Keritot 6b (ו:) — 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).]

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].

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]

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

Rashi explains that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, an individual who prepared a third or a quarter of the quantity of incense is not liable. For according to him, it is possible that incense may be prepared for burning only as half the quantity required for the year, and not less than that [but Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik [Kesef Mishne] explained that Maimonides holds that the measure of half a maneh stated with regard to the incense is not a halakha concerning the essential status of the offering, that it must be half a maneh and that less than this does not have the status of incense—as with the tenth-measure stated with regard to a meal-offering, which is an intrinsic measure of the status of a meal-offering. Rather, it is a halakha concerning the act of burning it: one must burn this amount of half a maneh, and then the community has fulfilled its obligation. Therefore, it is not possible to require a measure of half a maneh in its preparation; rather, even if they prepare any amount separately, it is consecrated by the vessel [although regarding meal-offerings we find that a vessel consecrates only complete units; see Menachot 8]. For even any amount of it has the status of incense, as stated there. Regarding the essential measure of half a maneh, The Mishne LaMelech Kesef Mishne, 2:8] inferred from these words of Rashi that one must prepare at once the quantity of two daily burnings, which is one maneh, and that half a maneh, the amount of one burning alone, is insufficient. For the halakha states that the preparation must be in the amount of one maneh, from which they burn half in the morning and half between the evenings; these two are one mitzva, as explained in Sefer HaMitzvot [positive mitzva 28]. See there the objections of Ramban, who holds that they are two mitzvot [and compared this to what we learned [Menachot 50] concerning the High Priest’s daily meal-offering, that it must be made as a complete tenth-measure, but is offered in halves, half in the morning and half between the evenings]. For this reason, too, he is not liable as one who prepares incense unless he prepared one maneh. However, Maimonides wrote there: “If he prepared it little by little according to its formula, it is valid, even if he prepared half a maneh in the morning and half a maneh between the evenings.” Thus, according to him, no measure of one maneh was stated regarding its preparation, and accordingly an individual who prepared half a maneh is liable. Regarding liability for preparing incense, Maimonides wrote: “Although he did not prepare the entire weight, but only half or a third of it, since he prepared according to these weights, he is liable.” He thus did not state that he is liable specifically if he prepared the measure of half a maneh, implying that even if he prepared any amount, he is liable. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik [Kesef Mishne] explained that Maimonides holds that the measure of half a maneh stated with regard to the incense is not a halakha concerning the essential status of the offering, that it must be half a maneh and that less than this does not have the status of incense—as with the tenth-measure stated with regard to a meal-offering, which is an intrinsic measure of the status of a meal-offering. Rather, it is a halakha concerning the act of burning it: one must burn this amount of half a maneh, and then the community has fulfilled its obligation. Therefore, it is not possible to require a measure of half a maneh in its preparation; rather, even if they prepare any amount separately, it is consecrated by the vessel [although regarding meal-offerings we find that a vessel consecrates only complete units; see Menachot 8]. For even any amount of it has the status of incense, as stated there. Regarding the essential measure of half a maneh, Rashi wrote in Zevachim [109b] that it is only rabbinic, whereas by Torah law an olive-bulk suffices, as with all burnings; therefore, if one offered an olive-bulk of incense outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. However, Tosafot wrote here that the measure of half a maneh is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, but that this measure is required only ab initio, while after the fact an olive-bulk suffices. According to Rashi, what we learned here, “It is possible that he prepared half a maneh in the morning,” is not precise: even if he prepared an olive-bulk, he would be liable, since it is valid by Torah law with an olive-bulk. The Rosh likewise wrote in the Shita Mekubetzet [above, 5a, 17]. But according to Tosafot, it is precise: the one who prepares incense is not liable until he prepares the amount appropriate for preparing it ab initio, as the Mishne LaMelech explained there.

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

from which

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],

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 “

onycha,”

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 “

spices”

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 “

spices”

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

“and two”

the tanna returned and answered:

as we explained

, as we explained—

for if so,

if the latter “spices” refers only to two spices, just like the first “spices,” why did the verse separate them, and why did it not

write

“spices, spices, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense.”

.

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty:

and what

difficulty did the tanna have when he said, “Or is it not rather

a specification within the first specification

?

This is his difficulty

: Since

plant species are derived from

onycha

, and products of the ground are derived from

galbanum

, why should they not also be derived from

pure frankincense

and say

that it comes

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

in one respect

—in one matter, and not as we learned, that they must resemble them in two respects: they produce smoke that rises and their fragrance spreads—and that is,

that I should include

also

something whose fragrance spreads, even though it does not produce smoke that rises,

resembling frankincense?!

And this is what he is saying: Or is it not rather that the final specification, namely frankincense, should be like the first specifications required by the rule of generalization, specification, and generalization?!

He then said: If so,

if frankincense, too, is to be included in the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization,

the verse should write the specification of

the “

pure frankincense

”

between the two generalizations, together with the other specifications,

and

then

we would derive from it

the inclusion of species that resemble the specification in one characteristic!

And since the verse writes “pure frankincense” after the latter generalization, conclude from this that one may not derive from it. And this is what the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is saying:

“No! You cannot expound it according to the latter formulation.” That is, it is impossible to expound and derive from frankincense as well, and say that the other spices need not resemble those explicitly written except in one respect. “Rather, according to the first formulation” one must expound: We derive only from the specifications written between the two generalizations; therefore, it must resemble them in two respects—that it produces smoke that rises and that its fragrance spreads.

And we refute 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 generalization, specification, and generalization derived from the spices between the two generalizations?

But

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

between the two “spices,”

there would have been twelve

spices! For we derive from the second “spices” that additional spices are to be included corresponding to the number of spices listed previously. If there had been six previously [including pure frankincense], we would derive from the latter “spices” another six, making twelve in all! Therefore frankincense was written at the end. And 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 generalization, specification, and generalization?!

And we answer:

If so,

if pure frankincense is included in the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization, and it serves to include even species that resemble the specification in only one respect, and it was written at the end so that we would not derive another six from the latter “spices”—

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

For the spice galbanum is not part of the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization, since it is needed in its own right, as it is valid even though its fragrance is foul. [The Torah did not validate every foul-smelling substance if it produces smoke that rises and its fragrance spreads; rather, the Scriptural decree applies only to galbanum, whereas other species are valid only if their fragrance is pleasant, and they produce smoke that rises and their fragrance spreads. This is explained by Rashi, s.v. “If so, let it write it.”] And now there would be only eleven spices.

And since it was not galbanum but frankincense that was written at the end, conclude from this that the Torah intended to exclude frankincense from the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization. For it is evident that pure frankincense was written only to complete the number of eleven spices, and not to include species that resemble the specification in one respect.

Reish Lakish said: From the substance itself

of the ketoret it is evident that specifically something that produces smoke that rises is required, for

what

is the

meaning

of the word

“ketoret”? Something that produces smoke that rises!

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

that is, they are not joined to pray with the congregation—

is not a fast!

For galbanum has a foul fragrance, yet the verse counted it among the ingredients of the ketoret

[to hint that the Name of Heaven is sanctified when the wicked repent and wish to unite and conduct themselves as the righteous do—Perisha, Orach Chayim 619, cited in the Mishna Berura, Sha'ar HaTziyun, subsection 4].

Abaye said: From here:

as it is written (Amos 9),

“and its association,”

when they are all 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 applies anointing oil”:

The Sages taught: One who applies anointing oil to an animal or utensils—

is exempt

from karet.

And similarly, one who applies anointing oil

to gentiles or to the dead—

is exempt.

And we raised a difficulty:

Granted,

one who applies it to

an animal or utensils

is exempt—

as it is written,

“It shall not be applied to human flesh,”

, and

if so,

an animal and utensils are not human.

The dead, too, are exempt, for since he has died,

he is called dead and not human.

But

one who applies it to

gentiles—

why is he exempt,

when

they are human?

And we answer:

No indeed!

That is not so!

As it is written

(Ezekiel 34):

“And I will give

[like “and you are”]

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

And we expound: Only

you are called human, but gentiles are not called human.

And we ask:

But it is written

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

“and the human beings were sixteen thousand,”

,

,

He said to him: That

human being written there—

was to exclude an animal!

For an animal is also mentioned there, and in order to distinguish the human beings from the animals mentioned there, the verse had to call them human.

And we further ask:

But it is written

(Jonah 4),

“And should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than one hundred and twenty thousand human beings”?!

And we answer:

That

human being

also

comes

to exclude

an

animal

that is mentioned there.

And if you wish, say instead: As the tanna taught before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone who is subject to the prohibition of applying,

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

is subject

also

to the prohibition “it shall not be applied,”

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

And anyone who is not subject to the prohibition of applying

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

is not subject to the prohibition “it shall not be applied,”

meaning that it is not prohibited for others to apply it to him.

It was taught in another baraita: One who applies anointing oil to an animal or utensils, to gentiles or to the dead—

is exempt. To kings and to anointed priests

who are adults [after they have already been anointed]—

Rabbi Meir obligates, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.

And how much must he apply in order to be liable?

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

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

And we refute this:

But Rabbi Yehuda said that he is exempt,

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

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yehuda exempted

it was with regard to kings and priests,

but

with regard to an ordinary person he obligates.

And here it is referring to an ordinary person.

And we raised a difficulty:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—

with regard to what do they disagree?

Rav Yosef said: They disagree about this:

Rabbi Meir maintains

“It shall not be applied to human flesh,”

is written, and it is written:

“And whoever places some of it upon an outsider

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

Just as applying

has the measure of

any amount,

since we find no measure specified anywhere for applying,

so too, giving

mentioned here has the measure of

any amount,

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

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: We derive the giving of

anointing oil

upon an outsider from ordinary giving

—

just as ordinary giving,

in the payment for teruma, concerning which “giving” is written, is

an olive-bulk,

so too, the giving upon an outsider

has the measure of

an olive-bulk.

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

But applying

that is

to anoint kings

at the beginning of their reigns

and priests

at the beginning of their priesthood—

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 priests,

when the oil is applied after they have already been anointed—whether one is liable for it?

Rabbi Meir maintains:

“And whoever places some of it upon an outsider”

is written, and a king and priest now,

after they have been anointed—

are outsiders

with regard to the anointing oil

they are!

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

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that in order to be liable,

we require that there be

an outsider

from beginning to end, and a king and priest initially

when they were anointed at the beginning of their reign and priesthood—

were not outsiders.

Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: And they follow

the same principles—Rabbi Meir, who considers one an outsider even if he was not an outsider initially, and Rabbi Yehuda, who considers one an outsider only if he was an outsider initially—

in accordance with their principles,

as they disagreed about this elsewhere.