Keritot 6a — the Talmud in English

And it is not a matter

that it is good to do so,

perhaps his mind will be weakened and his fortune will suffer

because they did not say that if he does not see a reflection within a reflection he certainly will not return home, but rather that 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 spirit will fall, and because of this his fortune will suffer—according to Rashi and the Ragmemah.

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

and some versions read

to see—

Shitah Mekubetzet, letter bet—

at the beginning of the year

on Rosh Hashanah:

gourd

pumpkin,

rubia

a kind of fenugreek,

leeks, chard, and dates.

All of these are a good sign: some because they grow quickly, and this is a sign that his possessions will likewise grow (Ragmemah), and some because they are sweet, and they are a sign of a sweet year.

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

when you want to enter to learn before your teacher:

review the baraitot beforehand, and afterward enter before your teacher

repeat them beforehand, and afterward enter to study before your teacher, so that you will know how to bring proofs from the baraitot for the questions that will be asked. Ragmemah.

And when you sit before your teacher

and when you are sitting before your teacher,

look toward the mouth of your teacher

look at the mouth of your teacher.

As it is stated

(Isaiah 30), “

And your eyes shall see your teachers.”

And when you review a teaching—

review it beside a river of water

and when you repeat a sugya, repeat it beside a river of water,

for just as the waters flow, so shall your teaching flow

for just as the waters flow, so shall your teaching flow—that you will remember the sugya for many days. Ragmemah.

And he further said to them:

It is better that you dwell on the refuse heaps of Mata Meḥasya

it is preferable that you live on the refuse heaps of Mata Meḥasya

than in the palaces of Pumbedita

and not in the palaces of Pumbedita, because they are robbers (Rashi). And Ragmemah explained: because the people of Mata Meḥasya are Torah scholars, whereas the people of Pumbedita are ammei ha-aretz.

A small fish that is beginning to spoil

a small fish that is close to spoiling, that is, some time has passed since it was caught, is

better to eat

as we say in Mo'ed Katan (11a), that such a fish is better than a fish caught just now—better to eat

than

than to eat

the cheese dip of the rock-breakers—

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

And since we are occupied with the anointing oil, we expound this verse as well:

It is written (I Samuel 2):

“And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in Hashem; 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 so he explains below.

David and Solomon, who were anointed

with oil that was placed

in a horn

which is a hard substance—

their kingship continued.

Saul and Jehu, who were anointed from a flask

made of earthenware, which breaks easily—

their kingship did not continue.

According to Arukh la-Ner. We learned in the Mishna:

One who compounds the incense:

The Sages taught:

one who compounds the incense

in order to teach with it

the order of making the incense,

or

in order

to deliver it to the public—

is exempt.

But if he compounded it in order

to smell it—

he is liable

to excision if he did it intentionally; and if unintentionally, he is liable for a sin-offering.

And one who smells it

from the incense of the public—

is exempt

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

But

one who smells it

commits me'ila

as anyone who derives benefit from consecrated property.

And we challenge this:

But is there me'ila for a scent? Yet Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara:

one who derives benefit from the

sound

of the harps and lyres of the Temple vessels,

or

one who derives benefit from the

appearance

of the beauty of the Sanctuary,

or the scent

of the incense—

there is not in them

in the benefit derived from them

the status of me'ila

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

And we answer: With sound and appearance there is indeed no me'ila, because they have no substance. But with scent there is substance, for he smells the ingredients of the incense; therefore, he commits me'ila. And that which we said, that also with regard to

scent

there is no me'ila, means specifically

after its column of smoke rises

from its burning in the Temple, for only then

there is no status of me'ila in it,

because after the incense has been burned and raised smoke, its mitzva of burning has already been performed.

For you have no other thing whose mitzva has been performed and in which one commits me'ila.

The sound of musical instruments and the appearance of the Sanctuary do not involve me'ila because sound and appearance are things that have no substance [as Rav Pappa says in Pesaḥim 26a]. But the scent of the incense, which is a part of it, is considered a thing that has substance, and one is exempt only because its mitzva has been performed.

And we wonder:

Why not

commit me'ila with a thing whose mitzva has been performed?

But what of the removal of the ashes

which the priest would lift each day from the ashes remaining from the wood of the arrangement,

whose mitzva has been performed—

the wood of the arrangement was burned until it became ashes, and he also fulfilled in the ashes the mitzva of the removal of the ashes, for he lifted from it the portion of the ashes and placed it beside the altar—

and

nevertheless

one commits me'ila with it

with its ashes, as we will learn below from the verse!?

And we answer:

Because the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments

the white garments that the High Priest wore when he entered within on Yom Kippur, for with regard to them as well we learn below from a verse that they are forbidden for benefit even after their mitzva has been performed,

are two verses stated together—

in both of them there is a verse teaching that they are forbidden for benefit even after their mitzva has been performed.

And every two verses stated together

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

do not teach

the other laws of the Torah. For if there were no greater novelty in one place than in the other, it would have been sufficient to write it in one place, and we would have learned it for the second and likewise for the other laws of the Torah by an av binyan. And if, nevertheless, the Torah wrote the law in both places, this comes to teach that one should not learn this law by an av binyan for other places; rather, the law applies only in the place where the Torah wrote it explicitly.

Therefore, generally we say that one does not commit me'ila with a thing whose mitzva has been performed, because there is no need of the One on High in it whatsoever.

And we raise an objection:

This works out according to the Rabbis

who learn from the verse that the garments of the High Priest are no longer fit for any service and are forbidden for benefit; according to their words, indeed the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses stated together concerning things whose mitzva has been performed and with which one nevertheless commits me'ila.

But according to Rabbi Dosa,

who holds that they are still fit for an ordinary priest, and priestly garments that are fit for service do not involve me'ila 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 zealous enough to remove them the moment they finish the service; Rashi in Yoma 60a]—

what can be said?

For it was taught:

It is written (Leviticus 16:23), “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments

and leave them there”—

this teaches that they require concealment.

Rabbi Dosa says: They are fit for an ordinary priest. And what does the verse come to teach

“

and leave them there”?—

That he may not use them on another Yom Kippur.

And we answer: According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not learn from the removal of the ashes by an av binyan

because the removal of the ashes and the beheaded heifer are two verses stated together.

And every two verses stated together do not teach.

The removal of the ashes—

what is it?

For it was taught:

It is written (Leviticus 6:3), “And he shall lift the ashes

and place them beside the altar”—

this teaches that they require concealment,

for “and place them” implies: there shall be their concealment there.

The beheaded heifer—

what is it?

For it was 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 together do teach, here they certainly do not teach—

because restrictive terms are written

in both of them, to teach us that only in these cases does one commit me'ila after the mitzva has been performed, and one may not learn from them for other places.

With regard to the removal of the ashes it is written “

and place them.”

And it implies that specifically

this law,

these ashes,

yes,

they require concealment despite the fact that their mitzva has been performed, but

another matter

whose mitzva has been performed

does not

require concealment, but is permitted for benefit.

With regard to the beheaded heifer it is written

(there, verse 6), “

the beheaded one,”

with the definite article—

the beheaded one, yes; another matter, no.

It is stated in the Torah in the order of making the incense: “

Take for yourself spices—stacte, onycha, and galbanum, spices, and pure frankincense; it shall be a compound, blended” [Exodus 30:34].

The Sages taught: The compounding of the incense,

there were eleven ingredients in it [as we will derive on page 6b from the verse], and these are they:

a)

balsam

is the resin of the kataf tree, and it is the “stacte” mentioned in the verse; it is called so because of the dripping of the resin from the kataf tree.

b)

and onycha

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

c)

and galbanum,

d)

and frankincense.

Each of these four was in

a weight of seventy maneh each.

A maneh is a weight of seventy dinars. Maimonides.

These four ingredients are written explicitly in the Torah, and the other seven ingredients below are expounded later from the verse.

e)

myrrh,

f)

and cassia,

g)

spikenard,

h)

and saffron.

A weight of sixteen of sixteen maneh.

That is, the weight of each of these four ingredients had to be sixteen maneh.

i)

the kosht—

at a weight of

twelve

maneh.

j)

the kelufah—

three

maneh.

k)

and cinnamon—

nine

maneh.

Up to here are the eleven ingredients of the incense. Their total weight was three hundred and sixty-eight maneh.

From this point onward the baraita explains the things used for preparing the incense but which are not among its ingredients.

Borith

from a place called

Karsina—

nine kav.

And shortly it explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the borith is not included among the ingredients; rather, it is brought in order to smear the onycha with it.

Cyprus wine

wine that comes from Cyprus, or named after kaparis, which is the rind of a fruit called the caper—

three seah

in each seah there are six kav,

and three kav.

And altogether there are twenty-one kav.

Here too Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel explains that the wine is not included among the ingredients of the incense, but is only used to soak the onycha in it.

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.

And Tosafot explained in the name of Rabbeinu Moshe Kohen that Sodomite salt too was used together with old white wine to soak the onycha when Cyprus wine was unavailable. And Maimonides holds that the salt was added to the incense itself.

a plant that raises smoke [

a kind of herb, and it was called so because its smoke rises like a straight and tall pillar, and it caused the smoke of the other ingredients as well to rise in this manner, Shitah Mekubetzet, note 26.] —

any amount.

And Rashi explained at the end of the page that this too was not included among the ingredients, but its use was for the smoke of the incense, so that it would rise in a column and ascend.

Rabbi Natan says: Also the Jordan cap—

a herb that grows on the bank of the Jordan—

any amount. [

In order to soak the fingernail. Tosafot in the name of Rabbeinu Moshe Kohen. And according to Maimonides, it was mixed with the ingredients of the incense.]

And if he put into it

in the incense

honey—

he invalidated it!

For it is written (Leviticus 2:11), “For every leaven and every honey you shall not burn.”

And

if he omitted one of all its ingredients,

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

the High Priest is liable

for

to death

at the hands of Heaven. Since the incense was made not according to its halakha, it is invalid, and it is as though he did not burn anything at all; consequently, his entry into the Sanctuary was “an empty entry,” meaning entry into the Holy of Holies in which there was no fulfillment of the mitzva. One is liable to death for this, as it is learned from what is written in the passage of Aharei Mot: “And he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, and he shall not die; with this shall Aaron come”].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says [

to explain the words of the first tanna]:

the balsam—

is nothing other than sap that drips from balsam trees.

Karsina lye—

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

they rub [

anoint]

the fingernail with it so that it should be attractive [

because it is black].

And also

Cyprus wine

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

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

so that its fragrance should be strong].

But urine is better for it—

for the fingernail, to soak it in it?

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

for they prepared the incense in the Temple courtyard. [

Some explain that this means actual urine, and this is certainly disgraceful to bring into the courtyard. Others explain that it is a herb whose name is “urine,” and since it is called by a disgraceful name, it is not honorable to bring it into the courtyard. Shitah 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 afterward bring it in—

this supports Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who said:

that which is written (Exodus 30) concerning the incense, “

Holy it is; holy it shall be for you”—

the verse comes to teach that

all its procedures

of the incense

shall be only in holiness.

One who consecrates for Temple maintenance something that is fit for the altar—it “never leaves the altar.” That is, an obligation takes effect to offer it upon 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 does one do? If it is something fit for an individual offering, he sells it to an individual who needs to offer an offering, and its money is consecrated for Temple maintenance, while the purchaser offers it as an offering upon the altar.

But if the thing consecrated for Temple maintenance was fit only for a communal offering [and below it will be explained that this means incense, which is the only thing fit only for a communal offering and not for an individual], it cannot be sold as it is to the community. For 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].

And these shekels are already consecrated, and it is impossible to purchase other consecrated things with them, since one cannot purchase or sell consecrated property in exchange for consecrated property, and one may not even acquire something for the needs of communal offerings from the consecrated property of Temple maintenance by paying Temple-maintenance consecrated money from the funds of the Chamber contribution.

Therefore, if a person consecrated the ingredients of the incense for Temple maintenance, and they are not fit to be burned because they were not purchased with communal funds, they pay with them the wages of the craftsmen from the House of Avtinas, who made the incense in the Temple, and the ingredients thereby become unconsecrated through the wages of the craftsmen and leave the status of consecrated property. Then they return and purchase them from the craftsmen with money from the Chamber contribution, and it follows that the incense is 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.

It raises an objection

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

We learned in tractate Shekalim:

One who consecrates his property

without specification [without explaining whether he consecrated it for Temple maintenance or for the altar, the halakha is that we assume that his intention was to consecrate it for Temple maintenance],

and there were among it

things

fit for communal offerings—

they shall be given to the craftsmen as their wages.

And we inquire concerning this:

These “

things fit

only for communal offerings”—

what are they?

If it is an animal or wild beast [

not literally, since a wild beast is not fit for the altar], it has already

been taught [

there, in Mishna 7] that what is fit for an individual offering is sold to an individual. And an unblemished animal is fit for an individual offering.

If it is wines, oils, and fine flours

that are fit for meal offerings and libations, it has already

been taught [

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

Rather, is it not

the case of

incense,

which is fit only for the community? And it is proven that an individual may make incense from unconsecrated ingredients outside the courtyard and afterward 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 holiness, inside the courtyard!?

And we answered:

Rabbi Oshaya said:

The beraita does not mean incense that was made initially in a non-sacred state. Rather, it is speaking of

that

incense which is made initially in the courtyard and from consecrated property,

which is given to the craftsmen as their wages,

and through this it leaves the status of consecrated property.

As we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

The surplus of the incense [

Each year they prepared incense in a quantity greater than what they actually burned, as is explained in the beraita below. And it is impossible to offer the surplus of the incense 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 Hashanah (7a): “The new, and bring an offering from the new contribution.”] Rather,

what would they do with it

with the surplus incense, so that it would be possible to burn it in the new year?

There is indeed a simple solution: to transfer the sanctity of the incense by selling it to a non-sacred person, and then to purchase it back from him with the shekels of the new year. However, they did not do so because it is degrading to sell it to a non-sacred person and then purchase it back. Therefore, they treated it honorably, transferring its sanctity discreetly and then purchasing it again with the new communal shekels [according to Rashi in tractate Shevuot], as follows:

a.

They would set aside

from consecrated funds of Temple maintenance, and designate the money to pay with it the

wages of the craftsmen

of the House of Avtinas, who made the incense [this is brought in a gloss on Rashi from the Be’er Sheva, see there], and through this that money would become unconsecrated.

b.

And

afterward, they ask the craftsmen to agree that

they shall redeem its sanctity [

the sanctity of the surplus of the incense]

onto the money of the craftsmen [

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

But it is impossible to give them the surplus of the incense initially as their wages and thereby redeem it, because it is possible to pay craftsmen their wages only from property consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, whereas the surplus of the incense is consecrated with the sanctity of the altar.

c.

And

once the craftsmen agreed to redeem the sanctity of the surplus of the incense onto the money of their wages—

they give it

, the surplus of the incense that had become unconsecrated,

to the craftsmen as their wages!

d.

And they return and purchase it

from the craftsmen

with a new contribution

, for they purchase it from them with shekels that were “contributed” from the shekels of the new year for the purpose of purchasing the communal sacrifices. And they give these shekels to the craftsmen as payment for purchasing the incense from them on behalf of the public. [

For they did not need all the shekels for purchasing the daily sacrifices, and therefore set aside only part of them for this purpose—and this is called the contribution of the chamber, as we learned in tractate Shekalim (chapter 1, mishna 1). And on the first of Nisan they would contribute the chamber, because the first of Nisan is the New Year for shekels—for bringing sacrifices from the shekels of the new year, as we expound in tractate Rosh Hashana (there).] And by purchasing the incense with the shekels of the new contribution, it again became fit to be burned in this year, since it was consecrated by virtue of the sanctity of the new shekels.

And the mishna of “one who consecrates all his property” is speaking of a case in which one of the craftsmen received as his wages the surplus of the incense that had been made with consecrated funds, in accordance with the law, and before they managed to purchase it from him, he arose and consecrated all his property; and concerning such incense the mishna in tractate Shekalim says that they give it to the craftsmen as their wages, since it was not purchased with public funds. But there is no difficulty from here for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, for it was made with consecrated funds.

Rav Yosef challenged it: But concerning all the surpluses it teaches: “

They return and purchase it with a new contribution,”

and

whereas

here

, in the mishna concerning one who consecrates his property, and among it were things fit for the altar, it

does not teach

so. And it is proven from this that here it is not speaking of incense that was initially made from consecrated property, but rather it was made from unconsecrated property. And since it was initially made from unconsecrated property, they do not return and purchase it from the contribution of the chamber. And nevertheless it is written in the mishna that it is fit for communal sacrifices, despite the fact that it was initially made outside; and the refutation returns to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina!

And we answered:

Rather, said Rav Yosef:

It is not speaking of incense that he prepared, for if so, it would not have been made from unconsecrated property and outside, as Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said. Rather, it is speaking

of

one who consecrates

one of the spices of the incense,

which is fit for a communal sacrifice, because it is possible to make incense from it.

The Sages taught: The incense was made as three hundred and sixty-eight maneh,

for this is the total weight of the spices, as explicitly stated in the earlier beraita, apart from the other species that were not included among the spices, as above.

Three hundred and sixty-five—

corresponding to the solar days,

and they did not make it corresponding to the lunar days, because if they had done so, it would have been lacking in a leap year. Therefore, they made more in every year, and they joined together the surplus from every year, until in a leap year it was sufficient for them also for the days of the intercalated month [Shita Mekubbetzet, note 38, in the name of the Rosh].

And

three additional maneh

beyond the solar days were in it,

from which the High Priest takes the fullness of his handfuls

to the Holy of Holies

on Yom Kippur.

And the remainder—

the surplus of the three maneh from which the High Priest takes—for he would not take all three maneh, but everything was according to the measure of the High Priest’s handful [Rashi]. And likewise the eleven maneh corresponding to the number of days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year [Shita Mekubbetzet, note 33, in the name of Tosafot]—

is given to the craftsmen as their wages. As we learned: What would they do with the surplus of the incense—

they set aside the wages of the craftsmen, and redeem it onto the money of the craftsmen, and give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and return and purchase it from the contribution of the chamber.

As we explained above.