Parallel
כריתות 6
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the reflection of his shadow, he will know that he will return home. But it is not the proper thing [to make these tests], for one might be discouraged and mar his fortune. Said Abaye: Since you hold that symbols are meaningful, every man should make it a habit to eat on New Year pumpkin, fenugreek, leek, beet and dates. R. Mesharsheya said to his sons: ‘When you wish to come before your teacher to learn, revise at first your Mishnah and then go to your teacher; and when you are sitting before your teacher look at the mouth of your teacher, as it is written: But thine eyes shall see thy teacher; and when you study any teaching, do so by the side of water, for as the water is drawn out, so your learning may be prolonged. Be on the dustheaps of Matha Mehasia rather than in the palaces of Pumpeditha. Eat a stinking fish rather than cutha that breaks rocks. And Hannah prayed and said: my heart exulteth in the Lord, my horn is exalted. It says, ‘my horn is exalted’, but not ‘my jar is exalted’. David and Solomon were anointed from a horn, and therefore their rule was prolonged; Saul and Jehu, however, were anointed from a jar, and their rule was not prolonged. WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS INCENSE. Our Rabbis have taught: ‘When one compounds incense for experimenting or in order to hand it over to the community, he is culpable; if in order to smell of it, he is guilty. He who smells it is not culpable, but he is guilty of sacrilege. But is smelling subject to the law of sacrilege? Has not R. Simeon son of Pazzi stated in the name of R. Joshua son of Levi on behalf of Bar Kappara: Hearing, seeing and smelling are not subject to the law of sacrilege? — The reference to smelling means, after the pillar of the [incense] smoke has ascended, in which case it is not subject to the law of sacrilege, for nothing is subject to the law of sacrilege, after the prescribed command has been performed therewith. Is this indeed so? Behold the separation of the ashes is subject to the law of sacrilege, although the prescribed, command has been performed therewith. — The law concerning the separation of the ashes and that of the garments of the High Priest are two texts teaching the same thing, and where two texts teach the same thing no inference may be made [from them]. This is right according to the Rabbis, but what is to be said according to R. Dosa? For it has been taught: And he shall place them [the garments] there, [means] that they have to be hidden. R. Dosa holds: They may be used by an ordinary priest, and ‘he shall place them there’ means that he [the high priest] shall not use it again on another Day of Atonement. — The law concerning the separation of the ashes and that of the heifer whose neck is broken are two texts teaching the same thing, and where two texts teach the same thing no inference may be made [from them for other instances]. ‘What is the case of the separation of the ashes? — It has been taught: He shall place it by the side of the altar; this teaches that it has to be hidden. ‘What is the case of the heifer whose neck is broken? — It has been taught: And shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley, this teaches that it has to be buried. And even according to him who holds, one may infer for other instances where two texts teach the same thing, here indeed no inference can be made because there are two limitations. In connection with the separation of the ashes, it is written: ‘He shall place it’: It, and not anything else; in connection with the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: Whose neck is broken; only the one whose neck is broken and not anything else. Our Rabbis have taught: The compound of incense consisted of balm, onycha, galbanum and frankincense, each in the quantity of seventy manehs; of myrrh, cassia, spikenard and saffron, each sixteen manehs by weight; of costus twelve, of aromatic rind three, and of cinnamon nine manehs; of lye obtained from leek nine kabs; of Cyprus wine three se'ahs and three kabs, though if Cyprus wine is not available, old white wine may be used instead; of salt of Sodom the fourth of a kab, and of ma'aleh ‘ashan a minute quantity. R. Nathan says: Also of Jordan resin a minute quantity. If, however, honey is added, the incense is rendered unfit; while if one omits one of the ingredients, he is liable to the penalty of death. R. Simeon son of Gamaliel said: Balm is nothing but a resin which exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree; the lye obtained from leek was rubbed over the onycha in order to render it beautiful, and in the Cyprus wine the onycha was steeped that its odour might be intensified. In fact urine might well serve this purpose, but urine may not be brought within the precincts of the Temple. This supports R. Jose son of R. Hanina, who says: It is holy and it shall be holy unto you, implies that all work in connection therewith must be performed within the sacred precincts. An objection was raised: If one dedicates his possessions to the Temple and there are among them things fit for communal offerings, they shall be given to the [Temple] craftsmen as wages. Now what is meant by ‘things fit [for communal offerings]’? If cattle or beast, this has already been taught; if wine, oil or fine flour, this has already been taught; hence It must refer to incense. — Said R. Oshaia: [It refers to] that which is given to the craftsmen as their wages; for we learnt: ‘What was done with the remnant of the frankincense? They set apart [an amount equivalent to the craftsmen's] wages [from the Temple Treasury], the remnant was then exchanged against this money, handed over to the craftsmen as their wages and then bought back again from them with the money of the new levy. To this R. Joseph demurred: Surely in connection with all remnants it teaches: ‘And then it is bought back again from the new levy’; whereas in connection with this teaching, this is not stated. — Rather, said R. Joseph: It refers to one of the ingredients of the frankincense. Our Rabbis have taught: The frankincense consisted of three hundred and sixty-eight manehs; three hundred and sixty-five corresponding to the days of the solar year, and of the three remaining manehs the high priest took his hands full [into the holy of holies] on the Day of Atonement, while the remnant was given to the craftsmen for their wages, as we have learnt: What was done with the remnant of the frankincense? They set apart an amount equivalent to the craftsmen's wages [from the Temple Treasury], the remnant was then exchanged against this money, handed over to the craftsmen as their wages and then bought back again from then, with the money of the Temple Chamber.44
—
Our Rabbis have taught: [By reason of] the remnants of frankincense once in sixty or seventy years only half the quantity was manufactured. Therefore, if a stranger compounds half the quantity, he is culpable. Thus the view of Rabban Simeon son of Gamaliel, who said this in the name of the Segan; while there is no tradition that a third or a fourth of the quantity was ever compounded. The Sages hold: He prepared frankincense each day according to its composition and offered it up. This supports Raba; for Raba said: If one compounds half the quantity of frankincense, he is capable, for it is written: And the incense which thou shalt make etc. ; whatever [quantity] you make, and it is possible for one to prepare half [a maneh] in the morning and half in the evening. Our Rabbis have taught: Twice in the course of the year is the incense put back into the mortar. During the summer it is scattered, so that it does not rot away; during the winter it is heaped together, so that its fragrance may not escape. While it is being beaten, he calls out: ‘Pound well, well pound’. These are the words of Abba Jose b. Johanan. The three remaining manehs of which the high priest on the Day of Atonement separates his handfuls, are put back in the mortar on the eve of the Day of Atonement and pounded very thoroughly, so that the incense is of the very finest, as it has been taught: ‘Wherefore is beaten small stated, since it is written already: And thou shalt beat some of it very small? That it has to be the very finest. The Master said: "While it is being beaten, he calls out: "Pound well, well pound".’ This supports R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said: Just as speech is harmful to wine, so it is beneficial to spices. Said R. Johanan: Eleven kinds of spices were named to Moses at Sinai. Said R. Huna: ‘Where is the text? Take unto thee sweet spices, at least two; stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, that makes together five; ‘sweet spices’ means another five, that makes together ten; ‘with pure frankincense’, which is one, that is together eleven. ‘Why not say, ‘sweet spices’ [at the beginning] is a general statement, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum’ a specification, and ‘sweet spices’ [at the end] is again a general statement! [‘We have thus, a generalization followed by a specification and then by a generalisation, [in which case] only things sharing the qualities of the specification may be derived. Just as the [items of the] specification are things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads, so include all things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads. And should you say in this case only one [item of] specification should have been mentioned, [I would answer] No, all are necessary; for if ‘stacte’ alone was written, I might have said: Only things from the tree [are to be taken], but not things growing on the ground. It was thus necessary to state ‘onycha’. And if ‘onycha’ alone was written, I might have said: Only things from the ground, but not from the tree. It was thus necessary to state ‘stacte’. As to ‘galbanum’, its mention is necessary for its own sake, for its odour is unpleasant if so, it could have been derived from: Take unto thee. But perhaps say: ‘The sweet spices’ in the latter part [of the verse] mean two, as ‘the sweet spices’ in the former part? Then it should have written the two expressions ‘sweet spices’ next to one another, and then write ‘stacte, and onycha, and galbanum’. In the School of R. Ishmael it was taught thus: ‘Sweet spices’ is a generalisation, ‘stacte, and onycha, and galbanum’ is a specification, sweet spices’ again is a generalisation, and from a generalisation followed by a specification and then by another generalisation one can derive only things sharing the qualities of the specification. As the [items in the] specification are things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads, so all things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads. Perhaps this is not so; but take the generalisation with the first generalisation, the specification with the first specification? — Say: This cannot be; hence you must not expound according to the latter version but according to the former. The Master said: ‘Perhaps this is not so, but take the generalisation with the first generalisation and the specification with the first specification? — Say: This cannot be, hence you cannot expound . . . ‘ ‘What is the question? — This is his difficulty: Let the sweet spices’ in the latter part [of the verse] mean two like ‘sweet spices’ in the former. ‘Whereupon he replied as was answered before: Then it should have written, ‘Sweet spices, sweet spices, stacte, onycha and galbanum’. What is the meaning of ‘and the specification with the first specification’? — This is his difficulty: Things of the tree are derived from ‘stacte’, and things of the ground from ‘onycha’; why not then derive from ‘pure frankincense’ all things which have one quality in common with it [viz.,] that their fragrance spreads, though their smoke does not ascend upwards? Whereupon he replied: If this was so, ‘pure frankincense’ should have been written among the others, so that you could derive therefrom. But if ‘pure frankincense’ was written among the others, we would have twelve spices. — ‘Pure frankincense’ should have been written among the others and ‘galbanum’ at the end. Resh Lakish says: From the word itself it can be inferred; for ketoreth [frankincense] means something whose smoke ascends upwards. Said R. Hana b. Bizna in the name of R. Hisda the pious:A fast in which none of the sinners of Israel participate is no fast; for behold the odour of galbanum is unpleasant and yet it was included among the spices for the incense. Abaye says: ‘We learn this from the text: And hath founded his vault upon the earth. OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured; and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? — No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]: Ye are called adam but heathens are not called ‘adam. But is it not written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand? — Because it is used in opposition to cattle. But is it not written: And should I not have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons [adam]? — This too is used in opposition to cattle. Or, if you wish, I might explain it in the light of what a Tanna recited before R. Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to the prohibition ‘he shall not pour’ is subject to [the law] ‘it shall not be poured [over him]’; but he who is not subject to ‘he shall not pour’ is not subject to ‘it shall not be poured [over him]’. Another [Baraitha] taught: If one anoints with the oil of anointing cattle, vessels, heathens and the dead, he is not culpable; if kings and priests, R. Meir holds he is culpable and R. Judah that he is exempt. How much has one to put in order to be culpable? R. Meir says: Any quantity; R. Judah says: As much as that of the bulk of an olive. But did not R. Judah say that one is exempt? — R. Judah exempts only in the case of kings and priests, but in the case of laymen he declares one culpable. What is the ground of dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah? — Said R. Joseph: They dispute in this: R. Meir holds, It is written: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured; and it is also written: Or whosoever putteth of it upon a stranger: As the [prohibition of] anointing applies to any quantity, so also the [prohibition of] putting [upon a stranger]; while R. Judah holds, The [implication of] ‘putting upon a stranger’ is derived from ‘giving’ elsewhere: as ‘giving’ implies at least an olive size, so also the ‘putting upon a stranger at least an olive size; but with regard to the pouring for the anointing of kings and priests both agree that any quantity suffices. Then said R. Joseph: ‘Whereupon rests the dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah with reference to kings and priests? R. Meir holds: It is written: ‘Or whosoever putteth of it upon a stranger’, and king and priest are now to be regarded as strangers; while R. Judah maintains [to involve culpability] it is essential that one is a ‘stranger’ from beginning to end; but kings and priests were not considered [always] strangers. Said R. Ika the son of R. Ammi: They follow their own reasoning elsewhere; for we have learnt:45
—