Keritot 6

בבואה לבבואה דבבואה נידע דאתי לביתיה ולאו מילתא היא דילמא חלשא דעתיה ומתרע מזליה

the reflection [bavua] of a reflection of his reflection he shall know that he will return and come to his home. The Sages say about this: And this is nothing, i.e., one should not practice these divinations, as perhaps he will become despondent if he does not see the positive sign and his fortune will turn bad, and this itself will result in his failure.

אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא יהא רגיל איניש למיכל ריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי סילקא ותמרי

Abaye said: Now that you have said that a sign is a substantial matter, a person should be accustomed to eat, at the start of the year, gourd, fenugreek, leeks, beets, and dates, as each of these grow and multiply quickly, which is a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year.

אמר להו רב משרשיא לבניה כי בעיתו למיזל למגמר קמיה רבכון גרוסו מעיקרא מתניתין והדר עולו קמי רבכון וכי יתביתו קמי רבכון חזו לפומיה דרבכון שנאמר והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך וכי גריסיתו שמעתא גרוסו על מיא דכי היכי דמשכי מיא תמשוך שמעתכון

With regard to positive omens, Rav Mesharshiyya said to his sons: When you want to go to study in the presence of your teacher, initially study the mishnayot and then ascend before your teacher. And when you sit before your teacher, see your teacher’s mouth, as it is stated: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). And when you learn a halakha, learn near a source of flowing water, as just as the water flow continues, so too, your learning should continue.

אקילקי דמתא מחסיא ולא אפדני דפומבדיתא טב גילדנא סריא למיכל מכותחא דרמי כיפי

Rav Mesharshiyya gave his sons additional advice: It is better for you to dwell on the garbage piles [akilkei] of the city Mata Meḥasya and not to dwell in the palaces [apadnei] of the city Pumbedita. It is better to eat rotten fish [gildana] than high-quality kutḥa, which uproots and tosses rocks from their places, i.e., it is a very spicy, powerful flavoring.

ותתפלל חנה ותאמר עלץ לבי בה׳ רמה קרני רמה קרני ולא רמה פכי דוד ושלמה שנמשחו בקרן נמשכה מלכותם שאול ויהוא שנמשחו מן הפך לא נמשכה מלכותם

The Gemara further discusses the issue of anointing and good omens. Hannah said in her prayer after her son Samuel was born: “And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara notes that Hannah said: “My horn is exalted,” and she did not say: My jug is exalted. With regard to David and Solomon, who were anointed with oil from a horn, this was a good omen for them, and their kingships lasted. But with regard to Saul and Jehu, who were anointed with oil from a jug, their kingships did not last.

המפטם את הקטרת תנו רבנן המפטם את הקטרת ללמד בה או למוסרה לציבור פטור להריח בה חייב והמריח בה פטור אלא שמעל

§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive karet: One who blends the incense according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service, for purposes other than use in the Temple. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who blends the incense in order to teach himself how to prepare it or in order to transfer it to the community is exempt from liability. But if he prepares it in order to smell it he is liable to receive karet, as it is stated: “He who prepares it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:38). And one who actually smells the incense mixture is exempt from the punishment of karet and from bringing a sin offering; but he has misused consecrated property, and is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering if he acted unwittingly.

ומי איכא מעילה והאמר רבי שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה

The Gemara asks: And is there the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to smell? But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to exposure to the sound, or to the sight, or to the smell of consecrated items, including incense, these are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?

ריח אחר שתעלה תמרתו אין בו משום מעילה אין לך דבר אחר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו

The Gemara answers: With regard to exposure to the smell of the incense, the following distinction applies: The smell of the incense that is emitted when the spices are placed on the coals on the altar is subject to the prohibition, since this is the manner in which the mitzva is performed. By contrast, the smell emitted after the flame catches and the column of smoke rises is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that its mitzva has already been performed, and you have no case in which an item is at the stage after its mitzva has already been performed and yet one is liable for its misuse.

אלמה לא והרי תרומת הדשן דנעשית מצותה ומועלין בה

The Gemara asks: And why not say that misuse of consecrated property applies to an item whose mitzva has been already performed? But there is the case of the daily removal of the ashes of the offerings from the altar, whose mitzva has been performed, as the offerings have been burnt, and yet one who uses the ashes is liable for misusing the ashes, as derived from the verse: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3).

משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדים

The Gemara answers: This case does not disprove the principle, since the halakhot of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments of white linen worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and there is a principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. In other words, if a halakha is stated twice with regard to two separate cases, this halakha applies only to those cases. Had the Torah wanted to teach that this halakha applies to all other relevant cases as well, it would have mentioned it only once, and other cases would be derived from there. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates they are exceptions.

הניחא לרבנן אלא לרבי דוסא מאי איכא למימר דתניא והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה

The Gemara comments: The fact that the Torah mentions this halakha twice works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur require interment. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, what can be said? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the sacred place, and he shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23). This phrase teaches that his vestments require interment. Although their use for the mitzva has been completed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from these garments. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

רבי דוסא אומר כשירין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן ביום הכפורים אחר

Rabbi Dosa says: These priestly vestments may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, but they are fit for use by an ordinary priest, as they are similar to those worn by ordinary priests on a daily basis. Rabbi Dosa adds: And what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall leave them there”? This teaches that the High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur. According to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, only one verse teaches there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to an item that has already been used for performing its mitzva. Therefore, one should derive a principle from the verse discussing the removal of the ashes.

משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין תרומת הדשן מאי היא דתניא ושמו אצל המזבח מלמד שטעונין גניזה עגלה ערופה מאי היא דתניא וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מלמד שטעונין גניזה

The Gemara answers: One cannot derive a general principle from this case, because the removal of the ashes and the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken, from which one may not derive benefit after that rite has been performed, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara elaborates: What is the case of the removal of the ashes? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This teaches that they require interment. What is the case of the heifer whose neck is broken? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). This teaches that such heifers require interment.

ולמאן דאמר שני כתובין הבאים כאחד מלמדין הכא ודאי אין מלמדין משום דהוי תרי מיעוטי בתרומת הדשן כתיב ושמו הדין אין מידי אחרינא לא גבי עגלה ערופה כתיב הערופה ערופה אין מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara adds: And even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, here they certainly do not teach that misuse of consecrated property applies to items whose mitzva has been performed. This is due to the fact that there are two terms indicating exclusions with regard to these halakhot, limiting this halakha to those cases. With regard to the removal of the ashes it is written: “And he shall put it.” The word “it” teaches that in this particular case, yes, there is misuse of consecrated property, but with regard to any other matter this prohibition does not apply. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: “The heifer that had its neck broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). The word “the” indicates that with regard to the heifer that had its neck broken, yes, but with regard to any other matter the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply.

תנו רבנן פיטום הקטרת הצרי והציפורן והחלבנה והלבונה משקל שבעים של שבעים מנה מור וקציעה שיבולת נרד וכרכום משקל ששה עשר של ששה עשר מנה הקושט שנים עשר קילופה שלשה וקנמון תשעה בורית כרשינה תשעה קבין יין קפריסין סאין תלתא קבין תלתא אם אין לו יין קפריסין מביא חמר חיוריין עתיק מלח סדומית רובע מעלה עשן כל שהוא רבי נתן אומר אף כיפת הירדן כל שהוא

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: How is the blending of the incense performed? Balm, and onycha, and galbanum, and frankincense, each of these by a weight of seventy maneh, i.e., seventy units of one hundred dinars. Myrrh, and cassia, and spikenard, and saffron, each of these by a weight of sixteen maneh. Costus by a weight of twelve maneh; three maneh of aromatic bark; and nine maneh of cinnamon. Kersannah lye of the volume of nine kav; Cyprus wine of the volume of three se’a and three more kav, a half-se’a. If one does not have Cyprus wine he brings old white wine. Sodomite salt is brought by the volume of a quarter-kav. Lastly, a minimal amount of the smoke raiser, a plant that causes the smoke of the incense to rise properly. Rabbi Natan says: Also a minimal amount of Jordan amber.

ואם נתן בה דבש פסלה חיסר אחת מכל סממניה חייב מיתה רבי שמעון אומר הצרי אינו אלא שרף מעצי הקטף בורית כרשינה ששפין בה את הציפורן כדי שתהא נאה יין קפריסין ששורין בו את הציפורן כדי שתהא עזה והלא מי רגלים יפין לה אלא שאין מכניסין מי רגלים למקדש

And if one placed honey in the incense he has disqualified it, as it is stated: “For you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). If he omitted any one of its spices he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Shimon says: The balm mentioned here is nothing other than a resin exuded from the balsam tree, not the bark of the tree itself. The Kersannah lye mentioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary as one rubs the onycha in it so that the onycha should be pleasant. Likewise, the Cyprus wine is required as one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good for this purpose, but one does not bring urine into the Temple because it is inappropriate.

מסייע ליה לרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר קדש היא קדש תהיה לכם כל מעשיה לא יהו אלא בקדש

The Gemara comments: This final ruling supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who says with regard to a verse that discusses the incense: It is sacred, it shall be sacred to you (see Exodus 30:36–37), that this teaches that all of its actions should be performed only in the sacred area of the Temple.

מיתיבי המקדיש נכסיו והיו בה דברים הראויין לקרבנות הציבור ינתנו לאומנין בשכרן

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Shekalim 4:6): With regard to one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, they are consecrated for Temple maintenance. And if among them there were items suitable for use as communal offerings, which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance so that they can be properly consecrated for sacrificial use? They are given to Temple artisans as their wages, and they are thereby desacralized. They can then be consecrated again for their proper purpose.

הני דברים הראויין מאי נינהו אי בהמה וחיה תנא ליה אי יינות שמנים וסלתות תנא ליה אלא לאו קטרת

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: These items that are suitable for use as communal offerings, what are they? If they are domesticated animals and undomesticated animals, the tanna taught the halakha with regard to them later in that same mishna. Likewise, if they are wines, oils, and flours, the tanna taught them in that mishna as well. Rather, is it not referring to incense consecrated by a private individual? If so, this would mean that one can prepare and consecrate incense outside the Temple.

אמר רבי אושעיא באותה הניתנת לאומנים בשכרן דתניא מותר הקטרת מה היו עושין בה היו מפרישין ממנה שכר האומנין ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין ונותנין אותן לאומנין בשכרן וחוזרים ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה

Rabbi Oshaya said: The mishna is referring to that incense which is given to the Temple artisans as their wages, i.e., the incense was prepared in the sacred place and was desacralized when it was given to the artisans, who subsequently consecrated it. As it is taught in a mishna (Shekalim 4:5): The leftover incense from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. What would they do with it in order to render it usable? The Temple treasurers would remove an amount of it equal to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. And they would then desacralize that incense by transferring its sanctity to the money owed the artisans. They would then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. And finally, they would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף הא בכולהו מותרות תני חוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה והכא לא תני

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: How can the mishna in Shekalim 4:6 be interpreted as referring to artisans who consecrated leftover incense? With regard to all leftovers the tanna teaches: They would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels, as stated in the mishna earlier. And yet here, in tractate Shekalim, the tanna does not teach this clause, indicating that it is not speaking of incense paid to the artisans and repurchased from them.

אלא אמר רב יוסף באחד מסממני הקטרת

Rather, Rav Yosef says: The mishna is referring to one of the ingredients of the incense, which an individual consecrated when it is not in the Temple. It is not speaking of incense that has already been blended, as this action may be performed only in the sacred area, as claimed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

תנו רבנן קטרת היתה נעשית שלש מאות ששים ושמונה מנה שלש מאות ששים וחמשה כנגד ימות החמה שלשה מנין יתירין שמהן מכניס כהן גדול מלא חפניו ביום הכיפורים והשאר ניתנת לאומנין בשכרן

The Sages taught in a baraita: The incense was prepared from ingredients amounting to the weight of 368 maneh, i.e., 368 units of one hundred dinars. Of these, 365 of them correspond to the days of the solar year. The additional three maneh are those from which the High Priest would bring in to the Sanctuary his handful required on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:12), and the rest, i.e., the incense that was not used over the course of the year, was given to the artisans as their wages.

כדתניא מותר הקטרת מה היו עושין בה מפרישין ממנה שכר האומנין ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין ונותנין אותן לאומנין בשכרן וחוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומת הלשכה

This is as it is taught in the aforementioned mishna (Shekalim 4:5): With regard to the leftover incense, what would they do with it? The Temple treasurers would remove an amount of it equal to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. And they would then desacralize that incense by transferring its sanctity to the money owed to the artisans. They would then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. And finally, they would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.

תנו רבנן מותר הקטרת אחת לששים או לשבעים שנה היו מפטמין אותה לחצאין לפיכך יחיד שפיטם לחצאין חייב דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל שאמר משום הסגן

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The leftover of the incense, from the three extra maneh each year, would accumulate so that once every sixty or every seventy years they would blend the incense for the new year by halves, i.e., they required only half the usual amount, and the other half would come from the leftover incense. Therefore, a private individual who blended incense by halves in order to smell it is liable for violating the prohibition: “And the incense that you shall prepare, according to its composition you shall not prepare for yourselves, it shall be to you sacred for the Lord” (Exodus 30:37). This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said it in the name of the deputy High Priest.

אבל שליש ורביע לא שמעתי וחכמים אומרים בכל יום מתקן במתכונתה והיה מכניס

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel added: But I did not hear the same with regard to the blending of one-third or one-quarter of the amount of the incense. And the Rabbis say: Every day one would prepare incense for the day according to its composition, i.e., in the appropriate ratio for each ingredient, and he would bring it in the Sanctuary and burn it on the golden altar.

מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא שמן המשחה שפטמו לחצאין חייב דכתיב והקטרת אשר תעשה כל שתעשה והא אפשר דעבדה פרס בשחרית ופרס בין הערבים

The Gemara comments: This opinion of the Rabbis supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava says: With regard to the anointing oil that one blended in parts, i.e., in any amount, in order to apply it to the skin, he is exempt, but if one blended the incense to smell it, even in parts, he is liable, as it is written: “And the incense that you shall prepare, according to its composition you shall not prepare for yourselves” (Exodus 30:37). This teaches that any incense of the amount that you prepare for the Sanctuary is prohibited, as it is possible to burn a portion, i.e., one-half of the maneh that must be prepared, in the morning, and a portion in the afternoon.

תנו רבנן היו מחזירין אותה למכתשת פעמים בשנה בימות החמה פזורה שלא תתעפש בימות הגשמים צבורה כדי שלא תפוג ריחה וכשהוא שוחק אומר הדק היטב היטב הדק דברי אבא יוסי בן יוחנן

The Sages taught in a baraita: They would return the incense to the mortar to regrind it twice a year; in the summer they would place it scattered so that it should not grow moldy, while in the rainy season it was kept piled, in order that its scent should not dissipate. And when one would grind the incense he would say: Crush well, well crush; this is the statement of Abba Yosei ben Yoḥanan.

ושלש מנין יתירין שמהן כהן גדול מכניס מלא חפניו ביום הכפורים נותן אותה למכתשת בערב יום הכפורים ושוחקן יפה יפה כדי שתהא דקה מן הדקה כדתניא דקה מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר ושחקת ממנו הדק מה תלמוד לומר דקה כדי שתהא דקה מן הדקה

And as for the extra three maneh of incense from which the High Priest would bring in his handful required on Yom Kippur, one would place it in the mortar on Yom Kippur eve and grind it thoroughly so that the incense should be extra fine. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the incense on Yom Kippur, that it shall be: “Finely ground aromatic incense” (Leviticus 16:12). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Isn’t it already stated with regard to all incense: “And you shall grind some of it finely” (Exodus 30:36)? Why must the verse state “finely ground”? This teaches that on Yom Kippur one must grind the incense more, in order that it should be extra fine.

אמר מר כשהוא שוחק אומר היטב הדק הדק היטב מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהדיבור רע ליין כן הדיבור יפה לבשמים

The Master said earlier: When one would grind the incense he would say: Crush well, well crush. The Gemara notes that this supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Just as speech is detrimental to wine, and therefore no words were spoken during its preparation, so too, speech is beneficial to the preparation of the spices of the incense.

אמר רבי יוחנן אחד עשר סממנין נאמרו לו למשה בסיני אמר רב הונא מאי קראה קח לך סמים תרי נטף ושחלת וחלבנה הא חמשה וסמים אחריני חמשה הא עשרה ולבונה זכה חד הא חד סרי

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The eleven ingredients of the incense were stated by God to Moses at Sinai, as not all of them are specified in the verses. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Take for you spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; spices with pure frankincense” (Exodus 30:34). The plural form of the phrase: “Take for you spices” is referring to two ingredients; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” are three ingredients; this results in a total of five; and the other mention of “spices” indicates that there are another five, i.e., that one should double the previous total, and this results in a total of ten. And finally, “pure frankincense” is one, and this results in a total of eleven.

ואימא סמים כלל נטף ושחלת וחלבנה פרט סמים חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף אף כל דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why not say the first mention of “spices” is a generalization; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum,” is a detail; and when the verse repeats “spices” it is then generalized again. This is the hermeneutical principle of: a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and therefore you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the detail is explicit in that it is referring to an item whose smoke rises and its scent diffuses, so too, it includes any item whose smoke rises and its scent diffuses.

וכי תימא אם כן לכתוב קרא חד פרטא לאיי מיצרך צריכי דאי כתב נטף הוה אמינא מין אילן אין אבל גידולי קרקע לא משום הכי כתב ושחלת ואי כתב ושחלת הוה אמינא גידולי קרקע אין אבל מין אילן אימא לא משום הכי כתב נטף

And if you would say: If that is so, that this is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, then let the verse write only one detail of the three; the fact is that indeed [la’ei], all the details are necessary. As, if the Torah had written merely “stacte,” I would say that spices from a type of tree, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices grown from the ground, no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “and onycha.” And if the Torah had written only “and onycha,” I would say that spices grown from the ground, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices from a type of tree, one might say no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “stacte.”

וחלבנה לגופיה אתא מפני שריחה רע אם כן מקח לך נפקא ליה

The Gemara concludes its rejection of the suggested resolution: And as for the mention of galbanum, this comes for itself, i.e., one would not otherwise have included this ingredient, because unlike the other spices its smell is foul. Consequently, all these details are necessary, and therefore it is possible to expound the verse as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, which means that the difficulty remains: How is it derived that there were eleven spices? The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, there is no need for the first mention of “spices,” as one could derive the generalization from the phrase “Take for you.”

ואימא סמים בתראי תרין נינהו כסמים קדמאי אם כן נכתוב סמים סמים בהדי הדדי וסוף נכתוב נטף ושחלת וחלבנה

The Gemara raises another difficulty: How is it derived from the verse that there are eleven spices? But why not say that the last mention of “spices” signifies two ingredients, just like the first mention of “spices”? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write “spices” and “spices” together, and afterward let it write “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum.” The fact that the second mention of “spices” is written after all those specified ingredients indicates that its number corresponds to the total of all of them.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תני סמים כלל נטף שחלת וחלבנה פרט סמים חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף אף כל דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף

The school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches in a baraita: The first mention of “spices” is a generalization; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum,” is a detail; and when the verse repeats “spices” it then generalized again. This is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the detail is explicit in that it is referring to an item whose smoke rises and its scent diffuses, so too, it includes any item whose smoke rises and its scent diffuses.

או אינו אלא כלל בכלל ראשון ופרט בפרט ראשון אמרת לאו הא אין לך עליך לדון בלשון אחרון אלא בלשון ראשון

The baraita continues: Or perhaps it is only that the second generalization is in the same category as the first generalization, and the second detail is in the same category as the first detail. You must say that this is not the case; consequently, you cannot learn in accordance with the last version, but rather you must learn in accordance with the first version.

אמר מר או אינו אלא כלל בכלל ראשון ופרט בפרט ראשון אמרת לאו הא אין עליך לדון מאי קושיא הכי קא קשיא ליה סמים בתראי תרי כי סמים קדמאי תרין הדר ושני כדשנין דאם כן נכתוב קרא סמים סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה

The Gemara clarifies the latter clause of the baraita. The Master said: Or perhaps it is only that the second generalization is in the same category as the first generalization, and the second detail is in the same category as the first detail. You must say that this is not the case; consequently, you cannot learn in accordance with the last version, but rather you must learn in accordance with the first version. The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty alluded to here by the baraita? The Gemara explains that this is what is difficult to the tanna: Let us say that the last mention of “spices” is referring to two ingredients, just as the first mention of “spices” is referring to two ingredients. The tanna then answered as we answered earlier, that if so, let the verse write: Spices, spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, in that order.

ומאי פרט בפרט ראשון הכי קא קשיא ליה מיני אילנות ילפי מן נטף וגידולי קרקע ילפי משחלת ולילפי נמי מלבונה זכה דאייתי בחד צד דניתי דבר שריחו נודף ואף על פי שאין קוטר ועולה

The Gemara further asks: And what is the meaning of the suggestion: The second detail is in the same category as the first detail? The Gemara answers that this is what is difficult to the tanna: Since it is derived by the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization that all items similar to those specified in the verse are included, as stated earlier that spices from types of trees are derived from the mention of stacte and spices grown from the ground are derived from the mention of onycha, one might say as follows: Let them also learn from the mention of pure frankincense, which includes one aspect, i.e., that one should include an item whose scent diffuses, even though its smoke does not rise.

הדר אמר אם כן נכתוב קרא ללבונה זכה במיצעי ותילף מינה

The Gemara continues: The tanna then said that this cannot be the case, as if so, let the verse write “pure frankincense” in the middle, between the two mentions of “spices,” alongside stacte, onycha, and galbanum, and then one would derive this halakha from it. Since the frankincense is mentioned after the second mention of “spices,” it is not part of the generalization, detail, and generalization.

אי כתביה לבונה זכה במיצעי הויין תרי עשר אם כן נכתוב קרא לבונה זכה במיצעי וחלבנה לבסוף ריש לקיש אמר מגופה מה לשון קטרת דבר שקוטר ועולה

The Gemara questions this claim: If the verse were to write “pure frankincense” in the middle, there would be twelve ingredients in the incense, as that ingredient would also be included in the doubling of the second mention of “spices.” The Gemara explains: If so, that frankincense is meant to be one of the details, let the verse write “pure frankincense” in the middle and “galbanum” at the end, after the second mention of “spices.” Since the verse placed frankincense at the end, one cannot derive halakhot from it as a detail. Reish Lakish says that this halakha can be derived from the word incense itself: What is the meaning of the term incense [ketoret]? It means an item that produces smoke [koter] and rises.

אמר רב חנא בר בזנא אמר רבי שמעון חסידא כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל אינה תענית שהרי חלבנה ריחה רע ומנאה הכתוב עם סממני קטרת אביי אמר מהכא ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה

Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Any fast that does not include the participation of some of the sinners of the Jewish people is not a fast, as the smell of galbanum is foul and yet the verse lists it with the ingredients of the incense. Abaye says that this is derived from here: “It is He Who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has established His bundle on the earth” (Amos 9:6), i.e., when the people are united as a bundle, including their sinners, they are established upon the earth.

והסך בשמן המשחה תנו רבנן הסך בשמן המשחה לבהמה וכלים פטור לגוים ולמתים פטור בשלמא בהמה וכלים דכתיב על בשר אדם לא ייסך ובהמה וכלים לאו אדם הוא מתים נמי פטור דכיון דמית ליה מת מיקרי ולאו אדם אלא גוים אמאי פטור הא אדם נינהו

§ The mishna includes in its list of those liable to receive karet: And one who applies the anointing oil to his skin. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who applies the anointing oil to animals or vessels is exempt, and one who applies it to gentiles or to corpses is exempt. The Gemara objects: Granted, one is exempt in the case of animals and vessels, as it is written: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied” (Exodus 30:32), and animals and vessels are not the flesh of a person. It is also clear why one is exempt if he applies it to a corpse, as once someone has died, the body is called a corpse and not a person. But if one applies anointing oil to gentiles why is he exempt? Aren’t they included in the meaning of the term person [adam]?

לאיי דכתיב ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם

The Gemara explains: Indeed they are not. As it is written: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are people [adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called adam, but gentiles are not called adam.

והכתיב ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף אמר ליה ההוא לאפוקי בהמה

The Gemara raises an objection based on a verse discussing captives taken during the war against Midian. But isn’t it written: “And the people [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand” (Numbers 31:40). This indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Sage who was asked this said to the questioner: That term serves to exclude, i.e., to distinguish between the people who were taken captive and the animals that were taken as spoils of war, which are also mentioned in that verse.

והכתיב ואני לא אחוס על נינוה וגו׳ ההוא לאפוקי בהמה

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn’t it written: “And should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand people [adam] who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” (Jonah 4:11). The inhabitants of Nineveh were gentiles. The Gemara answers: That term serves to exclude them from the animals mentioned in the verse.

ואיבעית אימא כדקתני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר כל שישנו בסך ישנו בבל ייסך וכל שאינו בסך אינו בבל ייסך

And if you wish, say instead a different reason why one who applies anointing oil to gentiles is exempt. This is as a tanna teaches before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is likewise included as subject to the prohibition of: It shall not be applied, i.e., it is prohibited to apply the oil to him. And anyone not included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is not included as the object of: It shall not be applied. Only Jews are included in the prohibition against applying the anointing oil.

תניא אידך הסך בשמן המשחה לבהמה וכלים לגוים ומתים פטור למלכים ולכהנים רבי מאיר מחייב ורבי יהודה פוטר וכמה יסוך ויהא חייב רבי מאיר אומר כל שהוא רבי יהודה אומר כזית והאמר רבי יהודה פטור כי פטר רבי יהודה גבי מלכים וכהנים גבי הדיוט מחייב

It is taught in another baraita: One who applies the anointing oil to animals or vessels, or to gentiles or on corpses, is exempt. If one applies the anointing oil to kings or to priests after they had already been anointed, Rabbi Meir deems him liable and Rabbi Yehuda deems him exempt. And how much oil must one apply to his skin and be liable? Rabbi Meir says: Any amount. Rabbi Yehuda says: An olive-bulk. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that he is entirely exempt? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yehuda deems him exempt that is with regard to applying oil to kings and priests, whereas in the case of an ordinary person Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable.

רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה במאי פליגי אמר רב יוסף בהא פליגי רבי מאיר סבר על בשר אדם לא ייסך כתיב וכתיב ואשר יתן ממנו על זר מה סיכה כל שהוא אף נתינה כל שהוא

The Gemara asks: Concerning what matter do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? Rav Yosef says that they disagree concerning this issue: Rabbi Meir holds that this halakha is based on the fact that it is written: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied” (Exodus 30:32), and it is written: “Or whoever places any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:33). The wording of the prohibition teaches with regard to the liability to receive karet: Just as the act of applying the oil to the skin prohibited by the verse refers to the application of any amount, as there is no specific measure stated in this regard, so too, the act of placing the oil mentioned with regard to karet refers to any amount.

ורבי יהודה סבר ילפינן נתינה דעל זר מנתינה דעלמא מה נתינה דעלמא כזית אף נתינה דעל זר כזית אבל סיכה למימשח מלכים וכהנים דברי הכל כל שהוא

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We derive the halakha of placing [netina] that is stated here, which is upon a stranger, i.e., one upon whom there is no mitzva to place the anointing oil, from the halakha of giving [netina] in general. Just as giving in general is with the amount of an olive-bulk, so too, placing anointing oil upon a stranger is with the amount of an olive-bulk. The principle that giving [netina] in general is with the amount of an olive-bulk is derived from the verse: “And if a man eats a sacred thing in error then he shall add a fifth part in addition to it, and shall give [venatan] to the priest the sacred item” (Leviticus 22:14). This verse is referring to an item given for eating, and the minimum amount that must be consumed for an act to be considered eating is an olive-bulk. Rav Yosef adds: But with regard to the mitzva of applying the oil in order to anoint kings and priests, everyone agrees it is accomplished with any amount.

ואמר רב יוסף במאי פליגי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה גבי מלכים וכהנים רבי מאיר סבר ואשר יתן ממנו על זר כתיב ומלך וכהן השתא זרים נינהו ורבי יהודה סבר בעינן עד דאיכא זר מתחלתו ועד סופו ומלך וכהן מעיקרא לאו זרים הוו

And Rav Yosef further says: With regard to what matter do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in the case of kings and priests who had already been anointed? Rabbi Meir holds that since it is written: “Or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger,” and right now the king and priest are strangers because the mitzva to anoint them no longer applies, they are included in the prohibition. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: For the purposes of this prohibition we require that the individual in question be a stranger from his beginning to his end, and the king and priest were initially not strangers.

אמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא

Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda both follow their lines of reasoning, as it is taught in a mishna (Terumot 7:2):