כריתות 6:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵃnote:As the handfuls of the high priest on the Day of Atonement amounted approximately to half a maneh, the remnant each year was about two and a half manehs. During a period of between sixty and seventy years the remnants accumulated to half the yearly quantity. When this was reached only a supplementary half was newly manufactured.
^ᵇnote:This transgression applies only to quantities otherwise manufactured for the Temple.
^ᶜnote:The deputy high priest.
^ᵈnote:I.e., that two-thirds or three-quarters were allowed to be accumulated.
^ᵉnote:Viz., one maneh. A stranger is accordingly guilty for the manufacture of one maneh.
^ᶠnote:Or even less, as is proved from the text. In cur. edd. oil of anointing stands in place of frankincense, but in supra 5a whence this quotation is taken, frankincense is the version.
^ᵍnote:Ex. XXX, 37.
^ʰnote:To induce fragrance.
^ⁱnote:The superintendent calls to him who pounds the incense.
^ʲnote:Yoma 45a.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XVI, 12 referring to the handfuls on the Day of Atonement.
^ˡnote:Ex. XXX, 36.
^ᵐnote:I.e., speaking while it is being prepared.
^ⁿnote:Only four are mentioned in Ex. XXX, 34.
^ᵒnote:Had it not been explicitly mentioned, I would not have included it.
^ᵖnote:If the purpose of the numeration of the items is for the sake of expounding the verse by the principle of generalisation and specification etc. and not to indicate the precise number.
^ᵠnote:Which would have served as a generalisation without the addition of ‘spices’.
^ʳnote:And not five.
^ˢnote:R. Ishmael's School resorts both to the principle of generalisation etc. and to the exposition of R. Huna, the former teaching that it must be of a kind whose smoke ascends and fragrance spreads, and the latter indicating the number.
^ᵗnote:This last question and the answer are obscure, and will be explained immediately.
^ᵘnote:This then is the meaning: perhaps the second generalisation (sweet spices) has the same connotation as the first and implies no more than ‘two’; whence then is the number eleven derived?
^ᵛnote:And thus the question is, perhaps the last specification is to be taken in conjunction with the first and the others that precede the second generalisation?
^ʷnote:I.e.,among the specifications enclosed by the two generalisations, ‘sweet spices’.
^ˣnote:For the latter expression ‘sweet spices’ doubles the number of spices enumerated before, which in this case would be six.
^ʸnote:The root rye means ‘to rise in circles’.
^ᶻnote:The sinners should not be excluded as unworthy of joining their fellow-Jews in prayer.
^ᵃᵃnote:Amos IX, 6. The root sdt of u,sudtu ‘his vault’ means to bind together. Only when all his creatures are bound together is this creation on earth founded.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXX, 32.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ezek. XXXIV, 31. The passage continues: And I am your God, saith the Lord God. It is thus clear that the term ost in this sentence does not denote ‘man’ but Israelite. The term adam is used to denote man made in the image of God (v. Gen. IX, 6, for in the image of God He made adam) and heathens by their idolatry and idolatrous conduct mar this divine image and forfeit the designation adam (v. B.M. Sonc. ed. p. 651, n. 7). There is therefore a possibility that also oil used in Ex. XXX, 32 is to be understood in this restrictive sense, particularly as the distinction between holy and profane made in the text (it reads there, ‘it is holy and it shall be holy unto you’) is meaningful only to one who believes in the ideal of the holy.
^ᵃᵈnote:Num. XXXI, 40 referring to the heathen Midianites.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. the context.
^ᵃᶠnote:Jonah IV, 11.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. the end of the passage.
^ᵃʰnote:The prohibition of using sacred oil for profane purposes is thus binding for the Israelites only.
^ᵃⁱnote:After they had been anointed. Rashi reads, high priests.
^ᵃʲnote:Ex. XXX, 32.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. v. 33. Lit., ‘whosoever giveth’. The analogy later between putting and giving is based upon this literal translation.
^ᵃˡnote:Since there the term ‘anointing’ implies any quantity however small.
^ᵃᵐnote:Although elsewhere ‘putting’ (lit., ‘giving’) implies at least the bulk of an olive.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Pes. 32b where this fact is derived from Lev. XXII, 14.
^ᵃᵒnote:Viz., when unlawfully anointed.
^ᵃᵖnote:For anointing after their first anointment is no longer prescribed for them.
^ᵃᵠnote:For there was a time when they were required to be anointed, and were not strangers.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., R. Meir and R. Judah.
^ᵃˢnote:Ter. VII, 2.