ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמות 30:30

AND YE SHALL GIVE HER UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. “[The proper fulfillment of] the commandment is [only when it is done] by the deputy High Priest.” This is Rashi’s language. But his intention is not to say that the obligation to perform this commandment [always] devolves upon the deputy High Priest rather than devolving upon the High Priest or any ordinary priest; but that this was a [special] temporary command in the case of the first Red Heifer that it should be done by Eleazar, who [happened to be] the deputy High Priest. In the words of the Sifre:²²Sifre, Chukath 123. “‘Scripture here teaches that the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the deputy High Priest. This is made evident [by the fact] that [although] Aaron was still living, Eleazar [who was the deputy High Priest] burnt the heifer. And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest.¹²Verse 3. This [first heifer] was to be prepared by Eleazar,²³This interpretation is based upon the apparently redundant othah [“her” — and you shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar]. Hence Rabbi Meir explains that it means that it was this first Red Heifer that was to be done by Eleazar, whereas all others must be done only by the High Priest. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov, however, are of the opinion that the word othah teaches us that only this Red Heifer was to be done by the deputy High Priest, whereas in subsequent generations it may be done even by an ordinary priest. Ramban further on explains the deeper significance of this whole matter. but all other heifers [in subsequent generations] must be prepared by the High Priest.’ These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov say: ‘this one was done by Eleazar [the deputy], and all other heifers may be done either by the High Priest or an ordinary priest.’” The purport of this is to tell us that this commandment, because of its profound secret, deserved to be given to the greatest of the priests, and yet it was not given to Aaron [but to Eleazar the deputy]! Perhaps this was because of his [Aaron’s] greatness, for he was the holy one of the Eternal²⁴Psalms 106:16: and of Aaron the holy one of the Eternal. and His pious one, who effects atonement in His Sanctuary; therefore He did not want to give him a service which is performed outside [the Sanctuary]. Or perhaps [this was to be done by Eleazar] in order to crown him, and initiate him during the lifetime of his father by means of one of the commandments of the high priesthood. Or it may be [that the performance thereof was not given to Aaron] as a punishment for [his part in the incident of] the [golden] calf, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher wrote.²⁵“Since Aaron had made the [golden] calf, therefore this service was not done by him, because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel” (Rashi on Verse 22, quoting the explanation of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher). See above, Seder Naso, Note 146. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, treated Aaron also as a prophet in this commandment, and he and Moses our teacher were to give it [the Red Heifer] to Eleazar, who was the greatest of the priests after Aaron, and he was the one who had been anointed with the Oil of Anointment.²⁶Exodus 30:30. See also Numbers 3:3: the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed. See further Ramban on Leviticus 10:6 (Vol. III, p. 117) where he clearly states that in a certain respect Aaron’s sons were considered like the High Priest because of their anointment during the days of the consecration. This is [therefore] a hint that in subsequent generations the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the greatest of the priests, namely the High Priest. Similarly we have been taught in a Mishnah:²⁷Parah 4:1. “If the Heifer of Purification²⁸See Rashi on Verse 9. was not slaughtered by the High Priest, it is invalid. But Rabbi Yehudah says it is valid.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma [it is stated]:²⁹Yoma 42b. “And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest. ‘Her’ [i.e., this first Red Heifer] you shall give to Eleazar [the deputy High Priest], but in subsequent generations it is not to be given to Eleazar. Some Rabbis say that in subsequent generations it is to be given to an ordinary priest, and some say that in subsequent generations it is to be given [only] to the High Priest.” This [latter statement] is the opinion of the anonymous Mishnah [quoted above, namely that if the Red Heifer was not slaughtered by the High Priest it is invalid], and it is the correct opinion. According to the Sages who are of the opinion that during later generations it may be prepared [even] by an ordinary priest, [the reason why here] Eleazar was commanded to do it is because there was no [ordinary] priest, for it would not be fitting that his younger brother [Ithamar] should take precedence over him [and at that time there were only three priests — Aaron, and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar].

OR WHOSOEVER PUTTETH ANY OF IT UPON A ZAR'… — “When it is not required [for anointing a person] into the [high-] priesthood or kingship.” This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra retorted that zar in this connection means anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron and his sons mentioned,¹³⁷For since He mentioned first (in Verse 30): And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, it follows that the expression, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a ‘zar’ means that anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron is a zar (a stranger). So why did Rashi say that the oil may also be used for the anointing of a king? just like the verse, and the ‘zar’ that draweth nigh shall be put to death,¹³⁸Numbers 1:51. “Shall be put to death — by the hand of Heaven” (Rashi). which means any stranger not included in those mentioned. Similarly: There shall no ‘zar’ eat of the holy thing,¹³⁹Leviticus 22:10. [which means anyone not of the seed of Aaron]; to the end that no ‘zar’ that is not of the seed of Aaron, draw near…¹⁴⁰Numbers 17:5. It is for this reason that [Ibn Ezra] thought that the anointing of Solomon¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. which was done by Zadok [the priest] taking the horn of oil out of the Tent,¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. — which refers to the Oil of Anointment [which Moses prepared] — was a special, temporary decree by authority of prophecy [permitting the oil to be used upon one who was not of the seed of Aaron]. But this is not the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁴²For according to the Talmud (Kerithoth 5 b) every High Priest who would be appointed was to be anointed with this oil, as were also some of the kings. Generally an heir to the throne of Israel did not have to be anointed, though in order to avoid disputes over the royal succession [as was the case with Solomon] anointing was resorted to. See further on this topic “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 45.
And I say that [the opinion of our Rabbis is borne out by the language of the verse]. For Scripture states, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it would have been correct if it were to say instead, “This shall be a holy anointing oil for Aaron and his sons throughout their generations,” just as He said in the case of the garments, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him;¹⁴⁴Above, 29:29. or that He say, “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto Me, and it shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.” But now that He mentioned only them, [And Aaron and his sons thou shalt anoint] and then continued by saying that it should not be put upon any zar, it could mean that [the prohibition extends] to all people [even High Priests after Aaron] except those mentioned specifically [i.e., Aaron and his sons] ! Similarly He said, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. [which might be taken to mean upon anyone’s flesh — even that of the High Priests after Aaron], and yet Scripture explicitly states, And the anointed priest that shall be in his [Aaron’s] stead, from among his sons!¹⁴⁶Leviticus 6:15. This shows that it is impossible to say that the High Priests after Aaron should not be anointed with this oil. And if so, the question appears why did Scripture use here language which might indicate the opposite, as explained above? But such is the explanation etc. But such is the explanation: He commanded that at the moment Aaron and his sons should be anointed with this oil, and then He continued, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me,¹⁴³Verse 31. — to anoint with it My holy anointed ones whom I will choose — throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it shall not be put upon a zar (stranger) whom I have not designated unto Me. It is for this reason that kings and High Priests were anointed with this oil, for both of them are “the anointed ones of G-d.” Thus it is written, I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him¹⁴⁷Psalms 89:21. — meaning, with the oil which is the holy anointing oil unto Me. And the meaning of the verse, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. is as an admonition to all men [even to Aaron and his sons after they have been anointed with it], since He did not say, “upon the flesh of a zar shall it not be poured.” Thus the purport thereof is that he [Moses] is to pour of the oil upon Aaron’s head in order to anoint him, and then he is to anoint also his sons, but he is not to pour this oil upon any man, even upon the anointed priests, merely as people apply good oils to their bodies in order to scent themselves with hands soaked in oil, after bathing, something like it is said, Wash thyself and anoint thee;¹⁴⁸Ruth 3:3. Then I washed thee with water… and I anointed thee with oil.¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 16:9. This is the plain meaning of the verse and its intention. And so did our Rabbis say:¹⁵⁰Kerithoth 7a. “How do we know that if the High Priest took some of the oil of anointment which was upon his head and put it upon his stomach, that he is liable [to punishment]? Scripture therefore says, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured.”¹⁴⁵Verse 32.

and let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him: We know that the anointing with oil that Moses did was done throughout generations, as was mentioned there. (Exodus 30:30-31) No other was done apart from it. Thus it is explained that this anointing was not a complete covering with oil because the oil would not be sufficient for this. The anointing was not done thus with everything that Moses had done. Therefore it is explained that he would only do a partial anointing, that it anointing the king on his head, as it said about Saul, "Samuel took the vial of oil and poured it upon his head."(1 Samuel 10:1) It is fitting that anointing should be upon the place where the crown of kingship will be. And it is fitting that you know that it was only necessary to anoint Solomon because of the conflict with Adonijah, because with the anointing of David, all those after him from his line were also anointed, like with the anointing of Aaron and his sons, all those coming after them to be priests were also anointed. Thus it was not necessary to anoint after this except with the high priest.