## Keritot Daf 6b

###### Keritot 6b:1
[Keritot 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:1)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת, אַחַת לְשִׁשִּׁים אוֹ לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, הָיוּ מְפַטְּמִין אוֹתָהּ לַחֲצָאִין. לְפִיכָךְ יָחִיד שֶׁפִּיטֵּם לַחֲצָאִין – חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם הַסְּגָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Keritot 6b:2
[Keritot 6b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:2)

אֲבָל שְׁלִישׁ וּרְבִיעַ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל יוֹם מְתַקֵּן בְּמַתְכּוּנְתָּהּ, וְהָיָה מַכְנִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:3
[Keritot 6b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:3)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ לַחֲצָאִין – חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – כֹּל שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה, וְהָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבְדַהּ פְּרָס בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּפְרָס בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:4
[Keritot 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָהּ לְמַכְתֶּשֶׁת פַּעֲמַיִם בְּשָׁנָה, בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה פְּזוּרָה – שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְעַפֵּשׁ, בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים צְבוּרָה – כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּפוּג רֵיחָהּ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵק, אוֹמֵר: הָדֵק הֵיטֵב, הֵיטֵב הָדֵק, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

וְשָׁלֹשׁ מָנִין יְתֵירִין שֶׁמֵּהֶן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַכְנִיס מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, נוֹתֵן אוֹתָהּ לְמַכְתֶּשֶׁת בְּעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְשׁוֹחֲקָן יָפֶה יָפֶה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא דַּקָּה מִן הַדַּקָּה, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״דַּקָּה״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַקְתָּ מִמֶּנּוּ הָדֵק״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״דַּקָּה״? כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא דַּקָּה מִן הַדַּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

אָמַר מָר: כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵק, אוֹמֵר ״הֵיטֵב הָדֵק, הָדֵק הֵיטֵב״: מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַדִּיבּוּר רַע לַיַּיִן – כֵּן הַדִּיבּוּר יָפֶה לַבְּשָׂמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Keritot 6b:7
[Keritot 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַחַד עָשָׂר סַמְמָנִין נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״קַח לְךָ סַמִּים״ – תְּרֵי, ״נָטָף וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה״ – הָא חַמְשָׁה, וְ״סַמִּים״ אַחֲרִינֵי – חַמְשָׁה, הָא עַשְׂרָה, ״וּלְבוֹנָה זַכָּה״ – חַד, הָא חַד סְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Keritot 6b:8
[Keritot 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:8)

וְאֵימָא ״סַמִּים״ – כָּלַל, ״נָטָף וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה״ – פָּרַט, ״סַמִּים״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁקִּיטֵּר וְעוֹלֶה וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁקִּיטֵּר וְעוֹלֶה וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:9
[Keritot 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:9)

וְכִי תֵימָא, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא חַד פְּרָטָא! לָאיֵי, מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב ״נָטָף״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִין אִילָן – אִין, אֲבָל גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע – לָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי כְּתַב: ״וּשְׁחֵלֶת״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״וּשְׁחֵלֶת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע – אִין, אֲבָל מִין אִילָן – אֵימָא לָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי כְּתַב: ״נָטָף״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.”**


###### Keritot 6b:10
[Keritot 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:10)

וְחֶלְבְּנָה לְגוּפֵיהּ אֲתָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרֵיחָהּ רַע! אִם כֵּן, מִ״קַּח לְךָ״ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”**


###### Keritot 6b:11
[Keritot 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:11)

וְאֵימָא: ״סַמִּים״ בָּתְרָאֵי תְּרֵין נִינְהוּ, כְּ״סַמִּים״ קַדְמָאֵי! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב ״סַמִּים״ ״סַמִּים״ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְסוֹף נִכְתּוֹב ״נָטָף וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:12
[Keritot 6b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:12)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנֵי: ״סַמִּים״ – כָּלַל, ״נָטָף שְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה״ – פָּרַט, ״סַמִּים״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁקִּיטֵּר וְעוֹלֶה וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁקִּיטֵּר וְעוֹלֶה וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Keritot 6b:13
[Keritot 6b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:13)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּלָל בִּכְלָל רִאשׁוֹן, וּפְרָט בִּפְרָט רִאשׁוֹן? אָמְרַתְּ לָאו. הָא אֵין לְךָ עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא בְּלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:14
[Keritot 6b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:14)

אָמַר מָר: אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּלָל בִּכְלָל רִאשׁוֹן, וּפְרָט בִּפְרָט רִאשׁוֹן? אָמְרַתְּ לָאו, הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן. מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: ״סַמִּים״ בָּתְרָאֵי תְּרֵי, כִּי סַמִּים קַדְמָאֵי תְּרֵין! הֲדַר וְשַׁנִּי כִּדְשַׁנִּין, דְּאִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״סַמִּים סַמִּים נָטָף וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:15
[Keritot 6b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:15)

וּמַאי. ״פְּרָט בִּפְרָט רִאשׁוֹן״? הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מִינֵי אִילָנוֹת יָלְפִי מִן נָטָף, וְגִידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע יָלְפִי מִשְּׁחֵלֶת, וְלֵילְפִי נָמֵי מִלְּבוֹנָה זַכָּה, דְּאַיְיתֵי בְּחַד צַד, דְּנֵיתֵי דָּבָר שֶׁרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קוֹטֵר וְעוֹלֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:16
[Keritot 6b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:16)

הֲדַר אָמַר: אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא לִלְבוֹנָה זַכָּה בְּמִיצְעֵי, וְתֵילַף מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:17
[Keritot 6b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:17)

אִי כַּתְבַיהּ לְבוֹנָה זַכָּה בְּמִיצְעֵי, הָוַיִין תְּרֵי עָשָׂר! אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא לְבוֹנָה זַכָּה בְּמִיצְעֵי, וְחֶלְבְּנָה לְבַסּוֹף. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִגּוּפַהּ, מָה לְשׁוֹן ״קְטֹרֶת״? דָּבָר שֶׁקּוֹטֵר וְעוֹלֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:18
[Keritot 6b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:18)

אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: כׇּל תַּעֲנִית שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ תַּעֲנִית, שֶׁהֲרֵי חֶלְבְּנָה רֵיחָהּ רַע וּמְנָאָהּ הַכָּתוּב עִם סַמְמָנֵי קְטֹרֶת. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מֵהָכָא: ״וַאֲגֻדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Keritot 6b:19
[Keritot 6b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:19)

וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִבְהֵמָה וְכֵלִים – פָּטוּר, לְגוֹיִם וּלְמֵתִים – פָּטוּר. בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ״, וּבְהֵמָה וְכֵלִים לָאו אָדָם הוּא. מֵתִים נָמֵי פָּטוּר, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמִית לֵיהּ – מֵת מִיקְּרֵי, וְלָאו אָדָם. אֶלָּא גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? הָא אָדָם נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*]?**


###### Keritot 6b:20
[Keritot 6b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:20)

לָאיֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתֵּן צֹאנִי צֹאן מַרְעִיתִי אָדָם אַתֶּם״ – אַתֶּם קְרוּיִין ״אָדָם״ וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם קְרוּיִין ״אָדָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Keritot 6b:21
[Keritot 6b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:21)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אָלֶף״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא לְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:22
[Keritot 6b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:22)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה וְגוֹ׳״! הַהוּא לְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Keritot 6b:23
[Keritot 6b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:23)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא – כִּדְקָתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּסָךְ – יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל יִיסָךְ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּסָךְ – אֵינוֹ בְּבַל יִיסָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Keritot 6b:24
[Keritot 6b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:24)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִבְהֵמָה וְכֵלִים, לְגוֹיִם וּמֵתִים – פָּטוּר, לִמְלָכִים וּלְכֹהֲנִים – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר. וְכַמָּה יָסוּךְ וִיהֵא חַיָּיב? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּזַיִת. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: פָּטוּר! כִּי פָּטַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – גַּבֵּי מְלָכִים וְכֹהֲנִים, גַּבֵּי הֶדְיוֹט מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Keritot 6b:25
[Keritot 6b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:25)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ״ כְּתִיב, וּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ עַל זָר״, מָה סִיכָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – אַף נְתִינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 6b:26
[Keritot 6b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:26)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן נְתִינָה דְּעַל זָר מִנְּתִינָה דְּעָלְמָא, מָה נְתִינָה דְּעָלְמָא כְּזַיִת, אַף נְתִינָה דְּעַל זָר – כְּזַיִת. אֲבָל סִיכָה לְמִימְשַׁח מְלָכִים וְכֹהֲנִים – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Keritot 6b:27
[Keritot 6b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:27)

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה גַּבֵּי מְלָכִים וְכֹהֲנִים? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ עַל זָר״ כְּתִיב, וּמֶלֶךְ וְכֹהֵן הַשְׁתָּא זָרִים נִינְהוּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן עַד דְּאִיכָּא זָר מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, וּמֶלֶךְ וְכֹהֵן מֵעִיקָּרָא לָאו זָרִים הָווּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Keritot 6b:28
[Keritot 6b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/6b:28)

אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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):