Keritot 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

And it is not a matter

[It is not good to do so],

lest his spirits be depressed and his fortune suffer

[For they did not say that if one does not see a reflection within a reflection, he will certainly not return home; rather, if he sees one, he will know that he will return. Therefore, sometimes he will not see one even though he is destined to return, but he will fear that this is a bad sign, and his spirits will fall; as a result, his fortune will suffer—based on the explanations of Rashi and the Rashbam].

Abaye said: Now that you have said that a sign is significant, a person should be accustomed to eating

[And some versions read]

to see

[Shita Mekubetzet, note 2]

at the beginning of the year

[on Rosh HaShana]:

gourd

[kera, pumpkin],

rubia

[a type of fenugreek],

leeks, beets, and dates.

[All of these are good omens. Some are so because they grow quickly, which is a sign that one’s possessions will likewise grow (Rashbam), and some because they are sweet, signifying a sweet year].

Rav Mesharsheya said to his sons: When you wish to enter to study before your teacher

[When you wish to enter to learn before your teacher]:

first review the baraitot, and afterward enter before your teacher

[Review the baraitot beforehand, and afterward enter to study before your teacher, so that you will know how to bring proofs from the baraitot for the questions they will ask. Rashbam].

And when you sit before your teacher

[And when you sit before your teacher],

look toward your teacher’s mouth

[Look at your teacher’s mouth].

As it is stated

[Isaiah 30]: “

And your eyes shall see your teacher.”

And when you review a matter of halakha—

review it beside a river of water

[And when you review a sugya, review it beside a river of water],

for just as the water flows, so shall your learning flow

[Just as the water flows, so shall your learning flow—that you will remember the sugya for many days. Rashbam].

And he further said to them:

It is preferable that you dwell in the refuse heaps of Mata Meḥasya

[It is preferable that you live in the refuse heaps of Mata Meḥasya]

than in the palaces of Pumbedita

[and not in the palaces of Pumbedita], because they are thieves (Rashi). And the Rashbam explained that this is because the people of Mata Meḥasya are Torah scholars, whereas the people of Pumbedita are amei ha-aretz.

A small, slightly putrid fish

[A small fish that is close to spoiling, meaning that some time has passed since it was caught] is preferable

to eat

[As we say in Moed Katan (11a), such a fish is better than one caught just now] than to eat

from

what one eats

the kutaḥ of those who break rocks—

a food made from salt and whey, even if it is strong and choice, with the power to break rocks. This is because kutaḥ dulls the heart, blinds the eyes, and weakens the body.

And since we are discussing the anointing oil, we also expound this verse:

It is written (I Samuel 2):

“And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in the Lord; my horn is raised.”

And we expound:

“My horn is raised”

[a horn that they filled with the anointing oil]

and not “my flask is raised”

[an earthenware flask filled with the anointing oil]! And this is as it proceeds to explain.

David and Solomon, who were anointed

with oil that was placed

in a horn

which is a hard substance—

their reign endured.

Saul and Jehu, who were anointed from a flask

made of earthenware, which breaks easily—

their reign did not endure.

[Based on the Arukh la-Ner]. We learned in the Mishna:

One who compounds the incense:

The Sages taught: One who compounds the incense

with the intention

of teaching with it

the procedure for making the incense,

or

with the intention

of giving it to the community—

is exempt.

But if he compounded it with the intention

of smelling it—

he is liable

to karet if he did so intentionally; and if he did so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

But one who smells it

[the incense belonging to the community]—

is exempt

from karet and a sin-offering, for the punishment of karet was stated with regard to incense only for one who compounds it.

However, one who

smells it

misuses

as does anyone who derives benefit from consecrated property.

And we challenge this:

But is there misuse with regard to scent? For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara:

One who derives benefit from the

sound

of the harps and lyres of the sacred vessels,

or

one who derives benefit from the

appearance

of the beauty of the Temple,

or the scent

of the incense—

there is not

in their benefit

the prohibition of misuse

of consecrated property for one who derives benefit from them, since they have no tangible substance!?

And we answer: With sound and appearance, indeed there is no misuse, since they have no tangible substance. But scent has tangible substance, for he smells the ingredients of the incense; therefore, he commits misuse. And when we say that also with regard to

scent

there is no misuse, the reference is specifically

after its column of smoke has risen

from its burning in the Temple, for only then

is there no misuse,

because once the incense has been burned and produced smoke, the mitzva of burning it has already been performed.

For you have no other matter whose mitzva has been performed and with which one nevertheless commits misuse.

[The sound of musical instruments and the appearance of the Temple do not involve misuse because sound and appearance are things without tangible substance, as Rav Pappa says in Pesachim 26a. But the scent of the incense, which is part of it, is considered something with tangible substance, and one is exempt only because its mitzva has been performed].

And we wonder:

Why not

commit misuse with an item whose mitzva has been performed?

But there is the ash removed from the altar

[which the priest lifted each day from the ashes remaining from the wood of the altar fire],

whose mitzva has been performed—

for the altar wood had been burned until it became ash, and the mitzva of removing the ash had also been fulfilled with this ash, for he lifted from it the portion of ash and placed it beside the altar—

and

nevertheless

one commits misuse with it,

with its ashes, as we will derive below from a verse!?

And we answer:

Because the ash removed from the altar and the priestly garments

[the white garments worn by the High Priest when he entered the innermost chamber on Yom Kippur], with regard to both of which we will derive below from a verse that they are forbidden to be used even after their mitzva has been performed, are

two verses stated as one—

for each of them contains a verse teaching that it remains forbidden to derive benefit from it even after its mitzva has been performed.

And whenever two verses are stated as one—

teaching the same law in two places without there being a greater novelty in one place than in the other—

they do not teach

this law for the other laws of the Torah. For if there were no greater novelty in one place than in the other, it would have sufficed to write it in one place, and we would have derived it for the second place and for the other laws of the Torah by an av binyan. Since the Torah nevertheless wrote the law in both places, this teaches that it should not be derived by an av binyan for other places; on the contrary, the law applies only where the Torah stated it explicitly.

Therefore, in general we say that one does not commit misuse with an item whose mitzva has been performed, because it has no further purpose for the Most High.

And we ask:

This works well according to the Rabbis

who derive from the verse that the garments of the High Priest are no longer fit for any service and are forbidden to be used. According to them, it is indeed the case that the ash removed from the altar and the priestly garments are two verses stated as one concerning items whose mitzva has been performed and with which one nevertheless commits misuse.

But according to Rabbi Dosa,

who holds that they are still fit for use by an ordinary priest, and that priestly garments that are fit for service do not involve misuse at all [as we say in Kiddushin 54a, because the Torah was not given to ministering angels, and it is impossible for the priests to be so vigilant as to remove them the instant they finish the service. Rashi in Yoma 60a]—

what can be said?

As it is taught:

It is written (Leviticus 16:23): “And Aaron shall enter the Tent of Meeting, and he shall remove the linen garments that he wore when he entered the Sanctuary,

and he shall leave them there”—

this teaches that they require concealment.

Rabbi Dosa says: They are fit for an ordinary priest. And what is the meaning of “

and he shall leave them there”?—

and leave them there”?—

That he may not use them on another Yom Kippur.

And we answer: According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not derive from the ash removed from the altar by an av binyan,

because the ash removed from the altar and the beheaded heifer are two verses stated as one.

And whenever two verses are stated as one, they do not teach.

The ash removed from the altar—

what is it?

As it is taught:

It is written (Leviticus 6:3): “And he shall remove the ash

and place it beside the altar”—

this teaches that it requires concealment,

for “and place it” implies: there shall be its place of concealment.

The beheaded heifer—

what is it?

As it is taught:

It is written (Deuteronomy 21:4): “

And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley”—

there shall be its burial.

And

even

according to the one who says that two verses stated as one do teach, here they certainly do not teach—

because restrictive expressions are written

in both of them, teaching us that specifically with regard to these items does one commit misuse after their mitzva has been performed, and one may not derive from them a law for other cases.

With regard to the ash removed from the altar, it is written: “

and place it.”

And this implies that specifically

this

ash,

yes,

is subject to concealment even though its mitzva has been performed; but

anything else

whose mitzva has been performed

is not

subject to concealment, but is permitted for benefit.

With regard to the beheaded heifer, it is written

[there] “

the beheaded one,”

with the definite article—

the beheaded one, yes; anything else, no.

The Torah states the following in the section describing the preparation of the incense: “

Take for yourself spices—balsam, onycha, and galbanum; spices and pure frankincense; it shall be of equal weight” [Exodus 30:34].

The Sages taught: The preparation of the incense

contained eleven ingredients [as we will derive on 6b from the verse], and these are they:

a)

Balsam

is the sap of the kataf tree, and it is the “balsam” mentioned in the verse. It is called this because the sap drips from the kataf tree.

b)

And onycha

is the ingredient called “onycha” in the verse, and it is so called because it is shaped like a fingernail.

c)

And galbanum,

d)

and frankincense.

Each of these four was present in

a weight of seventy maneh.

[A maneh is a weight of seventy dinars. Maimonides]

These four ingredients are explicitly written in the Torah. The remaining seven ingredients below are derived later from the verse.

e)

myrrh,

f)

and cassia,

g)

spikenard,

h)

and saffron.

A weight of sixteen for each of the sixteen maneh.

That is, each of these four ingredients had to weigh sixteen maneh.

i)

costus—

with a weight of

twelve

maneh.

j)

aromatic bark—

three

maneh.

k)

and cinnamon—

nine

maneh.

These are the eleven ingredients of the incense. Their total weight was 368 maneh.

From this point onward, the baraita explains the substances used in preparing the incense that are not among its ingredients.

Soap

from a place called

Karsina—

nine kav.

[And shortly the baraita explains, in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that the soap is not included among the ingredients; rather, it is used to polish the onycha].

Cyprus wine

[wine that comes from Cyprus, or so called because it is made from kafris, the rind of a fruit called the caper]—

three se’a

[each se’a contains six kav]

and three kav.

[Twenty-one kav in total].

[Here too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains that the wine is not among the ingredients of the incense; rather, it is used to soak the onycha].

If he does not have Cyprus wine—

he brings

in its place

old white wine,

which is old white wine.

Sodomite salt—

a quarter

of a kav.

[The Tosafot explained in the name of Rabbi Moshe Kohen that Sodomite salt was also used together with old white wine to soak the onycha when Cyprus wine was unavailable. Maimonides holds that the salt was added to the incense itself].

Ma'aleh ashan (a substance that raises smoke) [

a type of herb, so called because its smoke rises like a tall, upright column, and it also caused the smoke of the other substances to rise in this manner. Shita Mekubetzet, note 26.] -

any amount.

Rashi explained at the end of the page that this too was not one of the substances of the incense; rather, it was used for the smoke of the incense, so that it would rise in a column.

Rabbi Natan says: Also Jordan caper—

a herb that grows on the banks of the Jordan—

any amount. [

In order to soak the fingernail. Tosafot, in the name of Rabbeinu Moshe Kohen. According to Rambam, it was mixed with the substances of the incense.]

And if he placed in it

in the incense

honey—

he invalidated it!

As it is written (Leviticus 2:11): “For you shall burn no leaven or any honey.”

And if

he omitted one of all its substances,

and the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur with such incense and burned it—

the High Priest is liable

for

death

at the hands of Heaven. Since the incense was made contrary to its proper law, it is invalid, and it is as though he had not burned incense at all. It follows that his entry into the Sanctuary was “an empty entry,” that is, entry into the Holy of Holies without fulfilling the mitzva. He is liable to death for this, as it is learned from the verse in the passage concerning the Yom Kippur service: “He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, so that he not die; with this shall Aaron enter” [Leviticus 16:2].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says

[to explain the words of the first tanna]:

The balsam—

is nothing other than sap that drips from the balsam trees.

Karsina soap—

it is not included among the spices of the incense; rather,

they rub [

apply]

it on the fingernail so that it will be attractive [

because it is black].

Also,

Cyprus wine

is not included among the substances of the incense; rather,

they soak the fingernail in it so that it will be pungent [

so that its fragrance will be strong].

But urine is better for it—

for soaking the fingernail in it?

Rather, urine is not brought into the Temple out of respect,

since the incense was prepared in the Temple courtyard. [

Some explain “urine” literally, and this is certainly disgraceful to bring into the courtyard. Others explain that this was a herb called urine, and since it had a disgraceful name, it was not respectful to bring it into the courtyard. Shita Mekubetzet, note 28, in the name of Tosafot.]

And from the fact that they did not soak the fingernail in urine outside the courtyard and then bring it in—

this supports Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who said:

Regarding what is written (Exodus 30) concerning the incense,

“It is holy; it shall remain holy for you”—

the verse comes to teach that

all its procedures

of the incense

must be performed only in a holy place.

One who consecrates for the upkeep of the Temple an object that is fit for the altar—it “can never leave the domain of the altar.” That is, an obligation takes effect to offer it on the altar. But since it has only the sanctity of Temple maintenance and not the sanctity of an offering for the altar, it cannot be offered as it is. What is done? If it is an object suitable for an individual offering, it is sold to an individual who needs to offer an offering, and its proceeds retain sanctity for Temple maintenance; the purchaser offers it as an offering upon the altar.

But if the object consecrated for Temple maintenance was suitable only for a communal offering [and it will be explained below that this means incense, which is the only object suitable only for a communal offering and not for an individual], it cannot be sold as it is to the community, because communal offerings must be purchased specifically from the “chamber contribution,” [that is, from the shekels that were “contributed” from the shekels that the community sent each year to the Temple].

These shekels already possess sanctity, and other consecrated objects cannot be purchased with them, since one cannot buy or sell one consecrated object in exchange for another consecrated object. It is even impossible to purchase anything needed for communal offerings from the consecrated funds for Temple maintenance by paying the Temple-maintenance treasury from the money of the chamber contribution.

Therefore, if someone consecrated the substances of the incense for Temple maintenance, and they are unfit to be burned because they were not purchased with communal funds, they are used to pay the wages of the craftsmen from the House of Avtinas, who prepared the incense in the Temple. The substances thereby become unconsecrated through the payment of the craftsmen’s wages. They are then repurchased from the craftsmen with money from the chamber contribution, and the incense is consequently offered from the communal shekels contributed that year.

Likewise, the surplus incense of each year [as will be explained below in the Gemara] was given to the craftsmen of the House of Avtinas, who were experts in preparing the incense, as their wages.

Meytivi

to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who said that all the procedures of the incense were performed only in a holy place:

We learned in tractate Shekalim:

One who consecrates his property

without specification [without stating whether he consecrated it for Temple maintenance or for the altar; the halakha is that we assume he intended to consecrate it for Temple maintenance],

and there were among it

objects

suitable for communal offerings—

they are given to the craftsmen as their wages.

And we inquire about this:

These

objects suitable

only for communal offerings—

what are they?

If they are an animal or a wild animal [

not literally, since a wild animal is not fit for the altar], it was already

taught [

there, in Mishna 7] that an object fit for an individual offering is sold to an individual. A flawless domesticated animal is fit for an individual offering.

If they are wines, oils, or fine flour,

which are suitable for meal offerings and libations, it was already

taught [

there, in Mishna 8] that these too are sold to an individual, since they are suitable for an individual.

Rather, is it not

speaking of

incense,

which is suitable only for the community? This proves that an individual can prepare incense from unconsecrated substances outside the courtyard and then consecrate it! And this is difficult for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who said that all the procedures of the incense must be performed specifically in a holy place, inside the courtyard!

And we answered:

Rabbi Oshaya said:

The Mishna does not refer to incense that is initially prepared as unconsecrated. Rather, it refers to

that

incense which is initially prepared in the courtyard and from consecrated funds,

which is given to the craftsmen as their wages,

and thereby becomes unconsecrated.

As we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

The surplus incense [

each year they prepared more incense than they actually burned, as explained in the following beraita. The surplus incense cannot be offered as it is in the following year, since the offerings of each year must come from the new shekels of that year, as we say in tractate Rosh Hashana (7a): “It must be new, and bring an offering from the new contribution.”] Rather,

what would they do with it

with the surplus incense in order that it could be burned in the new year?

There is a simple solution: to transfer the sanctity of the incense by selling it to a non-sacred individual and then repurchasing it from him with the shekels of the new year. However, they did not do so, because it is demeaning to sell it to a non-sacred individual and then repurchase it. Instead, they treated it respectfully, transferring its sanctity discreetly and then repurchasing it with the new communal shekels [according to Rashi in tractate Shevuot], as follows:

a.

They would designate

money from the consecrated funds for Temple maintenance and assign it to pay

the craftsmen’s wages

of the House of Avtinas, who prepared the incense [this is cited in a gloss on Rashi from the book Be'er Sheva; see there], and the money thereby became unconsecrated.

b.

And

afterward, they ask the craftsmen to agree that they will

transfer its sanctity [

the sanctity of the surplus incense]

onto the money belonging to the craftsmen [

which, as stated, had been designated for payment of their wages and thereby became unconsecrated money], and the incense would thereby become unconsecrated, while the money designated for payment of the craftsmen’s wages would assume sanctity.

However, it is impossible to give them the surplus incense initially as their wages and thereby render it unconsecrated, because craftsmen may be paid their wages only from consecrated funds designated for Temple maintenance, whereas the surplus incense possesses the sanctity of the altar.

g.

And

once the craftsmen agreed to transfer the sanctity of the surplus incense onto the money constituting their wages,

they give it,

the surplus incense that had become unconsecrated,

to the craftsmen as their wages!

d.

And they then repurchase it

from the craftsmen

with funds from a new teruma,

purchasing it from them with shekels that had been “contributed” from the shekels of the new year for the purpose of purchasing communal offerings. They give these shekels to the craftsmen as payment for purchasing the incense from them on behalf of the community. [

Since they did not need all the shekels for purchasing the daily offerings, they set aside only part of them for that purpose—and this is called the contribution of the chamber, as we learned in Tractate Shekalim (1:1). On the first of Nisan, they contributed the funds of the chamber, because the first of Nisan is the New Year for shekels: offerings are brought from the shekels of the new year, as we derive in Tractate Rosh HaShana (there). By purchasing the incense with the shekels of the new contribution, it once again became fit to be burned during that year, since it was consecrated by virtue of the sanctity of the new shekels].

The Mishna concerning “one who consecrates all his property” is speaking of one of the craftsmen who received as his wages the surplus incense that had been made with consecrated funds in accordance with the law. Before they managed to purchase it from him, he arose and consecrated all his property. With regard to such incense, the Mishna in Tractate Shekalim says that it is given to the craftsmen as their wages, since it was not purchased with communal funds. But this presents no difficulty for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina, since it had been made with consecrated funds.

Rav Yosef raises an objection to it: In the case of all the surpluses, it teaches “

they then repurchase it from the new teruma”

and

if

here,

in the Mishna concerning one who consecrates his property and there were among it items fit for the altar,

it does not teach

this way. This proves that here the incense was not initially made from consecrated funds, but from unconsecrated funds. Since it was initially made from unconsecrated funds, they do not then repurchase it from the contribution of the chamber. Nevertheless, the Mishna says that it is fit for communal offerings, despite having initially been made outside the Temple treasury—and the refutation of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina returns!

And we answered:

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

It is not speaking of incense that he compounded, for if so, it would not have been made from unconsecrated funds and outside the Temple treasury, as Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said. Rather, it is speaking of

one who

consecrates

one of the ingredients of the incense,

which is fit for a communal offering, since it can be used to make incense.

The Sages taught: The incense was made in the amount of three hundred sixty-eight maneh,

which was the total weight of the ingredients, as explicitly stated in the above beraita, excluding the other substances that were not among the ingredients, as stated above.

Three hundred sixty-five—

corresponding to the solar year,

and they did not make it corresponding to the lunar year, because if they had done so, there would have been a deficiency in a leap year. Therefore, each year they made more, and they combined the surplus from each year until, in a leap year, they had enough for the days of the intercalated month [Shitah Mekubbetzet, note 38, in the name of the Rosh].

And

three additional maneh

beyond the days of the solar year were included,

from which the High Priest would bring a full handful

to the Holy of Holies

on Yom Kippur.

And the remainder—

the surplus of the three maneh from which the High Priest brought incense, for he did not bring all three maneh, but rather the amount was determined entirely according to the measure of the High Priest’s handful [Rashi]. Likewise, the eleven maneh corresponding to the number of days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year [Shitah Mekubbetzet, note 33, in the name of Tosafot]—

was given to the craftsmen as their wages. As we learned: What was done with the surplus incense?—

They set aside the craftsmen’s wages and transfer its sanctity onto the money belonging to the craftsmen, and give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then repurchase it from the contribution of the chamber.

As we explained above.