| 6a. בבואה לבבואה דבבואה נידע דאתי לביתיה ולאו מילתא היא דילמא חלשא דעתיה ומתרע מזליה,אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא יהא רגיל איניש למיכל ריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי סילקא ותמרי,א"ל רב משרשיא לבניה כי בעיתו למיזל למגמר קמיה רבכון גרוסו מעיקרא מתני' והדר עולו קמי רבכון וכי יתביתו קמי רבכון חזו לפומיה דרבכון שנאמר (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך וכי גריסיתו שמעתא גרוסו על מיא דכי היכי דמשכי מיא תמשוך שמעתכון,אקילקי דמתא מחסיא ולא אפדני דפומבדיתא טב גילדנא סריא למיכל מכותחא דרמי כיפי,(שמואל א ב, א) 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:,המפטם את הקטרת: ת"ר המפטם את הקטרת ללמד בה או למוסרה לציבור פטור להריח בה חייב והמריח בה פטור אלא שמעל,ומי איכא מעילה והאמר ר"ש בן פזי א"ר יהושע ב"ל משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה,ריח אחר שתעלה תמרתו אין בו משום מעילה [שהרי] אין לך דבר אחר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו,אלמה לא והרי תרומת הדשן דנעשית מצותה ומועלין בה,משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדים,הניחא לרבנן אלא לר' דוסא מאי איכא למימר דתניא (ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה,רבי דוסא אומר כשירין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן ביום הכפורים אחר,משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין תרומת הדשן מאי היא דתניא (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח מלמד שטעונין גניזה עגלה ערופה מאי היא דתניא (דברים כא, ד) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מלמד שטעונין גניזה,ולמ"ד 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,ת"ר פיטום הקטרת הצרי והציפורן והחלבנה והלבונה משקל שבעי' 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 ר' נתן אומר אף כיפת הירדן כל שהוא,ואם נתן בה דבש פסלה חיסר אחת מכל סממניה חייב מיתה רש"א הצרי אינו אלא שרף [הנוטף] 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,מסייע ליה לר' יוסי בר"ח דאמר (שמות ל, לב) קדש היא קדש תהיה לכם כל מעשיה לא יהו אלא בקדש,מיתיבי המקדיש נכסיו והיו בה דברים הראויין לקרבנות הציבור ינתנו לאומנין בשכרן,הני דברים הראויין מאי נינהו אי בהמה וחיה תנא ליה אי יינות שמנים וסלתות תנא ליה אלא לאו קטרת,א"ר 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,מתקיף לה רב יוסף הא בכולהו מותרות תני חוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה והכא לא תני,אלא אמר רב יוסף באחד מסממני הקטרת,ת"ר קטרת היתה נעשית שס"ח מנה שס"ה כנגד ימות החמה שלשה מנין יתירין שמהן מכניס כהן גדול מלא חפניו ביום הכיפורים והשאר ניתנת לאומנין בשכרן,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 | 6a. bthe reflection [ ibavua /i] of a reflection ofhis breflection he shall know that he willreturn and bcome to his home.The Sages say about this: bAnd this is nothing,i.e., one should not practice these divinations, as bperhaps he will become despondentif he does not see the positive sign band his fortune will turn bad,and this itself will result in his failure., bAbaye said: Now that you have saidthat ba sign isa substantial bmatter, 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.,With regard to positive omens, bRav Mesharshiyya said to his sons: When you want to go to study in the presence of your teacher, initially study the imishnayotand 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). bAnd when you learn a ihalakha /i, learn neara source of flowing bwater, as just as the waterflow bcontinues,so too, byour learning should continue. /b,Rav Mesharshiyya gave his sons additional advice: It is better for you to dwell bon the garbage piles [ iakilkei /i] ofthe city bMata Meḥasya and notto dwell bin the palaces [ iapadnei /i] ofthe city bPumbedita.It is bbetter to eat rotten fish [ igildana /i] thanhigh-quality ikutḥa /i, whichuproots and btosses rocksfrom their places, i.e., it is a very spicy, powerful flavoring.,The Gemara further discusses the issue of anointing and good omens. Hannah said in her prayer after her son Samuel was born: b“And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in the Lord, my horn is exaltedin the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara notes that Hannah said: b“My horn is exalted,” andshe did bnotsay: bMy jug is exalted.With regard to bDavid and Solomon, who were anointed withoil from ba horn,this was a good omen for them, and btheir kingships lasted.But with regard to bSaul and Jehu, who were anointedwith oil bfrom a jug, their kingships did not last. /b,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive ikaret /i: bOne who blends the incenseaccording to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service, for purposes other than use in the Temple. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who blends the incensein order bto teachhimself how to prepare bit orin order bto transfer it to the community is exemptfrom liability. But if he prepares it in order bto smell ithe is bliableto receive ikaret /i, as it is stated: “He who prepares it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:38). bAnd one whoactually bsmellsthe incense mixture is bexemptfrom the punishment of ikaretand from bringing a sin offering; bbut he has misusedconsecrated property, and is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering if he acted unwittingly.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is therethe prohibition of bmisuseof consecrated property with regard to smell? bBut doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi saythat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara:With regard to exposure to the bsound, orto the bsight, orto the bsmellof consecrated items, including incense, these bare not subject tothe prohibition of bmisuseof consecrated property?,The Gemara answers: With regard to exposure to the bsmellof 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 bafterthe flame catches and bthe column of smoke rises is not subject tothe prohibition of bmisuseof consecrated property. The reason is that its mitzva has already been performed, and byou have nocase in which an bitemis at the stage bafter its mitzva hasalready bbeen performed andyet one is liable for bits misuse. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd why notsay that misuse of consecrated property applies to an item whose mitzva has been already performed? bBut there isthe case of bthedaily bremoval of the ashesof the offerings from the altar, bwhose mitzva has been performed,as the offerings have been burnt, bandyet one who uses the ashes is liable for bmisusingthe 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).,The Gemara answers: This case does not disprove the principle, bsince the ihalakhotof bthe removal of the ashes and the priestly vestmentsof white linen worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are btwo verses that come as one,i.e., to teach the same matter, bandthere is a principle that bany two verses that come as one do not teachtheir common aspect to apply to other cases. In other words, if a ihalakhais stated twice with regard to two separate cases, this ihalakhaapplies only to those cases. Had the Torah wanted to teach that this ihalakhaapplies 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.,The Gemara comments: The fact that the Torah mentions this ihalakhatwice bworks out well according tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who maintain that the priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur require interment. bBut according tothe opinion of bRabbi Dosa, what can be said? As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: 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, band he shall leave them there”(Leviticus 16:23). This phrase bteaches thathis vestments brequire 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., bRabbi Dosa says:These priestly vestments may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, bbut they are fit foruse by ban ordinary priest,as they are similar to those worn by ordinary priests on a daily basis. Rabbi Dosa adds: bAnd whatis the meaning when bthe verse states: “And he shall leave them there”?This teaches bthatthe High Priest bmay 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.,The Gemara answers: One cannot derive a general principle from this case, bbecause the removal of the ashes andthe ihalakhaof bthe heifer whose neck is broken,from which one may not derive benefit after that rite has been performed, are btwo verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teachtheir common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara elaborates: bWhat isthe case of bthe removal of the ashes? As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And he shall put them beside the altar”(Leviticus 6:3). This bteaches that they require interment. What isthe case of bthe heifer whose neck is broken? As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And they shall break the heifer’s neck in the valley”(Deuteronomy 21:4). This bteaches thatsuch heifers brequire interment. /b,The Gemara adds: bAndeven baccording to the one who saysthat btwo verses that come as onedo bteachtheir common aspect to apply to other cases, bhere they certainly do not teachthat misuse of consecrated property applies to items whose mitzva has been performed. This is bdue tothe fact that bthere are twoterms indicating bexclusionswith regard to these ihalakhot /i, limiting this ihalakhato those cases. bWith regard to the removal of the ashes it is written: “And he shall put it.”The word “it” teaches that in bthisparticular case, byes,there is misuse of consecrated property, but with regard to any bother matterthis prohibition does bnotapply. bWith regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: “Theheifer bthat had its neck broken”(Deuteronomy 21:6). The word “the” indicates that with regard to the heifer that bhad its neck broken, yes,but with regard to any bother matterthe prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does bnotapply.,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: How is bthe blending of the incenseperformed? bBalm, and onycha, and galbanum, and frankincense, eachof these by ba weight of seventy imaneh /i,i.e., seventy units of one hundred dinars. bMyrrh, and cassia,and bspikenard, and saffron, eachof these by ba weight of sixteen imaneh /i. Costusby ba weight of twelve imaneh /i; bthree imanehof aromatic bbark; and nine imanehof bcinnamon. Kersannah lyeof the volume of bnine ikav /i; Cyprus wineof the volume of bthree ise’a /iand bthreemore ikav /i,a half- ise’a /i. bIf one does not have Cyprus wine he brings old white wine. Sodomite saltis brought by the volume of ba quarter-ikav /i. Lastly, ba minimalamount of bthe smoke raiser,a plant that causes the smoke of the incense to rise properly. bRabbi Natan says: Also a minimalamount bof Jordan amber. /b, bAnd if one placed honey inthe incense he has bdisqualified 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 bomitted any one of its spiceshe is bliableto receive bdeathat the hand of Heaven. bRabbi Shimon says: The balmmentioned here bis nothing other than a resinexuded bfrom the balsam tree,not the bark of the tree itself. The bKersannah lyementioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary bas one rubs the onycha in it so thatthe onycha bshould be pleasant.Likewise, the bCyprus wineis required bas one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good forthis purpose, bbut one does not bring urine into the Templebecause it is inappropriate.,The Gemara comments: This final ruling bsupportsthe opinion bof Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who sayswith regard to a verse that discusses the incense: bIt is sacred, it shall be sacred to you(see Exodus 30:36–37), that this teaches that ball of its actions should beperformed bonly in the sacredarea of the Temple.,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom a mishna ( iShekalim4:6): With regard to bone who consecratesall bhis possessionswithout specifying for what purpose, they are consecrated for Temple maintece. bAndif bamong them there were items suitable foruse as bcommunal offerings,which may not be used for the maintece of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintece so that they can be properly consecrated for sacrificial use? bThey are given toTemple bartisans as their wages,and they are thereby desacralized. They can then be consecrated again for their proper purpose.,The Gemara analyzes the mishna: bThese itemsthat are bsuitablefor use as communal offerings, bwhat are they? Ifthey are bdomesticated animals and undomesticated animals,the itanna btaughtthe ihalakhawith regard to bthemlater in that same mishna. Likewise, bifthey are bwines, oils, and flours,the itanna btaught themin that mishna as well. bRather,is it bnotreferring to bincenseconsecrated by a private individual? If so, this would mean that one can prepare and consecrate incense outside the Temple., bRabbi Oshaya said:The mishna is referring bto thatincense bwhich is given to theTemple bartisans 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. bAs it is taughtin a mishna ( iShekalim4:5): bThe leftover incensefrom one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. bWhat would they do with itin order to render it usable? The Temple treasurers bwould removean amount bof itequal to the value of bthe wages of the artisanswho worked in the Temple. bAnd theywould then bdesacralizethat incense by transferring its sanctity bto the moneyowed bthe artisans. Theywould then bgivethe incense bto the artisans as their wages. Andfinally, btheywould breturn and purchasethe incense from the artisans with funds bfrom the new collectionof shekels., bRav Yosef objects to thisexplanation: How can the mishna in iShekalim4:6 be interpreted as referring to artisans who consecrated leftover incense? bWith regard to all leftoversthe itanna bteaches: Theywould breturn and purchasethe incense from the artisans with funds bfrom the new collectionof shekels, as stated in the mishna earlier. bAndyet bhere,in tractate iShekalim /i, the itanna bdoes not teachthis clause, indicating that it is not speaking of incense paid to the artisans and repurchased from them., bRather, Rav Yosef says:The mishna is referring bto 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., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The bincense was preparedfrom ingredients amounting to the weight of b368 imaneh /i,i.e., 368 units of one hundred dinars. of these, b365of them bcorrespond to the days of the solar year.The badditional three imaneh /iare those bfrom which the High Priest would bring into the Sanctuary bhis handfulrequired bon Yom Kippur(see Leviticus 16:12), band the rest,i.e., the incense that was not used over the course of the year, bwas given to the artisans as their wages. /b,This is bas it is taughtin the aforementioned mishna ( iShekalim4:5): With regard to bthe leftover incense, what would they do with it?The Temple treasurers would bremovean amount bof itequal to the value of bthe wages of the artisanswho worked in the Temple. bAnd theywould then bdesacralizethat incense by transferring its sanctity bto the moneyowed to bthe artisans. Theywould then bgivethe incense bto the artisans as their wages. Andfinally, bthey would return and purchasethe incense from the artisans with funds bfrom the collection of theTemple treasury bchamber. /b |
