But wasn't the Ark in Zion, i.e., Jerusalem, at the time, and not in a booth at the battlefield? Rather, there must have been two Arks; one remained in Jerusalem and the other went out with the Jews to the battlefield. What do the Rabbis do with this verse? How would they interpret it according to their opinion that there was only one Ark, and it remained in Jerusalem? The word for booth, sukka, is related to the word sekhakh, which is temporary roofing for a structure. The verse, in mentioning that the Ark was in a booth, is not implying that it was with the army at the battlefield, but merely that the Ark was in a temporary structure, as the Temple had not yet been built.

§ As the mishna mentions the subject of concealing the Ark, the Gemara cites a further baraita on this topic: When the Ark was sequestered, sequestered along with it was the canister of manna that Moses placed before God to be kept throughout the generations (see Exodus 16:32-34); the flask of the anointing oil; Aaron's staff with its blossoms and berries, which were placed before the Ark (see Numbers 17:23); and the box that the Philistines returned together with the Ark that was captured during the war, which they filled with golden vessels as a guilt-offering to the God of Israel, as the verse says: "And put the jewels of gold, which you return Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by the side thereof" (I Samuel 6:8). Who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it. Since he saw that it is written, "The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known, you nor your fathers" (Deuteronomy 28:36), he arose and sequestered it, so that it would not be sent into exile with the Jews. This is as it is written: "And he said unto the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy unto the Lord: Put the Holy Ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel" (II Chronicles 35:3). The Gemara explains: Josiah said to the Levites: If the Ark is exiled with you to Babylonia, there is a real concern that you will never return it to its place. Rather, I am concealing it so you will no longer need to carry it. "Now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel" (II Chronicles 35:3) in the other tasks that are incumbent upon you.

§ Apropos the anointing oil mentioned among the items sequestered with the Ark, the Gemara elaborates: The types and quantities of spices that were used in the blending of the anointing oil are detailed in the verses: "Take you also unto yourself the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty, and of cassia [kidda] five hundred, after the shekel of the Sanctuary" (Exodus 30:23-24). All together, they total 1,500 maneh. The Gemara explains in a baraita how this was done: "And of olive oil a hin" (Exodus 30:24), this hin equals twelve log of oil in which they would cook the roots of the plants mentioned in the verse above, so that the oil would absorb their fragrance; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: That is not how it was prepared. Rather, the priest who prepared the oil would cook the roots in water, such that the fragrant essence would rise to the top, and he would then place oil on top of the water. When it had completely absorbed the fragrance, he would remove the oil from the water, in the manner that the perfumers prepare fragrant oils. The accepted way of extracting fragrances was to boil the plants in water and then place the oil on top to absorb the fragrance essences. This is as it is written: "And you shall make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil" (Exodus 30:25). "After the art of the perfumer" indicates that it should be prepared in the manner of those who make such perfumes.

Continuing on the subject of the anointing oil, Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, taught: The anointing oil that Moses prepared in the desert was a miraculous feat from beginning to end. At the outset, there were only twelve log of oil, as it is stated: "And of olive oil a hin," and a hin is twelve log. If there initially wasn't even enough oil to pour over the roots, all the more so after the fire absorbs some oil, as it reduces the amount of oil through cooking, and the wood, i.e., the roots from which the fragrant essence was extracted, absorbs some oil, and the pot in which the roots were cooked absorbs some oil as well. Yet from this small amount were anointed the Tabernacle and all its vessels, the table and all its vessels, and the candelabrum and all its vessels. And from that oil Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed during all the seven days of consecration, and from that oil the High Priests and kings throughout all the generations were anointed. The baraita goes on to discuss those who were anointed with the anointing oil. A king at the outset, i.e., when his appointment as king begins a dynasty, requires anointing with the anointing oil. A king who is the son of a king, who stands to reign in his father's place, does not require anointing. What is the source for this ruling? God instructed Samuel with regard to David: "Arise, anoint him; for this is he" (I Samuel 16:12). Only "this" one, i.e., David, requires anointing, as his monarchy begins a dynasty, but his son does not require anointing. In contrast to the anointing of kings, with regard to a High Priest, son of a High Priest, even up to ten generations or more of High Priests of fathers and sons, each one requires anointing, as the position of High Priest is not passed as an inheritance from father to son like the monarchy. Rabbi Yehuda concludes his statement about the miraculous nature of the anointing oil, adding that despite the reduction in the amount of oil during its preparation process, as well as its multiple uses throughout history, it all will remain intact in the future that will surely come. This is as it is written: "This [zeh] shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations" (Exodus 30:31). The word zeh has a numerical value of twelve, which teaches that the original twelve log of oil that existed at the outset will remain throughout all the generations.

§ The Gemara continues the discussion of anointing kings, citing an additional baraita on the subject. One may anoint kings only next to a spring. It is a fortuitous sign that their monarchy should continue uninterrupted just as the waters of the spring flow uninterrupted throughout the year, as it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon in the days of King David: "And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Giḥon. And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel" (I Kings 1:33-34). From this verse, the Sages learned that all kings should be anointed near a spring, just as David instructed that the anointing of Solomon take place near the Giḥon spring. Another baraita states: One only anoints a king, son of a king, due to a dispute over the monarchy. For example, why was Solomon anointed, despite the fact that he was the son of a king? It was because of the dispute over the throne instigated by his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to usurp the monarchy. Similarly, Joash, son of Ahaziah, was anointed as king (see II Kings 11:12) due to the threat of Athaliah, his paternal grandmother, who attempted to seize the monarchy for herself (II Kings 11:1-3). Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was anointed (II Kings 23:30) due to the competition from Jehoiakim, his brother, who was older than him by two years. Ordinarily, the older brother should have succeeded their father, but Jehoahaz was more worthy of the throne. Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed due to Joram, son of Ahab, who was the incumbent king, and Jehu rebelled against his rule (see II Kings 9:6). The Gemara presents a difficulty concerning the latter example cited previously: Why was Jehu anointed as king? Isn't it written with regard to the anointing of David: "Arise, anoint him; for this is he" (I Samuel 16:12)? This king, i.e., any king from the house of David, requires anointing, but the kings from the kingdom of Israel, who were not descendants of the house of David, do not require anointing. Jehu, a king of Israel, should not have required anointing. The Gemara presents a counter-question: According to that line of reasoning, there is a further difficulty in the baraita. How can one explain that Jehoahaz was anointed due to the competition from Jehoiakim his brother, who was older than him by two years? Didn't Josiah, their father, sequester the anointing oil as was explained previously? How then was there oil available to anoint Jehoahaz, his son? Rather, when the baraita says that Jehoahaz was anointed, that is to say that he was anointed with balsam oil and not with the anointing oil. Similarly, one can say that Jehu was also anointed with balsam oil and not with the anointing oil. It was further taught that one may anoint kings only with anointing oil that is poured from a horn, and not any other vessel. Saul and Jehu were anointed from oil poured from an earthenware cruse, and their monarchy was a temporary monarchy. David and Solomon were anointed with oil poured from a horn, and their monarchy was a monarchy that was established for many generations. One may not anoint priests to serve as kings ab initio. Rabbi Yuda Antondraya said that this rule is on account of the verse that states: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah" (Genesis 49:10), i.e., the scepter of monarchy will forever belong to the tribe of Judah and not to any other tribe. Therefore, the priests who are from the tribe of Levi may not be appointed as kings. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda said that this rule is derived from a different verse, as it is written: "To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel" (Deuteronomy 17:20). What is written in the subsequent verse? "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel" (Deuteronomy 18:1). This implies that the priests will have no part in that which is referred to previously, i.e., the monarchy.

It was taught previously that Jehoahaz was anointed king, despite the fact that his brother Jehoiakim was older. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The one who is called Johanan in the verse, "And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum" (I Chronicles 3:15), he is the same as the one called Jehoahaz. But isn't it written in that verse "the firstborn Johanan," and it was just stated that Jehoiakim was two years older than Jehoahaz? The Gemara explains that in calling Jehoahaz firstborn, the verse means that he was the first to rise to the monarchy. Rabbi Yoḥanan continued and said: He who is called Shallum is the same as he who is called Zedekiah. The Gemara challenges this statement: But isn't it written: "The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum," indicating that these are two different people? The Gemara explains the verse is as follows: He was the third in birth position, but he was fourth to achieve kingship, as his two brothers, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as well as his nephew, Jehoiachin, all ruled before him. The Gemara cites an additional baraita that discusses these names: He was called Zedekiah because he accepted [tzideik] upon himself the attribute of judgment when the king of Babylonia had Zedekiah's sons slaughtered in front of him and then proceeded to have his eyes gouged out. Zedekiah justified the punishment that God had inflicted upon him. He was called Shallum because in his days the kingdom of the house of David was completed [shalma], as he was the last king in King David's dynasty. Reish Lakish said: His name was not Shallum and his name was not Zedekiah; rather, his name was Mattaniah. This is as it is written: "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, his father's brother, king in his stead and changed his name to Zedekiah" (II Kings 24:17). This verse indicates that the king of Babylonia changed his name to Zedekiah, but it was not his original name.

§ The Gemara turns to a discussion of the measurements of the Ark. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Ark was constructed with a cubit of six handbreadths. The unit of measurement used in the Torah to describe the Ark, the cubit, equaled six handbreadths. Who is the tanna that holds that the Ark was constructed using cubits of six handbreadths? It is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits that are mentioned in the Torah were medium-sized cubits six handbreadths in length. Rabbi Yehuda says that cubits used for measuring the building, such as the walls or the gates, were of six handbreadths. However, cubits used for measuring the vessels, such as the Ark, were of five handbreadths. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the Ark was constructed using a cubit of six handbreadths, the length of the Ark was fifteen handbreadths, as it is written: "Two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof" (Exodus 25:10). A cubit is six handbreadths, and another cubit is six handbreadths, and a half-cubit is three handbreadths. This totals fifteen handbreadths. And four tablets were placed in the Ark, two tablets were whole and two tablets were broken, as it is written: "And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you did break, and you shall put them in the Ark" (Deuteronomy 10:2). The juxtaposition of these phrases teaches that the broken tablets were also placed in the Ark. The length of each one of the tablets was six handbreadths, and its width was six handbreadths. Lay the length of the tablets across the length of the Ark, and three handbreadths remain there. The length of the Ark was fifteen handbreadths, and the length of the two tablets together was twelve handbreadths; there were three remaining handbreadths available at the end of the Ark.