלוקת, there is no more ירושה and therefore, when you anoint the son, it is like you are starting a new thing here just like you anoint a king in the beginning when you appoint him if he doesn't inherit from his father. But according to the Rambam, even if there was a מחלוקת, the ירושה doesn't become בטל. The only thing is, because there was a מחלוקת, you have to do something to get rid of the מחלוקת, and after you anoint him, you get rid of the מחלוקת, and what happens then? Then he remains the יורש of his father. The difference between these two opinions could be concerning the שעיר that a מלך has to bring. For instance, if in the time when there was a מחלוקת, he did an עבירה בשוגג, and then later he was anointed and became the king, would he have to bring the שעיר that a מלך has to bring? If you learn that because there was a מחלוקת, it's not a ירושה, so it comes out at the time of the מחלוקת, he wasn't a king. But if you learn that he's a king anyway, the only thing is that there was a מחלוקת and therefore you have to do something to take away the machloket, so even though there was a machloket at that time, still he was the king, the yerusha wasn't batal, it's just that there was a machloket, so therefore, if he did an aveirah during that time, he still has to bring the שעיר. But it's lav davka that this is true, that this would be the difference, because the Avnei Nezer there says that concerning the korban of a שעיר, it is not only whether he is a מלך or not. Concerning the שעיר, there's a special din that he only brings it if אין על גביו אלא ה' אלקיו, that if there is no other authority on top of him but ה'. In other words, he's the top authority. And therefore, even though על פי הלכה he has a din of a מלך, but since there is a machloket then, so his authority is not a top authority, so then according to this sevara, he still wouldn't have to bring the שעיר. So it's possible that this would not depend on the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot in the reason why you have to be מושח the מלך בן מלך if there was a machloket.