Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת הוריות דף י"ב. The גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא of שמן המשחה, and the גמרא said before that you do not anoint a מלך בן מלך. If the king takes over from his father who was a king, then you do not have to anoint him, unless there was a מחלוקת against him taking over the kingship. And the גמרא said that that was the reason why they anointed יהואחז because of his brother יהויקים, that was older than him with two years, so there was a possibility to make him מלך, and therefore they had to anoint יהואחז even though he took over the kingship from his father. But the גמרא asked, ומי הוה שמן המשחה? Was there this שמן המשחה in the time of יהואחז that we say that they used the שמן המשחה to anoint יהואחז because of his brother יהויקים? But at that time there was no שמן המשחה, והתניא we learned in a ברייתא, משנגנז ארון, for when the ארון was hidden, נגנז שמן המשחה, so the שמן המשחה was also hidden, וצנצנת המן and the bottle of מן, ומקלו של אהרן and the stick of אהרן, שקדיה ופרחיה its almonds and blossoms, וארגז ששילחו פלשתים דורון לישראל, and also that box that the פלשתים sent as a present to the יידן, שנאמר, as it says in the פסוק concerning that box, וכלי הזהב אשר השבותם לו אשם and the taylor of gold that you will return to them as a guilt offering, תשימו בארגז מצדו, you should put in a box next to it, ושילחתם אותו והלך, and send it away and let it go. This is concerning the ארון that fell captive in the hands of the פלשתים. So later when they sent it back, it says in the פסוק they sent it back with a box full of gold that they put right next to it. And all these things were laying in the קדש הקדשים next to the ארון. The שמן המשחה was there, the צנצנת המן, the bottle of מן from the time of the מדבר, because then השם said that they should take some מן and put it away in a bottle, and that should stay for all generations, and that was put in in the קדש הקדשים. Also מקלו של אהרן, the stick of אהרן, because after the story of קרח, השם said let every נשיא of every שבט give a stick and they will put it into the אוהל מועד, and the one that his stick is going to start blossoming, that's going to show that he is the one that השם chose. So it said that אהרן's stick started blossoming, and almonds started growing. So that stick with the almonds and the blossoms stayed there in the קדש הקדשים constantly. And also that box with the present that the פלשתים sent was also put there. So when the ארון was hidden, so all these things, the שמן המשחה and צנצנת המן, and the מקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה, and that box, they were all also hidden. ומי גנזו? And

who hid it? יאשיהו מלך יהודה גנזו, יאשיהו the king of יהודה hid it, which was before the time of יהואחז yet. שראה, because he saw שכתוב בתורה, it says in the תורה, יולך ה' אותך ואת מלכך וגו', that השם will lead you and your king into גלות, צוה וגנזם, so he commanded that they should hide it, because he was afraid that when they're going to גלות, the גוים are going to take away the ארון also. He told them to hide it, שנאמר, like the פסוק says, ויאמר ללוים, he said to the לוים, המבינים, those that understand, לכל ישראל הקדושים לה', to all the יידן who are holy to השם, תנו את ארון הקדש בבית אשר בנה שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל, "Put away the ארון in the house that שלמה, the son of דוד מלך ישראל, built," because when שלמה built the בית המקדש, he לכתחילה built a hiding place under the בית המקדש where they should be able to put away the ארון when they will have to. אין לכם משא בכתף, you won't be able to carry it on your shoulder, which means that he said to them, "If you're going to go into גלות, so then you won't have it anymore, you won't be able to carry it anymore, it'll be taken away. עתה now עבדו את ה' אלקיכם ואת עמו ישראל, serve השם your God and his nation, the יידן." So we see there that יאשיהו told them to put it away someplace in the building. He told them to hide the ארון.

אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר said, אתיא, we learn it out, "שם" "שם", we make a גזירה שוה from the word שם that says by the ארון. For it says there, ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת, and it also says ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל. So we see it says שם by the ארון, by the צנצנת המן it also says שם, שמה. It says ותן שמה מלא העומר מן. So we compare the צנצנת המן to the ארון, and say just like the ארון was hidden, the צנצנת המן was also hidden. אתיא "משמרת" "משמרת", we also learn out a גזירה שוה the word משמרת. Because by the צנצנת המן it says that it should be put away למשמרת לדורותיכם, and by the stick of אהרן it also says you should put it למשמרת לאות לבני מרי. So we say that just like the צנצנת המן was hidden, so was the מקלו של אהרן. אתיא "דורות" "דורות", and we also learn out a גזירה שוה the word דורות דורות. By the צנצנת המן it says והנח אותו לפני ה' למשמרת לדורותיכם, and by the שמן המשחה it also says, שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם. So we learn out that just like the צנצנת המן was hidden, the שמן המשחה was also hidden. So you see here that the שמן המשחה was hidden by יאשיהו yet, so if there was no שמן המשחה in the time of יהואחז, so how did the גמרא say that the reason they anointed יהואחז was because of his brother יהויקים, when there was no שמן המשחה then to anoint?

אמר רב פפא, that רב פפא said, באפרסמא דכיא, it was pure balsam oil. It doesn't mean that they anointed him with שמן המשחה, they anointed him with אפרסמא דכיא. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, כיצד מושחין את המלכים, how do you anoint the kings? כמין נזר, you make the shape of a crown on his head. ואת הכהנים, and the כהנים, כמין כי, like a כי. מאי כמין כי, what does the word כי mean? אמר רב מנשיא בר גדא, כמין כף יוני, like a כף from יון. And it's possible that the word כי really is an abbreviation of כף יוני. And that is, some say it is like a lined כף that we have, and some say, רמב״ם says, it's like an X. תניא חדא, in one place we learned, בתחילה נותנין שמן על ראשו, first you pour oil on his head, ואחר כך נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו, and then you put the oil between his eyelids. ותניא אחריתי, we learned in another ברייתא, בתחילה נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו, first you put the oil between his eyelids, ואחר כך נותנין לו שמן על ראשו, and then you pour the oil on his head. So the גמרא answers, תנאי היא, it is a מחלוקת between תנאים what is the order, what you do first. In other words, which of the two is more important and that's why you do it first. איכא דאמרי, some say משיחה עדיפא, that it is more important to smear the oil. איכא דאמרי, and some say יציקה עדיפא, that the pouring is more important. And the one that holds that the smearing is more important holds that first you did that, and the one that holds that the pouring is more important holds that that's the thing you did first. מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא, what is the reason of the one that holds that the pouring is more important? דכתיב, because it says, ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן, that he poured from the שמן המשחה on the head of אהרן, וימשח אותו לקדשו, and he smeared him in order to make him holy. So we see that first came the יציקה, the pouring, then came the smearing. ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא, the one that holds that the smearing is more important, מאי טעמא, what is his reason? קסבר, he holds, שכן אתה מוצא בכלי שרת, that that's how we find they did it by the כלי שרת, by the vessels of the בית המקדש. There they only smeared and didn't pour, so obviously the smearing is more important. אי והכתיב ויצק ובסוף וימשח, איי the פסוק we quoted before by אהרן it says first that they poured the oil on the head of אהרן, then it says they smeared it? הכי קאמר, this is what the פסוק means according to this opinion. מה טעם ויצק, what was the reason they poured it? משום דוימשח, because of the smearing. So when it says there ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן וימשח אותו, it doesn't mean that this is how it happened, but the תורה tells us, ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן, they poured the oil on the head of אהרן. Why did they do it? Because וימשח אותו לקדשו, because they have smeared it to make him holy, that's why afterwards they poured. But the order is that first you smear and then you pour. תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, there's a פסוק in תהלים that says כשמן הטוב וגומר, like the good oil, etc. And the פסוק continues later, יורד על הזקן, it goes down on the beard, זקן אהרן, the beard of אהרן, וגומר, it says. What does that mean? That כמין שני טיפי מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו, like two drops of diamonds were hanging in אהרן's beard. That when משה anointed him with the oil, two drops of oil went down and they stayed in אהרן's beard. אמר רב פפא, that רב פפא said, תנא, we learned, כשהוא מספר, when he used to speak, עולות ויושבות לו בעיקר זקנו, it would go up and stay in the beginning of his beard, because if they would stay in the bottom of the beard while he was talking they would fall off, so in order not to fall off, when he used to talk to somebody, they used to go up to the top of the beard. על דבר זה היה משה דואג, and for this משה was worried. אמר, he said, שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה, maybe חס ושלום I was מועל in the שמן המשחה. Maybe I poured in a place where you didn't have to, and if you pour in a place where you don't have to, in other words, you use the שמן המשחה when you don't have to, this is a מעילה. You are having benefit of the שמן המשחה in a wrong way, so he was afraid of that. יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו, so a voice from heaven came out and said, כשמן הטוב וגומר כטל חרמון. This פסוק says like the good oil that came down on the beard of אהרן, and the פסוק continues כטל חרמון, like the טל, the dew of חרמון. So what the voice of heaven was saying that what you did was like טל of חרמון. מה טל חרמון אין בו מעילה, just like the טל, the dew of חרמון has no מעילה, there's nothing holy about it, and therefore there is no דין מעילה, אף שמן המשחה שבזקן אהרן, so too, the oil, the שמן המשחה in the beard of אהרן, אין בו מעילה, there is no מעילה. So it said to משה, don't worry, you were not מועל in the שמן. ועדיין היה אהרן דואג, but אהרן was still afraid. אמר, he said, שמא משה לא מעל, maybe משה was not מועל, אבל אני מעלתי, maybe I was מועל. Maybe from me fell the oil to a place where it shouldn't, and I am the one that I'm מועל. יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו, so a בת קול went out and said, that is a further פסוק in the same chapter תהלים: הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד. How nice and how good it is when the brothers sit together. So what the בת קול was saying that you and משה your brother are together. מה משה לא מעל, just like משה wasn't מועל, אף אתה לא מעלת, you also weren't מועל. Then the גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: אין מושחין את המלכים אלא על המעיין. We don't anoint a king only by a fountain, כדי שתמשוך מלכותם, and this should be a good סימן that their מלכות, their kingdom should continue. Just like a fountain continues, so their מלכות should continue. שנאמר, like the פסוק says, ויאמר המלך להם, the king said to them, קחו עמכם את עבדי אדניכם וגו׳, take along the servants of your master, etc., והורדתם אותו אל גיחון, and you should take him to גיחון, which was the place of a fountain, so from here you see that when it comes to anoint a king, you should do it by a fountain. Then the גמרא

continues: אמר רבא, and רבא said, האי מאן דבעי למידע, someone wants to know אי מסיק שתא אי לא, if he is going to live through the year or not, ניתי שרגא בעשרה יומי דבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים, let him light a candle in the ten days between ראש השנה and יום הכיפורים, בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא, in a house that no wind blows. אי מושך נהורא, if the light will continue, it won't get extinguished, נידע, he will know, דמסיק שתא, that he will live through the year. ומאן דבעי למיעבד עיסקא, if someone wants to do business, ובעי למידע אי מצלח אי לא מצלח, he wants to know if he will succeed or won't succeed, נירבי תרנגולא, let him feed a chicken. אי שמן ושפי, if it will grow fat and big, מצלח, it's a סימן that he's going to succeed. האי מאן דבעי למיפק לאורחא, someone wants to go on a journey, ובעי למידע אי הדר ואתי לביתיה אי לא, he wants to know if he will return home or not, ניקום בביתא דחברא, let him stay in a dark house, in a dark room. אי חזי בבואה דבבואה, if he will see a shadow of a shadow, which means a reflection of a shadow, נידע, he will know, דהדר ואתי לביתיה, that he will come home. But then he says, ולאו מילתא היא, this is not right, in other words, a person should not do this, because דילמא חלשא דעתיה, he might feel bad, ומיתרע מזליה, and feeling bad itself will cause his מזל bad. In other words, this last thing is not really a complete סימן, and it's possible that even if he will not see a shadow of a shadow, he still will return home. So therefore, if he will try it out, and he will not see a shadow of a shadow, maybe in this case it didn't mean anything, but he will be afraid that it did mean, so he will feel very bad, and by feeling bad, that itself will cause his מזל to be bad, and this itself will cause him not to come home. And therefore, it is not כדאי, not right, proper to do this.

אמר אביי, אביי said: השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא, now that you said a סימן means something, as we just said that by doing these things it will show what will happen, and therefore, לעולם יהא רגיל איניש למיחזי בריש שתא, a person should make a regular habit in the beginning of the year, which means on ראש השנה, to eat קרא, pumpkin, רוביא, and fenugreek, כרתי, leek, סילקא, and beet, ותמרי, and dates. Then the גמרא continues: אמר להו רב משרשיא לבניה, רב משרשיא said to his sons: כי בעיתו למיעל למיגמר קמי רבייכו, when you want to enter and study in front of your רבי, גרסו מתניתא, first you learn it for yourself, והדר עולו קמי רבייכו, and then you go into your רבי, so if you had prepared it before, you will be able to learn easier. וכי יתביתו קמיה, but when you sit in front of him, חזו לפומיה, look into his face, into his mouth, it's fit because the פסוק says, והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך, your eyes should see your masters, it means you should see your teacher. וכי גרסיתו, and when you study, גרסו על נהרא דמיא, you should study by a river of water, דהיכי דמשכא מיא משכא שמעתתייכו, that just like the water flows, your learning, your שמועות, your statements of תורה that you say, will also continue to flow. ויתיבו אקילקלי דמתא מחסיא, and you should rather sit on the garbage pile of the city of מתא מחסיא, ולא תיתיבו אפדני דפומבדיתא, rather than to sit in the palaces of פומבדיתא. In other words, to learn in מתא מחסיא is much better than to learn in פומבדיתא. And the reason is, as רש״י says, because in מתא מחסיא they had a lot of תלמידי חכמים who were fit for הוראה, and the people much nicer there. But in פומבדיתא, people weren't like that, and that's why he said: do your best to stay in מתא מחסיא to learn, rather than פומבדיתא, even if in מתא מחסיא you'll have to sit on the garbage pile, and in פומבדיתא you'll be able to sit in the palace. And then he said: טב גלדנא סריא דמתא מחסיא ממכחל מכותחא דרומיאתא, and it is better if you will eat the unsavory גלדנא, which is a kind of fish, of מתא מחסיא, rather than the כותח, which was a good dip that they used to make of חומץ and of milk, etc., of the lofty mansions. In other words, it is better to eat things which are not that good, as long as you will be in מתא מחסיא, rather than eating good food and you will be the mansions of פומבדיתא, because מתא מחסיא is a better place to learn, as we said before. This is the פשט if we're going to be גורס in the גמרא the words דמתא מחסיא ולא מחוזא. But if we're not גורס, and it seems that רש״י is not גורס these words, and the פשט in the גמרא is, that what he said was, it is better to eat this fish, the small fishes, than to eat the כותח that is very strong, and it would break mansions, break mountains. Because the כותח the גמרא says was very sharp, and what he was really telling them, according to this פשט, not to eat כותח. Because the גמרא says in ערבי פסחים that there are three things that happen by eating כותח, and all three are not good. So that's what he said, even though כותח tastes better, but nevertheless you should eat that kind of fish, even though it's not so good, rather than eating the כותח. And another פשט that רש״י says is that he said to him, better eat that small fish, which is not so expensive, than the כותח that is eaten by the rich people who live in the great mansions. Because the כותח was very expensive, so what he was saying to them is they shouldn't spend so much money on expensive food. Then the

גמרא continues, there's a פסוק that says in the שירה that חנה sang after she gave birth to שמואל, רמה קרני בה', I exalt my horn to my ה'. So what she said was רמה קרני, I exalt my horn, ולא רמה פכי, and she didn't say, I exalt my flask. That is to tell us that when is it exalted? Only if it comes through a קרן. דדוד ושלמה שנמשחו בקרן, that דוד and שלמה that they were anointed with the horn, נמשכה מלכותן, their מלכות continued. שאול ויהוא שנמשחו בפך, שאול and יהוא that they were anointed with the flask, לא נמשכה מלכותן, their מלכות did not continue. Then the גמרא quotes from the משנה, it said: המשוח בשמן המשחה וכולי, that the כהן גדול who is anointed with the שמן המשחה, he is the one that has to bring the special פר if he does an עבירה בשוגג. But a כהן גדול who is only a מרובה בגדים, only is a כהן גדול because he has more בגדים than the כהן הדיוט, but not because he was anointed, like it was in the time of the second בית המקדש, he doesn't bring this פר. The גמרא says תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, when it speaks about that special פר, the פסוק says משיח, that if he is anointed, יכול I would think מלך, that the king would also have to bring that קרבן, because the king is also anointed. תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says כהן, that if it was a כהן that was anointed. אי כהן, if the פסוק would just say the word כהן, יכול I would think מרובה בגדים, that also the כהן גדול that is a כהן גדול because of the extra clothes, even though he wasn't anointed, that he also would bring this special קרבן. תלמוד לומר משיח, the פסוק says משיח, it has to be a כהן גדול, and a כהן גדול that was anointed. אי משיח, but if the פסוק just says משיח, the כהן who is anointed, יכול I would think משוח מלחמה, the כהן that was anointed to be the general at wartime, he also would have to bring this פר. תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says הכהן המשיח, the כהן, the anointed one, that means שאין משיח על גביו, that he is the anointed one that there is no other anointed one that's above him, and he is the highest authority of an anointed כהן, and that was the כהן גדול. And the גמרא asks, מאי משמע? How is the word הכהן המשיח משמע that it means that he is the highest one and there is no other משיח over him? And the גמרא says: כדאמר רבא, like רבא said. He said it concerning the פסוק where it says הירך, and this is a פסוק in פרשת וישלח, קפיטל ל״ב, פסוק ל״ג, where it says that the יידן should not eat the גיד הנשה אשר על כף הירך עד היום הזה. So רבא said that which one is it? Since it says הירך, it means המיומנת שבבירך, the right one of the ירך, of the thigh. How does he know that? Because the פסוק says הירך. הכא נמי here too, since it says המשיח, the anointed one, so we say המיומן שבמשיחין, the right one of the anointed ones, which means the best one, the strongest one, the greatest one, the top authority of the anointed ones, which is the כהן גדול. Then the גמרא says, אמר מר, as we've learned before, since the פסוק says משיח, יכול מלך, I would think that the מלך has to bring that קרבן that the פסוק speaks about, which is the פר. And the גמרא asks: מלך פר הוא דמייתי? What did we think, that the king should bring a פר? שעיר הוא דמייתי! Doesn't he bring a שעיר? Isn't there a whole פרשה in תורה that it says that if a נשיא would sin, he has his special קרבן which is the שעיר, and we said before the נשיא is the מלך, so we know for sure that the מלך brings a שעיר? So how could we even have thought that the מלך would have to bring the פר? The גמרא says איצטריך, when you thought, סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, אשגיגת מעשה יביא שעיר. If he did the עבירה just by doing it בשוגג,

without previous פסק דין, that's when the תורה says to bring a שעיר, because as we've been learning the whole time, that the דין of a שעיר by a מלך doesn't have to have העלם דבר. That is just like a יחיד brings his חטאת when there was no העלם דבר, just בשגיגת מעשה, so a מלך brings his שעיר when there was just בשגיגת מעשה without העלם דבר. So I would think that when the תורה says that the מלך brings a שעיר, that is when there was just בשגיגת מעשה, אבל העלם דבר דבר, if there was also first a העלם דבר, it's תרתי, he פסקנד for himself wrong to do the עבירה, and then he did it. Then, you would apply that, then he would have to bring a פר. קא משמע לן, that's why you have to have the פסוק, to explain that a מלך does not bring a פר, it's only a כהן גדול who brings a פר. Then the גמרא continues, then the משנה: אין בין משוח בשמן המשחה וכו', there is no difference between a כהן גדול who was anointed with the שמן המשחה and a כהן גדול who became a כהן גדול through wearing the extra clothes. The only difference is concerning the פר הבא על כל המצות. That is, this פר that a כהן גדול has to bring if he did an עבירה בשוגג, so that only applies to the כהן that was anointed, but not to the כהן which is מרובה בגדים. The גמרא says:

מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר, the משנה does not go according to the opinion of רבי מאיר. If it's רבי מאיר, it doesn't go according to רבי מאיר, דתניא, for we learned in a ברייתא: מרובה בגדים מביא פר הבא על כל המצות, דברי רבי מאיר. That a מרובה בגדים does bring this פר הבא על כל המצות, does bring this special פר for doing an עבירה בשוגג, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. ולא הודו לו חכמים, and the חכמים did not agree to him. So we see clearly that our משנה does not go according to רבי מאיר. מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר, what is the reason of רבי מאיר? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says: משיח. אין לי אלא משוח בשמן המשחה, we would only think that a כהן who was anointed with the שמן המשחה, only he brings the פר. מרובה בגדים מניין, how do we know that if he's a כהן גדול through the extra clothes, he also has to bring the פר? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says: הכהן המשיח. It says the extra word הכהן, and that teaches us that as long as he is a כהן גדול, even though he is only מרובה בגדים, he also has to bring the פר. Or, as the תוספות דאס לערנט, that the way they learn it out is because it is a מיעוט אחר מיעוט. The word הכהן is a מיעוט, comes to exclude something, as we said before, as when it's said with a ה, that means something special to exclude something else. And it says המשיח with a ה also comes to exclude something, so it is a מיעוט אחר מיעוט, one exclusion after another, and the rule is: אין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות, that whenever we have one מיעוט then another מיעוט, it comes, instead of being ממעט to exclude, it comes to include. Similar to the concept of two negatives make a positive. So, since you have two מיעוטים here, so it comes to be מרבה. So, רבי מאיר learns it comes to be מרבה מרובה בגדים, that if he's a כהן גדול with extra clothes, he also brings that פר. Then the גמרא says: ומאי אולמיה? So how do you establish that our משנה is the רבנן and it only goes according to the רבנן and not according to רבי מאיר? חזי סיפא, look at, look further in the משנה. There it says: אין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר, there is no difference between a כהן who is active and a כהן גדול who used to be a כהן גדול, but not anymore, the only difference is אלא פר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה. The פר that comes on יום כיפור special for the כהן גדול, that only comes for the active כהן גדול, not for the כהן שעבר, and also the עשירית האיפה, the מנחת חביתין, that a כהן גדול has to bring every day, is only brought by the כהן that is now active and not by the כהן שעבר. Now that part of the משנה, אתיא כרבי מאיר, that only fits according to רבי מאיר. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול, that if a פסול, a disqualification happened to the כהן גדול, ועבר, and he was removed, ומינו כהן אחר תחתיו, and they appoint another כהן גדול instead of him, and later his פסול left him, ראשון חוזר לעבודתו, so the first one comes back to his service, והשני, and the second one, כל מצות כהונה עליו, all the דינים of a כהן גדול apply to him. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says: ראשון חוזר לעבודתו, the first one טאקע returns to his עבודה, והשני, the second one, אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול ולא לכהן הדיוט, he can't be a כהן גדול, he can't be a כהן הדיוט. And the גמרא even says: אמר רבי יוסי, רבי יוסי said: מעשה ביוסף בן אילם מציפורי, there's a story that with יוסף בן אילם from ציפורי, שאירע בו פסול בכהן גדול, that a פסול happened to the כהן גדול, ומינו אותו תחתיו, so they appointed him, this יוסף בן אילם, instead of him. ובא מעשה לפני חכמים, and the מעשה came before the חכמים, ואמרו, and the חכמים said: ראשון חוזר לעבודתו, the first one should return to his עבודה, שני, the second one, אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול ולא לכהן הדיוט, is not fit not to be a כהן גדול and not to be a כהן הדיוט. כהן גדול, the reason he cannot be a כהן גדול, משום איבה, because of hatred. In other words, you can't have two כהנים גדולים, because of hatred that will happen between the two. If they both will be in an equal position, there will be hatred amongst them. כהן הדיוט, why can't he become a normal regular ordinary כהן הדיוט? משום מעלין בקודש ולא מורידין, because you only make a person higher in קדושה, but not lower. Since he reached the level of a כהן גדול, you can't take him down and make him back into a כהן הדיוט. So in the

meantime, we see here there's a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי יוסי, and רבי מאיר and the חכמים, whether this כהן שעבר has a דין of a כהן גדול or not. רבי יוסי says that he does not have a דין of a כהן גדול. Doesn't have a דין of a כהן הדיוט either, but he doesn't have a דין of a כהן גדול. But רבי מאיר holds that the כהן שעבר does have a דין of כהן גדול. And when it says in the משנה that there was no difference between כהן משמש and כהן שעבר, only the פר יום הכיפורים ועשירית האיפה, but like this, he is also a כהן גדול, that fits according to רבי מאיר. So it comes out the רישא רבנן and the סיפא רבי מאיר. The first part of the משנה only fits according to the רבנן, and not according to רבי מאיר. The סיפא רבי מאיר. The סיפא fits only according to רבי מאיר, and not according to the רבנן. And usually we would like to have one משנה that should go according to one opinion. אמר רב חסדא, Rav Chisda said, אין, yes, רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי מאיר. The רישא is רבנן, and the סיפא is רבי מאיר. That could be. First part of the משנה goes according to one מאן דאמר, and the second part of the משנה according to another מאן דאמר. רב יוסף אמר, Rav Yosef says, רבי, it is really one opinion. It is the opinion of רבי, ונסבה אליבא דתנאי, he said it according to תנאים. רבי holds in one דין like the חכמים, and in one דין like רבי מאיר. And therefore the רישא, רבי פסקנט that a מרובה בגדים doesn't bring the פר, because he פסקנט in that like the רבנן. And concerning the כהן שעבר, whether he is a כהן גדול or not, רבי holds like רבי מאיר, and that's why he wrote the דינים like רבי מאיר. רבא אמר, but Rava said, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא, this is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, דסבר לה כוותיה דרבי מאיר בחדא, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds like רבי מאיר in one דין, ופליג עליה בחדא, and he argues against him in the other דין. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא,

דברים שבין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט אלו הן, the things that are between a כהן גדול and a כהן הדיוט, the differences between a כהן גדול and a כהן הדיוט, are these things that we're going to mention. One is פר הבא על כל המצוות, the special קרבן that you bring if you do an עבירה בשוגג. So only the כהן גדול brings this, not the כהן הדיוט. ופר יום הכיפורים, on יום כיפור there is a special פר for the כהן גדול, but not for the כהן הדיוט. ועשירית האיפה, the כהן גדול has to bring this מנחת חביתין, the tenth of an איפה every day, while the כהן הדיוט doesn't. ולא יפרע, the כהן גדול is not allowed to have long hair. ולא יפרום, he's not allowed to tear his clothes. אבל הוא פורם מלמטה, but he does tear his clothes on the bottom of his clothes. וההדיוט מלמעלה, the כהן הדיוט, when he tears קריעה, when he tears his clothes after one of the relatives that died, he does it on the top. ואינו מטמא לקרובים, also a כהן גדול is not allowed to become טמא to his relatives. ומוזהר על הבתולה, and he's warned, he is commanded only to marry a virgin. ואסור באלמנה, the כהן גדול is not allowed to marry a widow. ומחזיר את הרוצח, and he returns the murderer, which means the murderer who killed somebody בשוגג who has to live in עיר מקלט till the death of the כהן גדול, so when the כהן גדול dies, he makes the רוצח return. But not a כהן הדיוט. ומקריב אונן, the כהן גדול is allowed to be מקריב a קרבן while he's an אונן. אונן is the day that his relative passed away. Before the קבורה, before the burial, he's considered an אונן. But a כהן גדול is allowed to be מקריב, while a כהן הדיוט, when he's an אונן, isn't allowed to do the עבודה. ואינו אוכל, but still, the כהן גדול doesn't eat the קדשים when he is an אונן. ואינו חולק, and he also doesn't take a share of the קרבנות when he is an אונן. מקריב חלק בראש, he is מקריב his חלק first, if he wants to be מקריב a קרבן, he's first. ונוטל חלק בראש, and he takes his share first. ומשמש בשמונה כלים, and when he does the עבודה, he has to wear eight garments. וכל עבודת יום הכיפורים אינה כשרה אלא בו, and all the עבודות of יום כיפור is only כשר if it's done through the כהן גדול. ופטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, he is פטור from bringing a קרבן for טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, that if he was טמא and entered the בית המקדש, or he ate קדשים, then normally there is a special קרבן for that, which is a קרבן עולה ויורד, the כהן גדול is פטור, but a כהן הדיוט is חייב. וכולן נוהגין במרובה בגדים, and all these דינים apply also to a כהן גדול who was not anointed, but is only a כהן גדול because of the garments that he wears. חוץ מפר הבא על כל המצוות, except the special פר that he brings for doing an עבירה בשוגג. וכולן נוהגין במשיח שעבר, and all these דינים also apply to the כהן גדול that was retired from his position. חוץ מפר יום הכיפורים, except to have the פר on יום כיפור, ועשירית האיפה, and the מנחת חביתין that he brings every day. וכולן אין נוהגין במשוח מלחמה, and all these things don't apply concerning the כהן who was anointed just to be the general of the war. חוץ מה' דברים האמורים בפרשה, except the five things that is said in the פרשה that apply also to the משוח מלחמה. And which are they? לא יפרע, he's not allowed to have long hair. ולא יפרום, he's not allowed to tear his clothes. ואינו מטמא לקרובים, he's not allowed to become טמא to the relatives. ומוזהר על הבתולה, and he is commanded to marry a virgin. ואסור באלמנה, and he's not allowed to marry a widow. ומחזיר את הרוצח, and he also returns the רוצח, murderer. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the דין of רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, אינו מחזיר. לא יפרע, he's not allowed to have long hair. ולא יפרום, he's not allowed to tear his clothes. ואינו מטמא לקרובים, he's not allowed to become טמא to the relatives. ומוזהר על הבתולה, and he is commanded to marry a virgin. ואסור באלמנה, and he's not not allowed to marry a widow, ומחזיר את הרוצח, and he also returns that a רוצח might return home. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, אינו מחזיר, he doesn't return, the כהן משיח does not make that a רוצח come back. But in the meantime we see in this ברייתא that the one that said this דין holds, in one way he holds, like we said before in the name of רבי מאיר, that a כהן שעבר has the same דין as a כהן גדול, as it said clearly in the ברייתא that כולן נוהגין במשיח שעבר חוץ מפר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה, which is exactly like רבי מאיר holds, like it said in our משנה. We also see in this ברייתא that he holds that a מרובה בגדים does not bring the פר על כל המצות, which in that we see is not like רבי מאיר. And the תנא of this ברייתא is רבי שמעון, as the גמרא will soon prove. And this is what רבא meant, that the תנא of our משנה is רבי שמעון, because we see that רבי שמעון holds both of these דינים. In one thing he holds like רבי מאיר, that a כהן שעבר has the same דין of a כהן גדול, and the other thing he doesn't hold like רבי מאיר, he holds that a מרובה בגדים does not bring that פר. So that's what רבא said, the תנא of our משנה is רבי שמעון. So the whole משנה goes according to one מאן דאמר, and that is רבי שמעון. But then the גמרא asks, והא מדקתני, how do you know it's רבי שמעון? אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, מאן שמעת ליה, who did you hear, דאמר that says, פטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, that a כהן גדול is פטור from bringing the קרבן עולה ויורד for טומאת מקדש וקדשיו? רבי שמעון, it's רבי שמעון. So therefore we see if this ברייתא is רבי שמעון, and he said that our משנה also goes according to רבי שמעון. Then the גמרא says, it said in the ברייתא, חוץ מחמשה דברים האמורים בפרשה, that the כהן משוח מלחמה is not included in all these דינים of the כהן גדול except the five things which are mentioned in the פרשה, and the ברייתא mentions all five. The

גמרא says, מנא הני מילי? How do we know that these five things also apply to the משוח מלחמה? And the גמרא answers, דתנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned, they learned a ברייתא. The ברייתא quotes the פסוק what it says in פרשת אמור, in פרק כ''א, פסוק י', and there it speaks about the דינים of a כהן גדול. And the פסוק says: והכהן הגדול מאחיו, the כהן which is bigger than his brothers, אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה, that will be poured on his head the שמן המשחה, ומלא את ידו, and his hands will be filled, ללבוש את הבגדים, to dress the special clothes. And the פסוק says what should happen to this כהן גדול: את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום, his hair he shouldn't let grow long, his clothes he shouldn't tear, ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא, and for all dead bodies he shouldn't come, he shouldn't become טמא to any dead bodies, even לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא, his father and mother he shouldn't become טמא. And then the פסוק continues, והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח, and he should marry a a girl, a woman with her virginity. So the ברייתא דרש like this: והכהן הגדול מאחיו, when it says the כהן who is bigger than his brothers, זה כהן גדול, that means a כהן גדול. אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה, the פסוק adds that on his head will be poured the שמן המשחה, זה משוח מלחמה, that comes to include also if he was anointed to be the general of the war. ומלא את ידו ללבוש את הבגדים, and his hands will be filled to dress the garments, זה מרובה בגדים, that refers to the כהן גדול who is only a כהן גדול because of extra clothes. על כולם הוא אומר, so concerning all of them, which means all three, the כהן משיח and the משוח מלחמה and the מרובה בגדים, on all of them it says: ראשו לא יפרע, his hair, his head he shouldn't let grow long, ובגדיו לא יפרום, and his clothes he shouldn't tear, ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא, and for all dead bodies he shouldn't come, he shouldn't become טמא even to the closest. יכול, I would think, יהו כולם מקריבין אוננין, that all of them are allowed to be מקריב while they're an אונן, because we said a כהן גדול is allowed to be מקריב even while he is an אונן. So I would think that since these are also like a כהן גדול, they also are allowed to be מקריב when they're an אונן. And the רעק''א says that the גמרא's question is only concerning the משוח מלחמה, because concerning the מרובה בגדים the דין is ודאי he is allowed to be מקריב when he's an אונן. The דין is, but that a משוח מלחמה is not allowed, and that's what the גמרא's question is, that since we compare the משוח מלחמה now to the כהן גדול, so we would think that just like the כהן גדול is allowed to be מקריב while he is an אונן, that the משוח מלחמה is also allowed. תלמוד לומר, and the פסוק says, כי נזר שמן משחת אלהיו עליו, that the crown of the oil of the משחה of his God is on top of him, עליו ולא על חבירו, only on him and not on his friend, which means only on this משוח, on this anointed person the דין is that he is allowed to be מקריב as an אונן, but not concerning another anointed person, which is a משוח מלחמה. But then the גמרא asks, פסקיה שדיה הכתוב, now that the תורה divided already, that the next words in the פסוק, where it says כי נזר שמן משחת קדש אלהיו עליו, the תורה already came to exclude a משוח מלחמה. So it would seem that all the דינים that the תורה says after that פסוק should not apply to the משוח מלחמה. And this דין that he is supposed to marry only a בתולה is in the פסוק after that פסוק, כי נזר שמן משחת אלוקיו עליו. So יכול, I would think, לא יהא מצווה על הבתולה, that he's not commanded to marry a בתולה, תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says, והוא, the פסוק says, והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח, that he should marry a woman with her virginity, so that extra word והוא comes to be מרבה that also the משוח מלחמה has to marry a בתולה. And תנאי, this depends really on a מחלוקת בין תנאים. As we learned in the ברייתא, the פסוק says, והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח, he a woman in her virginity he should take. So what does this word והוא come to tell us? So it comes to tell us after divided it. The תורה already separated between the כהן גדול and the משוח מלחמה with the פסוק כי נזר שמן משחת אלוקיו עליו, and I would think the כהן משוח מלחמה doesn't have to marry a בתולה, ריבה, therefore the תורה added the word והוא to be מרבה, to include that the משוח מלחמה also must marry a בתולה, דברי רבי ישמעאל, according to רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא, and רבי עקיבא says that the פסוק והוא come to teach us something else. אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו. We only would know that a כהן גדול שעבר who is also מחוייב in all the דינים of a כהן גדול is only if the reason he was retired from his job was because he became a בעל קרי, and he became טמא and that's why he couldn't do his עבודה. מחמת מומין מניין, how do we know the same דין applies if he was retired from his job because of a מום, because of a blemish, and the difference is if he was retired because he became a בעל קרי, then it's only a temporary thing. When he will become טהור, then he will go back to the עבודה. But if he was retired because of מומין, and he will never go back, so how do we know that he also is obligated to marry a בתולה? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says, והוא. The extra word והוא, he, that even if he's not ever going to go back to the עבודה, still, since he is a כהן גדול, he is obligated to marry a בתולה. Then the גמרא continues, בעי מיניה רבא מרב נחמן, רבא

asked the question of רב נחמן, משיח נצטרע מהו באלמנה, a כהן משיח that became a מצורע, that got leprosy, what is the דין, can he marry an אלמנה? Do we say נדחה, the אלמנה was pushed away from him, which means that since at one point he wasn't allowed to marry the אלמנה, so from then on it's pushed away from him and he never could marry her, או נסתחפה, or it is just a פסול that while he's a כהן גדול, he's not allowed to marry an אלמנה, but now that he's a מצורע and he's not really in the same position of a כהן גדול, so now he is allowed to marry an אלמנה? לא הוה בידיה, he didn't have the answer. לזמן הוה יתיב רב פפא, once רב פפא was sitting וקא מיבעיא ליה and he asked this question. אמר ליה הונא בריה דרב נחמן לרב פפא, so הונא, the son of רב נחמן, said to רב פפא, תניתו, we learned it in a ברייתא, because we learn in a ברייתא, אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו, that we only know that a כהן גדול that was retired from his job because he became a בעל קרי, so we know he has all the דינים of a כהן גדול and he is not allowed to marry anybody but a בתולה, and not an אלמנה. עבר מחמת מומו מניין, how do we know if he was retired because of a מום and he will never go back to his job he's also supposed to marry a בתולה? תלמוד לומר והוא, the פסוק says והוא, that he has the same דין and he is also not allowed to marry an אלמנה and must marry a בתולה. And here we understand the same דין would be concerning a מצורע because you have no bigger מום than a כהן גדול becoming a מצורע. So here we see in this ברייתא that a כהן גדול מצורע is also not allowed to marry an אלמנה. קם, he got up, נשקיה ברישיה, he kissed him on his head, ויהב ליה ברתיה, and he gave him his daughter for a wife. Concerning what we learned earlier in the

גמרא that יאשיהו המלך hid the ארון, so the רמב"ם in the beginning of the fourth פרק of בית הבחירה writes as follows: ובעת שבנה שלמה את הבית, when שלמה המלך built the house, the בית המקדש, וידע, he knew, שסופו לחרב, that the end would be it will be destroyed, בנה בו מקום לגנוז בו הארון, so he built in it a place where he should be able to hide in it the ארון למטה, under it, במטמוניות עמוקות ועקלקלות, in hidden places, deep places and curvy places. ויאשיהו המלך צוה, and יאשיהו, the king, commanded, וגנזו, and they hid it, במקום שבנה שלמה, in the place that שלמה built, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, and he quotes the same פסוק as the גמרא says, ויאמר ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים לה', תנו את ארון הקדש בבית אשר בנה שלמה בן דויד מלך ישראל, אין לכם משא בכתף, עתה עבדו את ה' אלקיכם וגו'. And he continues, ונגנז עמו מטה אהרן וכו', and the stick of אהרן was hidden with it, and he continues and he says, וכל אלו לא חזרו בבית שני, and all these did not come back in the second בית המקדש, ואף אורים ותומים שהיו בבית שני, and also the אורים ותומים that they had in the second בית המקדש, לא היו משיבין ברוח הקודש, they did not answer with the רוח הקודש. They nevertheless had it because they had to have all eight בגדים. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי in his ספר לקוטי שיחות חלק כ"א, the 21st volume in פרשת תרומה, asks many קשיות on this רמב"ם. First question he asks, we know the רמב"ם gives the כלל at the beginning of his ספר that his ספר is a ספר הלכות הלכות, a ספר of הלכות. So the רמב"ם doesn't bring stories or history or things like that in his ספר. So why does the רמב״ם have to bring the whole אריכות here, who hid the ארון and how the ארון was hidden, when all this is not נוגע להלכה? Especially when this is not so simple, there is a מחלוקת about this in the גמרא יומא דף נ״ג סוף עמוד ב׳ and in the ברייתא דמלאכת המשכן פרק ז׳, whether it was like this or not. But since it's not נוגע להלכה, so certainly why does the רמב״ם have to פסקן like one of the two מ״ד? The יעב״ץ on the רמב״ם and the חתם סופר in חולין דף ז׳ עמוד א׳, they answer that the רמב״ם writes it because it's נוגע to a הלכה. The

רמב״ם himself writes later on in פרק ו׳ of הלכות בית הבחירה that there's a difference between קדושת ארץ ישראל and the קדושה of the בית המקדש. That the קדושה of ארץ ישראל we say קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבוא. The קדושה did not remain for later. But the קדושה of the בית המקדש also remained for later. So we could say that the reason the רמב״ם holds that the קדושה of the בית המקדש remained for later also, because the ארון always remained in the בית המקדש. And even after the בית המקדש was destroyed, since יאשיהו המלך hid the ארון in the בית המקדש, that is the reason why the קדושה is always there. So it is נוגע להלכה to know that the קדושה of the בית המקדש is even לעתיד לבוא also. But the ליובאוויטשער רבי says that לכאורה this תירוץ is not understood. Because first of all, the רמב״ם himself gives the reason why he holds that the קדושה of the בית המקדש wasn't בטל and remained for later also, and he says: לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה. Because the קדושה came because of the שכינה, and the שכינה is not בטל. So it's not really because the ארון is still there, but because the קדושה came through the שכינה. But in addition to that, the רמב״ם should have written בקיצור that the ארון במקומו נגנז, that the ארון was hidden in its place. Why does the רמב״ם have to go into the whole אריכות and write all these פרטים? And has to mention that יאשיהו was the one that hid it? The main thing he should have said, if it is the way they explain, that it was hidden in its place. And also he asks: why is the רמב״ם writing all these details? Why is it important to know that שלמה המלך was the one that built that place underground for the ארון to be hidden? Why is it important to know that it was למטה במטמוניות עמוקות ועקלקלות? Why did he have to add that it was under, hidden in hidden places, curvy, deep places? Also why does he have to write that יאשיהו המלך ציוה וגנזו? Why does he have to add that יאשיהו was the מלך, and why does he use the expression ציוה וגנזו, he commanded? He should have said that it was hidden. And also why does he have to add again וגנזו במקום שבנה שלמה, that he hid it in the place that שלמה built? He should have said: he hid it there. And also why does he have to bring the ראיה from the פסוק? And also when he does bring the ראיה from the פסוק, he also quotes the words of the פסוק: ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים לה׳, and then he continues that it was שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה׳. All these words are not important to what the רמב״ם is trying to prove that יאשיהו המלך ציוה וגנזו במקום שבנה שלמה. What is נפקא מינה of all these details for the הלכה that the רמב״ם is trying to bring out? Another question that he asks is from the לשון of the רמב״ם where he says that שלמה knew that the end will be that the בית המקדש will be destroyed, that's why he built this place in it, משמע that שלמה built it on his own. That's what's משמע. Since שלמה knew it's going to be destroyed, so he on his own decided to do something that they should have a place to hide it. לכאורה, we know that all the parts of the בית המקדש were built through the commandment of ה׳, as the פסוק says: הכל בכתב מיד ה׳ עלי השכיל. Everything came מיד ה׳. So how is it possible that שלמה added a certain place on his own? So the

ליובאוויטשער רבי says that the answer to this question will come first by looking into the place where the רמב״ם wrote this הלכה. In the beginning of הלכות בית הבחירה the רמב״ם says: אלו הן הדברים שהן עיקר בבנין הבית. These are the things which are important in the building of the בית המקדש. You have to make a קודש, you have to make a קודש קדשים, you have to make an אולם, and then he adds ועושין במקדש כלים, and in the מקדש you must make כלים. And he mentions the כלים of the מקדש and their place. And later on in the second and the third פרק, the רמב״ם explains the way the כלים look. And in the fourth פרק that's when he gets to explain the צורת הבית, how the house looked, the בית המקדש itself, the walls, the היכל, the gates, etc. So the ארון לכאורה is one of the כלים. So all the details about the ארון and where the ארון was put, and whether the ארון was hidden or not, they belong in that place where the רמב״ם explains the כלים. But what we see is that this דין that the ארון was hidden under the בית המקדש, that the רמב״ם writes in the beginning of the fourth פרק which deals with the צורה of the בית המקדש itself. So that shows that the fact that the ארון had to be put in the קודש הקדשים is according to the רמב״ם not only a דין מצד הארון, but this is a דין in the צורת הבית. The ארון is not only a כלי in itself, and the place of the כלי happens to be in the קודש הקדשים, like the דינים concerning the other כלים of the מקדש that each one has its place where it belongs, but the putting of the ארון in the קודש הקדשים is part of the בנין of קודש הקדשים itself.

When is the קודש הקדשים, the building, the room of קודש הקדשים, the proper קדש הקדשים, if it has the ארון in it. Because the קדש הקדשים we know is a בית להשם, and when is it a בית להשם? When it has the ארון, from where it says ונועדתי לך שם. And that is also the reason why the רמב״ם doesn't mention the ארון amongst the כלים of the מקדש when he mentions them in the beginning of the other הלכות, in the beginning of בית הבחירה. He says there ועושין במקדש כלים, you make כלים in the מקדש, and he mentions the כלים, and he doesn't mention the ארון. And the reason is because the ארון is not just a plain כלי by itself. The ארון is part of the building, it is a דין in the building of the קדש הקדשים. But according to that, a very strong קשיא comes up: if we say that the ארון is part of the בית, so in the second בית המקדש, when they had no ארון in its place, so it comes out that the קדש הקדשים in the second בית המקדש was not complete. So there was missing an עיקר in בנין הבית, since since the רמב״ם says that the עיקר in בנין הבית is to have the קדש הקדשים, the קדש, and the אולם. So the קדש הקדשים is part of the עיקר, and if part of the עיקר of the קדש הקדשים itself is the ארון, so when they didn't have the ארון, they were missing an עיקר in בנין הבית. So in order to answer that קשיא, that how did they have a complete בית even in the בית שני, which is a דין in the בית, not because of the ארון, that's why the רמב״ם starts off the fourth פרק, which is the beginning of those הלכות concerning the בנין הבית, with this הלכה that the ארון was hidden. And the פשט is like this: when the רמב״ם says that בעת שבנה שלמה את הבית בנה בו מקום לגנוז בו הארון, the רמב״ם comes to tell us that the ענין of hiding the ארון was not something of בדיעבד and a בלית ברירה. In other words, since they don't want to lose the ארון, so they have to hide it, that's why a hiding place was built. That is not the פשט. It is as if לכתחילה the ארון had two places in the בית המקדש. When they built the ארון, they לכתחילה build it for two places: one was a מקום גלוי, an open place for the ארון, which is on top of the אבן שתיה in the קדש הקדשים, and also they built another place for the ארון, a place to hide the ארון למטה under under the קדש הקדשים, in a hidden place. This is לכתחילה part of the בית. In other words, the hiding of the ארון is not a additional thing over the בית המקדש, and the reason they did it because they had no choice. But this is לכתחילה a דין in the בנין הבית. Just like for the שלימות of the בית המקדש you must build a place which is the קדש הקדשים where the ארון should stand in a open גלוי, we should see it, so too the בית המקדש must have a place where you will be able to hide the ארון under the קדש הקדשים, so you will make sure that this house will always be a house, a complete house even if the ארון is not there. Because the ארון will always still be there, it'll be in the same place under the קדש הקדשים, which is also a place special made for the ארון. And this is what the רמב״ם meant when he said that בעת שבנה שלמה, when שלמה built the בית המקדש, he לכתחילה built it with it, because he put it in as a condition, as part of the בנין הבית. And this is what the רמב״ם means when he said that שלמה knew that the בית המקדש will eventually be destroyed, that's why he built it. It is not as we thought before, that in these words is משמע that he did it on his own; since he knew it will be destroyed, so on his own he decided to build a hiding place. The reason he built a hiding place because he was told by השם, even though it doesn't say, but since we know everything came from השם, so to build this hiding place also came from השם. But when the רמב״ם says that שלמה knew it will be destroyed, the פשט is that when השם told him to build this hiding place, he also knew why it is supposed to be built. He knew that it is supposed to be built as a hiding place for the ארון when it'll be destroyed, because if he wouldn't know why he has to build that hiding place for the ארון, then he wouldn't know that this is in order that the ארון should have another place with the קדושה of קדש הקדשים. So therefore, the רמב״ם says he knew it will be destroyed, so when he built this hiding place, he built it with the intentions of being מקדש it as a מקום for the קדושת הארון in the קדש הקדשים. And that's why the רמב״ם also stresses that it was hidden למטה במטמוניות עמוקות ועקלקלות. He wants to stress that it's a place which fits for hiding. So שלמה המלך, when he built it, he knew that this was made for hiding. So definitely, when he made it he was מקדש it with the קדושה of קדש הקדשים. And this also explains why the רמב״ם has to add that יאשיהו המלך צוה וגנזו במקום שבנה שלמה. In order to prove even more that the hiding of the ארון in this place was not just a בדיעבד, but this is לכתחילה built in such a way that the ארון should have a מקום under the קדש הקדשים where it will be in its own מקום, so to stress that more, so the רמב״ם says that even when it was hidden, which happened not at the time of the חורבן, it didn't happen when there was no choice they had to hide it, it was hidden he says through יאשיהו. יאשיהו lived in a time when there was no סכנה for the בית המקדש yet. He just knew that a time will come that the בית המקדש will be destroyed because he looked at the פסוק where it says יולך השם את מלכך etc. But in his time they didn't have to hide it because they were afraid they would lose it then. So this shows even more that hiding of the ארון wasn't because פשוט they were afraid that they might lose the ארון, so to make sure they don't lose it they would hide it. Putting the ארון into that hidden place under the קודש הקדשים is a דין of putting the ארון in its place. It's similar to the הכנסה of the ארון in the קודש הקדשים through שלמה. And that's why he says, it was יאשיה המלך who ציוה לגונזו, he commanded to hide it. And who did it? יאשיהו המלך, he was a king. This shows that this is similar to the first time it was put into the קודש הקדשים, which was also commanded through שלמה המלך. And that's why he stresses commanded, to show that it came through a king in a positive way, just like שלמה as king commanded, so too יאשיהו המלך as king commanded. So that shows that this was a positive thing done by יאשיהו המלך similar to שלמה המלך. And also, who brought it in? It was done through the לויים המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים לה'. That's why the רמב"ם brings this part of the פסוק also. So this shows again how this כניסה of the ארון into its hiding place is similar to the כניסה that was done through שלמה, which also was done as the פסוק says, ויביאו הכהנים את ארון ברית ה' אל מקומו. So this again stresses that this was a positive thing, a concept of putting the ארון in its place. And that's why the פסוק is מדייק and it says, תנו את ארון הקודש בבית אשר בנה שלמה. The פסוק uses the לשון תנו, put the ארון. The פסוק doesn't say take away the ארון from its place. The פסוק says put the ארון into the house, because putting it there was also a concept of putting the ארון into its place. And that's why the רמב"ם also brings the פסוק, אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה' אלקיכם, which he meant to say that even though you will not have the ארון now, it will be hidden, and therefore you will not have the ability of משא בכתף, but still he says, עבדו את ה' אלקיכם. You still could continue with the עבודה in the בית המקדש as it was before because the ארון is not missing. Even though technically the ארון is not in the same place, but the ארון is in its place. And therefore, the בית המקדש is the תכלית השלימות, even though you don't have the ארון בגלוי, because you still have the ארון in its place, but in the second place, which is also the place of the ארון, in the hidden place under the קודש הקדשים. And the

ליובאוויטשער רבי adds that this will also answer another קשיא. At the end of the הלכה the רמב"ם says, ואף אורים ותומים שהיו בבית שני לא היו משיבין ברוח הקודש, but it was still there. Why is it important to mention here the ענין of the אורים ותומים? The truth is the אורים ותומים is similar to the ארון, that it wasn't there in the בית שני, but still why does it belong here? It belongs in the place where it speaks about the בגדי כהונה, and that is in הלכות כלי המקדש, where it belongs. And the truth is the רמב"ם does mention it there again, but why should the רמב"ם mention it here? Obviously, this ענין that the אורים ותומים did not come back in the time of the בית שני has a connection to what the רמב"ם is trying to bring out concerning the ארון. And based on what we said before, this is also understood. The רמב"ם is trying to give an example to what he said before, that the ארון, even in the second בית המקדש was there בשלימות, as we're explaining now, even though we couldn't see it, but nevertheless it was there because it had its place similar to the קודש הקדשים. So it was there and the בית was בשלימות because of that ארון. So he gives an example that we find the same thing concerning the אורים ותומים in the second בית המקדש. According to the רמב"ם, the אורים ותומים were there בשלימות in the second בית המקדש, because the רמב"ם holds that the אורים ותומים is the חושן. And the חושן is one of the eight בגדים, and you can't have מחוסר בגדים, the כהן גדול must have all his בגדים, so therefore the אורים ותומים had to be in the second בית המקדש. And even though there was a big change concerning the אורים ותומים, because לא היו משיבין, they wouldn't answer, they couldn't hear what they had to say, nevertheless the אורים ותומים were there and the כהן גדול had his שמונה בגדים בשלימות, had his eight בגדים בשלימות. This is an example to what the רמב"ם is trying to bring out concerning the ארון as we explained before. He's trying to bring out that even in the בית שני when they had no ארון, they really had the ארון. The house, the בית, the קודש הקדשים, which is only בשלימות according to the רמב"ם if the ארון is there, that דין was in the בית שני too. Even though they didn't see the ארון בגלוי, there was a change in which place the ארון was put in, but still the ארון was put into a proper place and therefore it did not have any negative effect concerning the שלימות of the בית. As an example to that, the רמב"ם gives the אורים ותומים, which had the same דין, that אורים ותומים was there בשלימות in the בית שני, and they had the שמונה בגדים, even though there was a change in the function of the אורים ותומים. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי says from here we see a very interesting thing concerning the three בתי מקדש. Normally we think that we have three בתי מקדש: we had one בית המקדש that was destroyed, then you had a second בית המקדש and it was destroyed, then we're going to have a third בית המקדש, another בית המקדש. The truth is that all three בתי מקדש are the same, because even after the destruction of the first בית המקדש, the

ארון still remained in its proper place. Not the פשט the ארון was hidden someplace else, it remained in its proper place in the קודש הקדשים, in that hidden place which we're saying till now is the proper place of the ארון. So it comes out that the whole time from the first בית המקדש, through the second, and then when we'll have the third, it is all really one thing, because the whole time the ארון was was in the קדש הקדשים. So even though it will be rebuilt again, but it is not a new בית המקדש, but it is rebuilding the old one. Just like we find concerning תחיית המתים, the פשט is not that there will be new bodies, but as it says in the גמרא, the old bodies will be rebuilt, the same thing is concerning the בית המקדש, that it is the same בית המקדש, because the ארון is still there all time. It is just that the same בית המקדש was rebuilt the second time, and the same בית המקדש will be rebuilt a third time by משיח.