## Keritot Daf 5a

###### Keritot 5a:1
[Keritot 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:1)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תוּכַל״, לְאוֹקֹמַהּ בְּלָאו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
reason that **the Merciful One writes: “You may not eat”** (Deuteronomy 12:17), **to establish** the consumption of second-tithe produce outside Jerusalem **as a prohibition.**


###### Keritot 5a:2
[Keritot 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:2)

וַעֲדַיִין, לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת הוּא! אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא: ״לֹא תוּכַל לְאׇכְלָם בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ״ לְמָה לִּי? לְיַחוֹדֵי אֲכִילָה דְּכׇל חַד וְחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But still, it is a general prohibition,** as all three types of second tithe are included in a single command. The Gemara explains: **If so,** that one receives only one set of lashes, **let** the verse **say: You may not eat them within your gates,** as a previous verse already stated “your tithes” (Deuteronomy 12:11). **Why do I** need the verse to specify: **“The tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil”?** This serves **to designate** a prohibition and the punishment of lashes for the **consumption of each and every** type of produce.


###### Keritot 5a:3
[Keritot 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הָאוֹכֵל לֶחֶם, קָלִי, וְכַרְמֶל – לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ. וְהָא אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּמְיַיתַּר קְרָאֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who eats bread, parched grain, and fresh stalks** before the *omer* offering has been sacrificed **is flogged** with **three** sets of lashes, as it states: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks until this day itself, until you have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:14). The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But one is not flogged for** transgressing **a general prohibition.** The Gemara answers: **It is different here, as the verses are superfluous;** the verse did not need to specify these three types of grain products.


###### Keritot 5a:4
[Keritot 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:4)

לֵימָא קְרָא לֶחֶם, וְנֵילַף קָלִי וְכַרְמֶל מִינֵּיהּ. אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְלֶחֶם, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל חַלָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara tries to ascertain which terms are superfluous. **Let** the verse **say “bread,” and we will derive** the *halakha* of **parched grain and fresh stalks from** that of bread. The Gemara questions this suggestion: This derivation **can be refuted: What** is unique **about bread?** It is unique **in that it** has **an increased** obligation **with regard to *ḥalla*,** which is separated only from the dough of bread, not from parched grain and fresh stalks not made into dough.


###### Keritot 5a:5
[Keritot 5a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:5)

נִכְתּוֹב קָלִי וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב לֶחֶם, וְנֵילַף מִקָּלִי. לֶחֶם מִקָּלִי לָא אָתֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָלֵי אִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, לֶחֶם לָא אִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ. כַּרְמֶל מִקָּלִי לָא אָתֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָלִי נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל מְנָחוֹת, כַּרְמֶל לֹא נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל מְנָחוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Let** the verse **write** only **“parched grain,” and let it not write bread** or fresh stalks, **and we will derive** the *halakha* of bread and fresh stalks **from** that of **parched grain.** The Gemara responds: The *halakha* of **bread cannot be derived from** that of **parched grain due to** the fact **that parched grain is in its unadulterated form,** whereas **bread is not in its unadulterated form,** i.e., it has been fully processed, and therefore it can be maintained that only produce that has not been changed is prohibited before the *omer*. Likewise, the *halakha* of **fresh stalks cannot be derived from** that of **parched grain due to** the fact **that parched grain** has **an increased** obligation **with regard to meal offerings,** as the *omer* meal offering is of parched grain, whereas **fresh stalks do not** have **an increased** obligation **with regard to meal offerings.**


###### Keritot 5a:6
[Keritot 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:6)

נִכְתּוֹב כַּרְמֶל וְנֵילַף לֶחֶם וְקָלִי מִינֵּיהּ. אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְכַרְמֶל שֶׁכֵּן לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִבְּרִיָּיתוֹ! מִן חַד לָא יָלְפִי, נֵילַף חֲדָא מִן תְּרֵין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Let** the verse **write** only **“fresh stalks,” and we will derive** the *halakha* of **bread and parched grain from** that of fresh stalks. The Gemara responds: This derivation **can be refuted: What** is unique **about fresh stalks?** They are unique **in that they have not changed from their original state** at all. The Gemara states: Clearly, the *halakha* of two of these types **cannot be derived from** the *halakha* of any **one** of the others. But **let us derive** the *halakha* of **one** of them **from** the *halakha* of the other **two.**


###### Keritot 5a:7
[Keritot 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:7)

לָא נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא לֶחֶם וְנֵילַף מִקָּלִי וְכַרְמֶל – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל דְּאִיתַנְהוֹן בְּעֵינֵיהוֹן! לָא נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא כַּרְמֶל וְנֵילַף מִלֶּחֶם וְקָלִי – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל מְנָחוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Let the verse not write bread, and let us derive** its *halakha* **from** that of **parched grain and fresh stalks.** The Gemara responds: This derivation **can be refuted: What** is unique **about parched grain and fresh stalks?** They are unique in **that** relative to bread, which has been fully processed, **they are in their unadulterated form.** The Gemara suggests: **Let the verse not write fresh stalks, and let us derive** its *halakha* **from** the *halakha* of **bread and parched grain.** The Gemara responds: This derivation **can be refuted: What** is unique **about bread and parched grain?** They are unique **in that they** have **an increased** obligation **with regard to meal offerings.**


###### Keritot 5a:8
[Keritot 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:8)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לָא נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא קָלִי, וְנֵילַף מִלֶּחֶם וְכַרְמֶל. מַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? אִי פָּרְכַתְּ: מָה לְלֶחֶם, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל חַלָּה – כַּרְמֶל יוֹכִיחַ! וְאִי מִשּׁוּם דְּכַרְמֶל לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִבְּרִיָּיתוֹ – לֶחֶם יוֹכִיחַ! הִלְכָּךְ לוֹקֶה, דִּמְיַיתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rabbi Yitzḥak** could **say to you: Let the verse not write parched grain, and let us derive** its *halakha* **from** the *halakha* of **bread and fresh stalks. What** would you say to **refute** this? **If you refute** it by saying: **What** is unique **about bread?** It is unique **in that it** has **an increased** obligation **with regard to *ḥalla*,** the example of **fresh stalks will prove** that this is not a decisive factor, as the obligation of *ḥalla* does not apply to it and yet it is prohibited before the *omer*. **And if** you would refute the derivation **due to** the fact that **fresh stalks** differ from parched grain, as they have **not changed from** their **original state,** the case of **bread will prove** that this is not the key factor, as it has changed from its original state and yet it is prohibited. **Therefore,** one **is flogged** for each type, **as** the verse **is superfluous.**


###### Keritot 5a:9
[Keritot 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:9)

וְאֵימָא: קָלִי דִּמְיַיתַּר מִחַיַּיב חֲדָא, אַכּוּלְּהוֹן מִחַיַּיב חֲדָא! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״לֶחֶם כַּרְמֶל וְקָלִי״, אִי נָמֵי נִכְתּוֹב: ״קָלִי וְלֶחֶם וְכַרְמֶל״, אַמַּאי כְּתַב לְקָלִי בָּאֶמְצַע? הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֶחֶם בְּקָלִי נִחַיַּיב וְכַרְמֶל נִחַיַּיב בְּקָלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** why not **say** that for the consumption of **parched grain, whose** mention **is superfluous,** one **is** separately **liable** to receive **one** set of lashes, whereas **for** eating **all** the rest **of them,** i.e., bread and fresh stalks, one **is liable** to be flogged with only **one** set of lashes, as they are prohibited by a general prohibition? The Gemara explains: **If so,** and the *halakha* of parched grain is unique, **let the verse write: Bread, fresh stalks, and parched grain; alternatively, let it write: Parched grain, bread, and fresh stalks. Why does it write** the example **of parched grain in between** the others? **This** is what the verse **is saying:** One who eats **bread is liable to** receive the punishment given for eating **parched grain, and** likewise one who eats **fresh stalks is liable to** receive the punishment given for eating **parched grain.**


###### Keritot 5a:10
[Keritot 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּיגּוּל אֶחָד מִגּוּפֵי תוֹרָה, וְלֹא לִימְּדוֹ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as** the fact that one is punished with *karet* for consuming meat of **an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [*piggul*]** is **one of the fundamental** principles **of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.**


###### Keritot 5a:11
[Keritot 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:11)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, תָּנֵי זַבְדָּא בַּר לֵוִי: נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וְאוֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא״, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא״, מָה לְהַלָּן כָּרֵת – אַף כָּאן כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this is **as Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **Zavda bar Levi teaches: It is stated there,** with regard to meat of an offering left over after the appointed time for its consumption [*notar*]: **“But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 19:8), **and it is stated here,** with regard to intent to consume an offering after its appointed time: **“And the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 7:18). **Just as there** the punishment for eating *notar* is ***karet*, so too here,** the punishment for eating *piggul* is ***karet*.**


###### Keritot 5a:12
[Keritot 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי סִימַאי: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹתָר אֶחָד מִגּוּפֵי תוֹרָה, וְלֹא לִימְּדוֹ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Simai says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as** the fact that one is punished with *karet* for consuming ***notar*,** from which it is derived that one is punished with *karet* for partaking of *piggul*, is **one of the fundamental** principles **of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.**


###### Keritot 5a:13
[Keritot 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:13)

מַאי הִיא? יָלֵיף ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ – ״וְאוֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ ה׳ חִלֵּל״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׂרַפְתָּ אֶת הַנּוֹתָר בָּאֵשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** this verbal analogy? One **derives** by verbal analogy of the word **“sacred”** in Leviticus and the word **“sacred”** in Exodus that the verse: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,” is discussing *notar*. This verse states: **“But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord”** (Leviticus 19:8), **and it is written: “You shall burn the leftovers [*notar*] in fire;** they are not to be eaten, **for** they are **sacred”** (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse in Exodus is referring to *notar*, the same is true of the verse in Leviticus.


###### Keritot 5a:14
[Keritot 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה, וְלֹא לִימְּדָהּ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: A verbal analogy should never be lightly regarded in your eyes, as** the fact that one is punished with *karet* for engaging in intercourse with **one’s daughter** born **from the woman he raped is** one of **the fundamental** principles **of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.**


###### Keritot 5a:15
[Keritot 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:15)

דְּאָמַר רָבָא, אֲמַר לִי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״ לְאִיסּוּרָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye elaborates: This is **as Rava says: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me** that this *halakha* is **derived** by a verbal analogy between the unusual form **“they [*henna*]”** and **“they [*henna*],”** written **with regard to the prohibition** against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter born from the woman he raped. As it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: They [*henna*] are near kinswomen” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is stated: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter; for they [*henna*] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This latter verse is interpreted as referring to one’s granddaughter from the woman he raped (see *Yevamot* 97a). The verbal analogy teaches that although one’s daughter from the woman he raped is not mentioned in the verse, she too is included with one’s granddaughter, just as a daughter and a granddaughter are equated in Leviticus 18:17.


###### Keritot 5a:16
[Keritot 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:16)

אָתְיָא ״זִמָּה״ ״זִמָּה״ לִשְׂרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression of intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped is **derived** from a verbal analogy between: “It is **lewdness”** (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same term **“lewdness”** that appears elsewhere, which teaches that the transgressor is liable **to** be put to death by **burning.** As it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14). This teaches that death by burning is the punishment for engaging in intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, and the same applies to intercourse with one’s daughter from the woman he raped, due to the verbal analogy of *henna* and *henna* linking the two cases.


###### Keritot 5a:17
[Keritot 5a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:17)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי נִסְקָלִים הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה, וְלֹא לִימְּדָהּ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: A verbal analogy should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, as** the list of **those who are** liable to be put to death by **stoning is one** of **the fundamental** principles **of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a verbal analogy.**


###### Keritot 5a:18
[Keritot 5a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:18)

דְּתַנְיָא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״ וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי: ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״. מָה לְהַלָּן – בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן – בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **it is stated here,** with regard to engaging in intercourse with specific relatives: **“Their blood shall be upon them”** (Leviticus 20:11–16), **and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them”** (Leviticus 20:27). **Just as there,** the verse specifies that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed **by stoning, so too here,** with regard to one who engages in intercourse with those relatives, they are executed **by stoning.**


###### Keritot 5a:19
[Keritot 5a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:19)

הַמְּפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְּפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן לִלְמוֹד בּוֹ, לְמוֹסְרוֹ לַצִּיבּוּר – פָּטוּר, לָסוּךְ – חַיָּיב. וְהַסָּךְ מִמֶּנּוּ – פָּטוּר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל סִיכַת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna’s list of prohibitions for whose unwitting violation one must bring a sin offering includes **one who blends the** anointing **oil** according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33). **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who blends the** anointing **oil to learn** how **it** was prepared or **to transfer it to the community** for them to use in the Temple is **exempt.** But if he blends the anointing oil in order **to apply** it to his body he is **liable. And one who applies** to his body the oil prepared by another is **exempt, because he is liable for applying** the oil to his body **only** if he uses **the anointing oil that was prepared by Moses alone,** in accordance with the verse: “Or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger” (Exodus 30:33), which is referring to that specific oil.


###### Keritot 5a:20
[Keritot 5a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:20)

אָמַר מָר: לִלְמוֹד בּוֹ עַל מְנָת לְמוֹסְרוֹ לַצִּיבּוּר – פָּטוּר. מְנָלַן? אַתְיָא ״מַתְכֻּנְתּוֹ״ מִן ״בְּמַתְכּוּנְתָּהּ״ דִּקְטֹרֶת, וּכְתִיב לְגַבֵּי קְטֹרֶת: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם״ – לָכֶם הוּא דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל לְמוֹסְרוֹ לַצִּיבּוּר – פָּטוּר, גַּבֵּי שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי, לְמוֹסְרוֹ לַצִּיבּוּר – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** earlier: One who blends the anointing oil **to learn** how **it** was prepared or **in order to transfer it to the community** for them to use in the Temple is **exempt.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? The Gemara answers: This is **derived** via a verbal analogy **from** the term: **“Its composition”** (Exodus 30:32), written with regard to the oil and the term: **“According to its composition”** (Exodus 30:37), written **with regard to** the **incense. And it is written with regard to** the **incense** in that verse: “You shall not prepare for yourselves,” from which it is inferred that **it is** incense prepared **for yourselves that is prohibited, but** if one prepares it **to transfer it to the community** he is **exempt. With regard to** the anointing **oil as well,** one who blends it **to transfer it to the community** is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 5a:21
[Keritot 5a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:21)

וְתִיהְדַּר קְטֹרֶת וְנֵילַף מִשֶּׁמֶן: מָה שֶׁמֶן כִּי מְפַטֵּם לַחֲצָיִין – פָּטוּר, אַף קְטֹרֶת נָמֵי כִּי מְפַטֵּם לַחֲצָיִין – פָּטוּר! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רָבָא: קְטֹרֶת שֶׁפִּטְּמָהּ לַחֲצָיִין – חַיָּיב, שֶׁמֶן שֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ לַחֲצָיִין – פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** in light of this verbal analogy, **let** the case of **incense return and let us derive** it **from** that of the anointing **oil: Just as** with regard to the anointing oil, **when one blends** it **in halves,** i.e., not all the specified amount at once, he is **exempt, so too,** with regard to the **incense, when one blends** it **in halves** he should be **exempt. Why,** then, does **Rava say:** In the case of **incense that one blended in halves,** he is **liable,** whereas with regard to anointing **oil that one blended in halves,** he is **exempt?**


###### Keritot 5a:22
[Keritot 5a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:22)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: גַּבֵּי שֶׁמֶן כְּתִיב ״וּבְמַתְכֻּנְתּוֹ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כָּמוֹהוּ״ – כָּמוֹהוּ הוּא דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל חֶצְיוֹ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. גַּבֵּי קְטֹרֶת דִּכְתִיב ״וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – כֹּל עֲשִׂיָּיה דִקְטֹרֶת אֶפְשָׁר דְּמַקְטֵיר פְּרָס שַׁחֲרִית וּפְרָס בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rava** could **say to you: With regard to** the anointing **oil it is written: “Neither shall you prepare any like it according to its composition”** (Exodus 30:32), which indicates that **it is** oil prepared precisely **like it that is prohibited, but** with regard to preparing **half of it,** one may **well** do so. By contrast, **with regard to incense, as it is written: “And the incense that you shall prepare,** according to its composition you shall not prepare for yourselves” (Exodus 30:37), which teaches that **any** act of **preparing of** this **incense** is prohibited, as it is **possible to burn a portion,** half of the *maneh* that must be prepared, **in the morning, and a portion in the afternoon.**


###### Keritot 5a:23
[Keritot 5a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:23)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה מׇר דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, קִדָּה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, קִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, נִמְצְאוּ כּוּלָּם אֶלֶף וְשִׁבְעָה מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **The anointing oil** contains **pure myrrh** weighing **500** shekels, **cassia** of **500** shekels, **aromatic cinnamon** of **500** shekels, **and aromatic calamus** of **250** shekels. **It is found** that **all of them** together amount to **1,750** shekels.


###### Keritot 5a:24
[Keritot 5a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:24)

תְּנָא מִנְיָינָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנָא הָא קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ, אֵימָא: קְנֵה בֹשֶׂם כְּקִנְּמׇן בֶּשֶׂם, מָה קִנְּמׇן בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם – אַף קְנֵה בֹשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ תְּרֵין אֲלָפִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the *baraita*: **Does the *tanna*** come to **teach us the tally?** Why is it necessary for the *baraita* to state the sum of the amounts? The Gemara answers that **this is difficult for the *tanna*:** Since the verse states: “And of aromatic cinnamon half so much, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic calamus two hundred and fifty” (Exodus 30:23), one might **say** that the weight of **aromatic calamus** is **like** that of **aromatic cinnamon: Just as half of** the amount of **aromatic cinnamon** is **two hundred and fifty, so too,** the verse means that **half of** the amount of **aromatic calamus** is **two hundred and fifty, which** would mean that the sum total **is two thousand.**


###### Keritot 5a:25
[Keritot 5a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:25)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״קִנְּמׇן בֶּשֶׂם וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם מֶחֱצָה וּמֶחֱצָה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that it is **indeed** so, that the total weight of calamus is five hundred? The Gemara answers: **If so, let the verse write: And of aromatic cinnamon and of aromatic calamus half so much and half so much, two hundred and fifty.** The fact that the verse employs the term “half so much” only with regard to cinnamon indicates that their weights were different.


###### Keritot 5a:26
[Keritot 5a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:26)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹקֵל, בְּהֶכְרֵעַ הוּא שׁוֹקֵל, אוֹ עַיִן בְּעַיִן הוּא שׁוֹקֵל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַחֲמָנָא כְּתַב: ״בַּד בְּבַד״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ בְּהֶכְרֵעַ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹדֵעַ הַכְרָעוֹת, אַלְמָא דְּאִית בְּהוּ הֶכְרֵעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: When one weighs** these substances, **does he weigh** the ingredients **with** a slight **surplus,** so that they tip the scales, or **does he weigh** the ingredients **with precision?** Abaye **said to him** that **the Merciful One writes: “Of each there shall be a like weight”** (Exodus 30:34), which indicates a precise measure, **and you say** it is possible that one weighs the ingredients **with a surplus?** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows** the amount of **surpluses** that should be added. **Evidently, there is a surplus** involved **in these** measures.


###### Keritot 5a:27
[Keritot 5a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:27)

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: דְּקִנְּמׇן בֶּשֶׂם אַמַּאי מַיְיתֵי מַחֲצִיתוֹ דַּחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם בְּחַד זִימְנָא וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם בְּחַד זִימְנָא? כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלְּהוֹן חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת הָוַיִין, נַיְיתֵי חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִדְּקָמַיְיתֵי לַהּ לְקִנְּמׇן בֶּשֶׂם בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי, הֶכְרֵעַ אִית בֵּיהּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּהֶכְרֵעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one certainly weighs with a surplus, and this is what **Rav Yehuda says: With regard to aromatic cinnamon, why does one bring half of its** total **of five hundred,** i.e., **two hundred and fifty at one time, and two hundred and fifty at one time? Since its entire** amount **is five hundred, let him bring five hundred all at once. Conclude from** the fact **that one brings aromatic cinnamon at two** separate **times** that **there is a surplus** involved **in this** measure, i.e., one must add a little each time he weighs the cinnamon, **and the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows** the amount **of surpluses.**


###### Keritot 5a:28
[Keritot 5a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:28)

וּמַאי ״בַּד בְּבַד״? אָמַר רָבִינָא: שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ מִשְׁקָל בְּמִשְׁקָל וְיִשְׁקוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion, **what** is the meaning of the phrase: **“Of each there shall be a like weight”? Ravina said:** It means **that one should not place a weight** of one ingredient **against** the **weight** of another ingredient **and weigh** in this manner. In other words, after weighing one of the ingredients one may not weigh another ingredient against that one; rather, each ingredient must be weighed independently against the scales.


###### Keritot 5a:29
[Keritot 5a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:29)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בְמִדְבַּר – מְשַׁלְּקוֹ הָעִיקָּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא לָסוּךְ הָעִיקָּרִין אֵינוֹ סִיפֵּק! כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה? הֵבִיאוּ הָעִיקָּרִין וּשְׁלָקוּם בְּמַיִם, וְהֵצִיף עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְקָלַט אֶת הָרֵיחַ, וְקִיפְּחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: How did they prepare **the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness?** They would **cook the roots** of the spices **in it;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But** that amount of oil **is not sufficient** even **to apply** to **the roots,** as they would absorb the oil; how, then, could the roots be cooked in it? Instead, **how** did they **act? They brought the roots and boiled them in water** and the fragrant substance would rise to the top, **and one poured the anointing oil on** the water, **and** the oil would **absorb the fragrance** and retain it, **and** later he **removed** the oil **[*vekipeḥo*]** from off the top and place it in its flask. This is how the anointing oil was prepared.


###### Keritot 5a:30
[Keritot 5a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/5a:30)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said to** Rabbi Yosei: