Keritot 6b — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The surplus of the incense

that remained each year from the three maneh that they prepared for the handful of the High Priest on Yom Kippur—for since his handfuls could not contain three maneh, some of it remained each year—

once in sixty or seventy years

the surplus accumulated from all the years to amount to half the quantity that they prepared for a year [184 maneh]. Once such an amount had accumulated, they did not need to prepare a full quantity for the following year; rather,

they would prepare it in halves,

and add it to the surplus accumulated from all the years. [Sometimes half the quantity accumulated over sixty years, and sometimes over seventy years, because the same quantity did not remain each year, as all the priests did not have hands of equal size].

Since preparing half the quantity was an appropriate amount to prepare for the needs of the Temple,

therefore, an individual who prepared

incense

in halves

is liable; these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said

this

on behalf of the deputy High Priest.

But regarding a third or a quarter—

I have not heard

that they prepared such quantities for the needs of the Temple. I have not heard that they would wait eighty or a hundred years until two-thirds or three-quarters of the annual quantity accumulated. Since less than half the quantity is not an appropriate amount to prepare for the needs of the Temple, an individual who prepared such an amount is exempt.

And the Sages say: Every day,

if he wished,

he could prepare

the incense

according to its formula

for one day,

and he would bring it.

Therefore, an individual who prepared even one maneh [which is the appropriate amount for one day] is liable.

This supports Rava, for Rava said: If one prepared incense in halves—

he is liable. [Rashi explained that this does not mean specifically in halves; rather, even if he prepared one maneh, which is the appropriate amount to burn on one day, he is liable (according to the emendation of the Shita Mekubetzet, letter 33).]

Раши объясняет, что речь идет не именно о половине годовой нормы: даже тот, кто приготовил одну ману, то есть количество, подходящее для воскурения в течение одного дня, обязан (согласно исправлению в Шיטה מקובצת, знак 33).]

As it is written

(Exodus 37): “

And the incense that you shall make

according to its formula, you shall not make for yourselves”—which implies:

Anything that you make, [any quantity of incense appropriate to be made for the needs of the Temple, you shall not make for yourselves].

то есть любое количество благовоний, подходящее для приготовления для Храма, не делайте для себя].

And is it possible that he made it

weighing one maneh for the needs of the Temple, which was the quantity burned on one day—

half a maneh [a half-maneh]

[половину маны]

in the morning, and half a maneh between the evenings.

The Sages taught: The incense was returned to the mortar twice a year

in order to renew its fragrance.

During the summer

the incense was placed—

spread out, so that it would not become moldy.

During the rainy season

the incense was placed—

in a pile, so that its fragrance would not dissipate.

And when he would grind

the ingredients of the incense,

, he would say

the supervisor to the craftsman who was grinding:

“Grind thoroughly, thoroughly grind! These are the words of Abba Yose ben Yoḥanan.”

And

the

three

extra maneh

from which

the

High Priest would bring his full handfuls on Yom Kippur

into the Holy of Holies, he

would place it in the mortar on the eve of Yom Kippur and grind it thoroughly, so that it would be exceedingly fine,

for such is the mitzva of burning the incense in the innermost chamber on Yom Kippur.

As it was taught:

it is written in the passage of Aharei Mot concerning the Yom Kippur incense (Leviticus 16:12): “And he shall fill his handfuls with fine incense of spices.” “

Fine,”

as it is written regarding the Yom Kippur incense—

what does this teach?

Was it not already stated “

And you shall grind some of it finely”

with regard to the incense of the entire year? If so,

what does it teach

with regard to Yom Kippur by stating

“fine”?

It is in order

to teach you:

that it must be exceedingly fine.

The Master said: When he would grind it, he would say, “Thoroughly grind, grind thoroughly.”

This supports Rabbi Yohanan, for Rabbi Yohanan said: Just as speech is harmful to wine [as it is stated in the Mishna in Menachot (87a): When they would examine the wine to determine whether it was suitable for the libations, the treasurer would stand with a staff. When he saw that a white substance had begun to emerge with the wine from above the sediment, he would tap with the staff to signal to the person examining the wine to close the barrel’s tap. He did not tell him verbally, because speech is harmful to wine],

[как сказано в Мишне, трактат Менахот, 87а: когда проверяли, пригодно ли вино для возлияний, казначей стоял с палкой. Увидев, что вместе с вином начала выходить белая пленка, находившаяся над осадком, он стучал палкой, чтобы дать проверяющему знак закрыть кран бочки. Он не говорил ему об этом вслух, поскольку речь вредна для вина],

so speech is beneficial for spices.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The number of

eleven ingredients was stated to Moses at Sinai.

The incense must contain eleven ingredients, four of which the Torah specified: balsam, onycha, galbanum, and pure frankincense. But the remaining ingredients, which complete the number of eleven, may be taken from any species one wishes, provided that it is something that “produces smoke and rises,” as will be derived below through the principle of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

And in the beraita on the first side, we enumerated eleven ingredients, which the Sages established as the seven ingredients that they would take.

Rav Huna said: What is the verse?

From which verse did we learn that there are eleven ingredients in the incense?

It is written: “

Take for yourself spices,”

which is in the plural, implying

two.

And afterward it is written: “

Balsam, onycha, and galbanum,”

which is another three; together with the previous two,

that is

in total—

five.

And it is further written: “

And spices,”

which implies that additional spices must be added,

other

in number equal to the preceding spices, namely another

five.

That is,

in total—

ten.

And it is also written: “

And pure frankincense”—

one.

That is,

in total—

eleven!

And we challenge this: From where do we know that the word “spices,” written twice in this verse, comes to teach the number of ingredients? Why not say that it comes to teach which species are fit for the incense?

And say

as follows:

“Spices”—

a generalization.

“Balsam, onycha, and galbanum”—

a specification.

“Spices”—

it returned and generalized.

And we derive through

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization: You may infer only what is similar to the specification. Just as the specification explicitly refers to something that

is

a substance that produces smoke and rises

straight like a staff and does not branch in different directions,

and whose fragrance spreads, so too, anything that produces smoke and rises and whose fragrance spreads

is fit for the incense!?

And if you would say

to reject this reasoning, for

if so,

that the verse came to teach through a generalization, specification, and generalization,

the verse should have written

only

one specification

between the two generalizations. Since it wrote many specifications, it is evident that the verse did not come to teach the category of ingredients through a generalization, specification, and generalization, but rather the number of ingredients.

No, [how can you reject it in such a manner]?

But

all these specifications are necessary

to write, and you cannot infer from the multiplicity of specifications that the verse is not to be expounded as a generalization, specification, and generalization!

For

indeed,

if it had written

only

balsam,

I might have said

that

a tree species, yes!

For the derivation through a generalization, specification, and generalization would teach that only an ingredient that is a tree species is included, since it resembles the specification “balsam,” which is a tree species.

But produce of the ground [

species of grass

—for this reason it wrote “

onycha,”

which is produce of the ground.

And if it had written

only “

«

I might have said

that only

produce of the ground, yes,

because it is similar to the specification,

but as for a tree species, I might say no. For this reason it wrote “balsam.”

And “galbanum” comes for itself—

because its fragrance is foul,

to teach that although its fragrance is foul, it is fit for the incense.

But the question still remains: From where do we know that there are eleven ingredients?

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse came only to teach the category of ingredients through the exposition of a generalization, specification, and generalization,

it follows from “take for yourself,”

for “take for yourself” also implies a generalization. Why, then, was it necessary to write both “take for yourself” and “spices”? Rather, this teaches you that from the verse we learn both the category of ingredients through a generalization, specification, and generalization, and the number of ingredients.

And we challenge this:

And say that “

«

the latter

are only

two—

like the spices mentioned first,

and not five spices as we expounded?

And we answer:

If so,

if both teach the same number of ingredients,

let it write “spices spices”

next to one another, and afterward let it write “

balsam, onycha, and galbanum.”

The fact that the Torah separates them shows that they do not teach the same number of ingredients. Rather, the intention of the last “spices” is to teach us that we add a number equal to the five ingredients written previously.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Spices”—

a generalization. “Balsam, onycha, and galbanum”—

a specification. “Spices”—

it returned and generalized. [

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael did not disagree with Rabbi Yohanan; according to his view as well, we derive the number of eleven ingredients from “spices,” as will be explained shortly.]

And we learn through

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization: You may infer only what is similar to the specification. Just as the specification explicitly refers to something that produces smoke and rises and whose fragrance spreads, so too, anything that produces smoke and rises and whose fragrance spreads. [

The following passage is explained by the Gemara below]:

Or perhaps it is only a generalization within the first generalization, and a specification within the first specification? You must say no: You have no basis to expound according to the latter expression; rather, you must expound according to the first expression!

The Master said: “Or perhaps it is only a generalization within the first generalization, and a specification within the first specification? You must say no: You have no basis to expound.”

And we analyze this:

What is the difficulty

with “Or perhaps”?

And we explain:

This is what was difficult for him;

this was the difficulty of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

Just as it was difficult for us,

as it was difficult for us regarding the exposition of the number of eleven spices.

Say that “

«

the latter

are only

two

and not five,

just as “

spices”

the first

were only

two

[just as the first “spices” are counted as only two]?

That is, this is what the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said: Perhaps the second “generalization,” namely, the latter “spices,” teaches only a number equal to the number of spices that we learn from the first generalization, which is the first “spices”; and they are only two!?

And afterward

he returned and stated:

the tanna returned and answered

as we explained:

as we explained—

for if so,

if the latter occurrence of “spices” refers only to two spices, just as the first occurrence of “spices” does, why did the verse separate them? Why did the verse not

write

“spices, spices, balsam, onycha, and galbanum”?

And we examine this further:

what

difficulty did the tanna have when he said, “Or perhaps it serves to

specify the first specification”?

And we explain:

this is precisely his difficulty:

since

the species of trees are derived from

виды деревьев выводятся из «

“balsam,”

and produce of the ground is derived from

“onycha,”

шехелет»

,

то пусть также выведут из «

»,

And say

that it comes

to include even spices that resemble the specifications stated in the passage only

in one respect

[in one matter, and not as we learned, that they must resemble them in two respects—that they produce smoke that rises and that their scent spreads], and this would mean

that we would also bring

another

substance whose scent spreads, even though it does not produce rising smoke,

like frankincense?!

And this is what he meant: Or perhaps the final specification, namely frankincense, should be treated like the earlier specifications that are required by the hermeneutical rule of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement?!

He then said: If so,

if frankincense too is to be included in the derivation based on a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement,

the verse should write the specification of

the

“pure frankincense”

» — «чистая ливона» —

in the middle,

between the two general statements, together with the other specifications,

and

then

we would derive from it

that species resembling the specification in only one characteristic are included!

Since the verse writes “pure frankincense” after the latter general statement, we learn from this that it cannot be used for this derivation. And this is what the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said:

“No! You may not expound the verse according to the latter formulation.” That is, it is impossible to derive a teaching from frankincense as well and say that the other spices need resemble those explicitly written only in one respect. “Rather, expound it according to the first formulation”: the derivation is made only from the specifications written between the two general statements. Therefore, a spice must resemble them in two respects: it must produce rising smoke and its scent must spread.

And we challenge this: How can one say that because the Torah did not write “pure frankincense” in the middle, frankincense is not to be included in the derivation of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement, which is derived from the spices between the two general statements?

But

if the verse had written “pure frankincense” in the middle,

between the two occurrences of “spices,”

there would have been twelve

spices! For we derive from the second “spices” that additional spices are to be included equal in number to the spices listed previously. If there had been six previously [including pure frankincense], we would derive six more from the latter “spices,” making a total of twelve! Therefore, frankincense was written at the end. Since this is the reason it was written after the latter “spices,” we cannot say that the Torah intended to exclude frankincense from the derivation of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement?!

And we answer:

if so,

if pure frankincense is included in the derivation of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement, and it comes to include even species resembling the specification in only one respect, and it was written at the end so that we would not derive six additional spices from the latter “spices”—

the verse should have written pure frankincense in the middle and galbanum at the end?!

For galbanum is not included in the derivation of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement, because it is needed for itself: it is valid even though its scent is bad. [The Torah did not validate every substance with a bad scent provided that it produces rising smoke and its scent spreads; rather, this is a special decree of the verse concerning galbanum alone. With other species, the spice is valid only if its scent is pleasant, it produces rising smoke, and its scent spreads. This is explained by Rashi, s.v. “If so, it should write it.”] In that case, there would be only eleven spices.

Since the verse did not write galbanum at the end, but wrote frankincense there, we learn that the Torah intended to exclude frankincense from the derivation of a general statement, a specific statement, and a general statement. It is evident that pure frankincense was written only to complete the number of eleven spices, and not to include species resembling the specification in one respect.

Reish Lakish said: This is evident from the nature

of the ketoret, the incense: it specifically requires a substance that produces rising smoke, for

what

is the

meaning of the word

“ketoret”?

A substance that produces rising smoke!

Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida: Any fast that does not include the sinners of Israel,

that is, the sinners are not included with the congregation in prayer—

is not a fast!

For galbanum has a bad scent, yet the verse counted it among the ingredients of the incense

[to hint that the Name of Heaven is sanctified when the wicked repent and wish to unite and conduct themselves like the righteous—Peri Megadim, Orach Chayim 619, cited in the Mishna Berura, Sha’ar HaTziyun, note 4].

Abaye said: From here:

as it is written (Amos 9):

“And its group,”

when everyone is together—then

“He founded it upon the earth”!

For this is the purpose of establishing the earth.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who anoints himself with the anointing oil”:

The Sages taught: One who anoints an animal or vessels with the anointing oil—

is exempt

from karet, premature death at the hand of Heaven.

And similarly, one who anoints

gentiles or the dead with the anointing oil—

is exempt.

And we examine this:

It is understandable that one who anoints

an

animal or vessels

is exempt,

as it is written:

“It shall not be applied to human flesh,”

and

if

an animal or vessels are not human.

The dead are also exempt, because once a person has died,

he is called dead and is no longer human.

But

one who anoints

gentiles—

why is he exempt,

when

they are human beings?

And we answer:

Indeed, no!

That is not so!

As it is written

(Ezekiel 34):

“And I will give

[like “and you”]

you are My sheep, the sheep of My pasture; you are human.”

And we expound: only

you are called human; gentiles are not called human.

And we challenge this:

But it is written

concerning the captives taken by the Israelites in the war against Midian (Numbers 31):

“And the number of human beings was sixteen thousand,”

and they were gentiles. This shows that gentiles are called human beings?!

He said to him: That

reference to human beings written there

serves to exclude animals!

Animals are also mentioned there, and in order to distinguish the human beings from the animals mentioned there, the verse had to call them human beings.

And we challenge this further:

But it is written

(Jonah 4):

“And should I not have compassion upon Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than one hundred twenty thousand human beings”?

And we answer:

That

reference to human beings

also

comes

to exclude

the

animals

mentioned there.

And if you wish, I can say that it is as the tanna taught before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone who is included in the prohibition against applying the oil,

who violates a prohibition when he applies the anointing oil to himself or to others—that is, an Israelite, who is commanded not to apply it—

is also included

in the prohibition of

“it shall not be applied,”

meaning that it is forbidden for others to apply it to him.

And anyone who is not included in the prohibition against applying the oil

such as a gentile, who is not commanded not to apply it—

is not included in the prohibition of “it shall not be applied,”

meaning that there is no prohibition against others applying it to him.

It was taught in another baraita: One who anoints an animal or vessels, or gentiles or the dead, with the anointing oil—

is exempt. In the case of kings and kohanim,

great ones [after they have already been anointed]—

Rabbi Meir obligates, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.

How much must one apply in order to be liable?

Rabbi Meir says: Any amount. Rabbi Yehuda says: An olive-bulk.

And it initially enters our minds that when the tanna said, “How much must one apply from the oil in order to be liable?” he was referring to one who anoints kings and kohanim.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Yehuda said that he is exempt,

so how could he say that if he applies an olive-bulk he is liable?!

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yehuda exempted him,

it was in the case of kings and kohanim,

but

in the case of an ordinary person, he obligates him.

And the passage here is speaking about an ordinary person.

And we examine this:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—

over what do they disagree?

Rav Yosef said: They disagree about this:

Rabbi Meir holds that

“It shall not be applied to human flesh”

is written, and it is written:

“And whoever places any of it on an outsider

shall be cut off from his people.” And we derive the measure of giving from the measure of applying:

Just as applying

has a measure of

any amount,

since nowhere do we find a specified measure for applying oil,

so too giving

mentioned here has a measure of

any amount,

even though, generally, an unspecified act of giving means an olive-bulk.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that we derive the giving of

the anointing oil

to an outsider from ordinary giving—

just as ordinary giving,

in the case of repayment for teruma, where the word “giving” is written, has a measure of

an olive-bulk,

[for this is derived from repayment for teruma: one who inadvertently ate an olive-bulk of teruma pays its value, as it is written (Leviticus 22), “If a person eats a sacred thing unwittingly, he shall give the sacred thing to the kohein.” The measure of eating is an olive-bulk, and the verse says “he shall give”],

so too the giving to an outsider

has a measure of

an olive-bulk.

And we then derive the measure for applying from giving: applying too requires an olive-bulk.

But applying

that is

for anointing kings

at the beginning of their reign

and kohanim

at the beginning of their service—

everyone agrees

that its measure is

any amount.

And Rav Yosef said: With regard to what do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning kings and kohanim

when they apply the oil after they have already been anointed—are they liable for this?

Rabbi Meir holds:

“And whoever places any of it on an outsider”

is written, and a king or kohein now,

after having been anointed,

is an outsider

with regard to the anointing oil—

they are!

Since they have already been anointed, they now have no need for this anointing.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that in order to be liable,

we require

that there be an

outsider

from beginning to end, and a king or kohein at the outset,

when they were anointed at the beginning of their reign or service,

were not outsiders.

Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda follow

their respective positions—Rabbi Meir considers even one who was not initially an outsider to be an outsider, while Rabbi Yehuda considers one an outsider only if he was an outsider from the beginning—

in accordance with their principles,

as they disagreed about this matter elsewhere.