§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.''

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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]?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):