Daf Ditty Shekalim 11: Leftover Ketores and the trigger for

sectarian schism

James Tissot, Reconstruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of

Herod, 1886-1894. (Brooklyn Museum)

1
Halakha 3 · MISHNA The leftover incense from one year could not be used the following year,
as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. What would be done
with it in order to make it usable? The Temple treasurers would set aside an amount of it equal
to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. They would then desacralize
that incense by transferring its sanctity to the money owed to the artisans. They would then give
the incense to the artisans as their wages. Finally, they would return and buy back the incense
from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels. If the new funds come on time,
i.e., by the beginning of Nisan, they purchase the incense with funds from the new collection of
shekels. And if not, they may still purchase it from the old collection, and it is valid.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the leftover incense was desacralized with money that
the Temple treasury owed the artisans. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it found that this process involves
consecrated property being desacralized with consecrated property? The artisans were paid
with money from the Temple treasury, which was also consecrated, yet consecrated property can
be desacralized only by transferring its sanctity to unconsecrated property.

The Gemara answers that the incense was desacralized with this money after the money itself had
been desacralized. How does the treasurer of the Temple appointed to this task do so? Rabbi
Shimon bar Bisna said: He brings money from the treasury and desacralizes it onto the
building that the artisans have constructed, which is not yet sanctified.

[11b]
He then brings the incense and desacralizes it by transferring its sanctity onto the money.
The Temple treasurers then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. Finally, they buy back
the incense with the funds from the new collection, as taught in the mishna.

2
3
 The extra Ketores

Rav Avraham Adler writes:1

The Mishna states: The remainder of the incense - what was done with it (in order to make it usable
for the next year)?

The wages of the workmen (who prepared the incense) were allocated (from the half shekels in
the Temple treasury; and the money was deconsecrated when it was given to them), and the extra
incense was deconsecrated by exchanging it for the worker’s money, and (the extra incense was)
given to the workmen as their wages and was then re-purchased (from them) with the new
donations (and now could be used for the next year).

If the shekalim were brought in the proper time, they were re-purchased with the new donations;
otherwise, they were re-purchased from the old donations. The Gemora asks: But this presents a
problem, since the workers' production of the Ketores was also considered to be consecrated, so
how can consecrated objects be transferred upon another consecrated object?

Rabbi Shimon bar Bisna explains that Temple buildings are built first with nonsacred materials
and then they are consecrated. [They pay on credit instead of with money. If they would use money,
the money becomes deconsecrated and the materials consecrated.]

This is because he who donates money to the Temple consecrates it (and therefore the money
cannot be used to pay the workers), and therefore, the treasurer says, “The sacredness of the money
shall be deconsecrated to the building,” so that the money (which is now nonsacred) may be used
to pay the workers as their wages. [When the building is finished it was exchanged against the
money donated to the Temple for this building. The money becomes again nonsacred and can be
used to satisfy the sellers and the workers.]

The Gemora asks: What was done with the money that was used to deconsecrate the ketores?
Rebbe said: I said that it is given to the houses of Garmu and Avtinas, for they were experts in the
compounding of the ketores and the preparation of the showbread. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak
notes: This can only work however, if Hekdesh owed the workers money from last year, but the
redemption of the leftover Ketores could not be used to pay this year's salaries. Instead, the extra
funds would go towards keitz mizbe'ach – offering additional korbanos on the mizbe'ach so it
should not sit idle.

How did Betzalel produce the Ketores without a Mishkan?

The Meshech Chochma is mechadesh a new argument between Rashi and the Rambam. The
Rambam rules like Rabbi Yossi Bar Chanina who holds that any Ketores that's produced outside

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_11.pdf

4
the Beis Hamikdosh or in chulin vessels is not valid. If so, asks the Meshech Chochma, how did
Betzalel produce the Ketores before the Mishkan was built? 2

He answers that the Rambam is understanding the pesukim like the Ramban, who learns that that
particular production of the Ketores was done during the week preceding the inauguration of the
Mishoan (the period of seven days known as the “Miluim”), and therefore didn't conform to the
regular halachos.

However, Rashi in passuk 40:27 clearly writes that this Ketores is the daily Ketores, and if so, the
question remains: how was it produced without the Mishkan?

It must be, ascertains the Meshech Chochma, that Rashi rules like Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi of
our argument, and when one produces the Ketores with chulin vessels, it is nevertheless valid.

PAYING WORKERS WITH LEFTOVER KETORES

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Mishnah describes what is done with leftover Ketores from the previous year. Since the Ketores
that is offered on the Mizbe'ach must be bought from the present year's collection of Shekalim, the
leftover Ketores from the previous year may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach. What is done with the
leftover Ketores? The Mishnah describes the procedure through which the Kedushah is removed from
the old Ketores and transferred to money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah in such a way that the money is
then used to buy back the Ketores with money from the new year's Terumas ha'Lishkah.

The Mishnah enumerates the four steps of this procedure:

1. The treasurers of the Beis ha'Mikdash put aside money for the wages of the artisans who performed
services for the Beis ha'Mikdash. They take money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah and designate it for
the artisans.
2. The treasurers then take the leftover Ketores and transfer its Kedushah (through "Chilul") onto the
money.
3. They give the Ketores, which no longer has Kedushah, to the artisans in place of their wages (as that
money now has the Kedushah of the Ketores).
4. Finally, they buy back the Ketores from the artisans with money from the new year's Terumas
ha'Lishkah.

2
Ex 38:29 states that Betzalel made the Ketores, and only later in Ex 40:33 did Moshe put the Mishkan together.
3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-011.htm

5
(The Mishnah says that they "separate from it (Mimenah) the wages of the artisans and are Mechalel
it on the money of the artisans." TOSFOS in Shevuos (10b) deletes the phrase "from it," because this
phrase implies that they designate the wages from the Ketores itself, which is not accurate -- they
designate the wages from the money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah. According to our text which includes
the phrase "from it," it means that they separate from the Lishkah the money for the wages of the
artisans.)

This procedure seems to contain superfluous steps. Why must the treasurers set aside money as wages
for the artisans, transfer the Kedushah of the old Ketores onto that money, and then give the old Ketores
to the artisans in place of money? Instead, they should separate the old Ketores itself as payment for
the artisans (and transfer its Kedushah onto the labor of the artisans). Then, they should "buy" back
that Ketores from the artisans with the money from the new Terumas ha'Lishkah. (If this cannot be
done because of the concern for how the Kedushah of the Ketores will be removed without being
transferred to something before it is given to the artisans, the same concern applies to the money that
is paid to the artisans in the Mishnah's procedure.)

(a) Why must money be set aside for the workers in order to be Mechalel the Kedushah of the Ketores
onto it (step 1)?
(b) Why must the actual Ketores be given to the workers before it is bought back from them (step 3)?
The treasurers should merely take money from the new Terumas ha'Lishkah and be Mechalel its
Kedushah onto the Ketores without actually giving the Ketores to the workers.

There are a number of explanations for why the treasurers may not pay the workers with the Ketores
itself.

RASHI in Me'ilah (14b, end of DH Mafrishin Mimenah) explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in
which the leftover Ketores is not worth as much as Hekdesh owes the artisans for their wages. Since
money must be separated in order to pay at least some of the wages, they separate money for all of the
wages in order not to have to pay half of their wages with Ketores and half with money. Therefore, the
first step is necessary.

Rashi in Shevuos (10b, DH u'Mechalelin) explains that it would be disgraceful for the Ketores to be
paid directly to the artisans as their wages, since it is a disgrace to use Ketores as a form of payment.
Therefore, they first pay the artisans with money by being Mezakeh the money to the artisans.
Accordingly, their wages are paid already with the money. They then are Mechalel the Ketores on that
money which already belongs to the artisans. In that way, the sanctified Ketores is not used as wages
in return for services.

TOSFOS in Shevuos (10b, DH Mafrishin) says that according to Ben Azai in the next Mishnah (12a),
who maintains that Hekdesh may not be used as payment for services rendered to the Beis ha'Mikdash,
it is clear why the money, and not the Ketores, must be given first as their wages. Ben Azai maintains
that the Kedushah of an object of Hekdesh cannot be redeemed onto work that was done, so that the
object may be given as wages. Kedushah can be transferred only onto tangible assets.

6
Why, though, is it preferable to give money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah as payment for labor, rather
than to give Ketores? After all, the money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah also has Kedushah, and the
Kedushah cannot be transferred onto their work!4

The answer to this question is that money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah (with which the artisans are paid)
is subject to the principle of "Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen." At the time that the money is collected
and sanctified, Beis Din stipulates that the money may be used to pay wages for services rendered.
Beis Din does not make this stipulation for any other item of Hekdesh (such as the Ketores).

RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) also understands that this is the reason why this procedure is
used, as he asserts that the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Ben Azai. The Rambam says
that according to Rebbi Akiva, who argues with Ben Azai, the first step (giving money to the artisans)
indeed may be omitted. However, Tosfos in Shevuos adds that perhaps this step is necessary even
according to Rebbi Akiva, because Rebbi Akiva may agree that the Kedushah of public Hekdesh (such
as the Ketores) may not be transferred through Chilul onto work, but only the Kedushah of the Hekdesh
of an individual.

Tosfos in Shevuos adds that perhaps the artisans mentioned in the Mishnah to whom the old Ketores
is given as payment are the artisans who prepare the Ketores for the new year. The leftover Ketores
from the previous year cannot be used to pay them for their services, because their work for this year
must be remunerated with money from this year's Terumas ha'Lishkah. There is no choice but to pay
with money, transfer the Kedushah of the Ketores onto the money, and then give them the Ketores.

TOSFOS gives two explanations for why the Ketores must be delivered into the hands of the artisans
before the treasurers of Hekdesh buy it back, and why they do not merely hold on to the Ketores and
be Mechalel the Kedushah of the money from the new year's Lishkah onto the old Ketores.

Tosfos in Me'ilah (14b, DH Mosar) explains that if the Ketores is not actually given to the workers,
the treasurers might forget and use the leftover Ketores for this year's service before they buy it back
with money from the new Lishkah.

Tosfos there adds that it is more befitting of the honor due to the Ketores to transfer the Kedushah of
the Ketores onto the money by exchanging it for the wages of the workers, instead of
overtly redeeming the Ketores and removing its Kedushah.

The treasurers do not want to make it look like they are trying to remove its Kedushah, for this would
be a disgrace to the Ketores. When the treasurers give the Ketores to the workers as their wages, the
removal of its Kedushah appears to be merely an indirect result of their actions.

4
The Gemara in Me'ilah (14a) asserts that the rule that one cannot be Mechalel the Kedushah of an object onto on work applies to
money of Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis as well.

7
WAGES OF WORKERS FOR THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH

Rav D. Bloom writes:5

Shmuel states that when construction work is carried out in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the materials are left
unsanctified until the construction is completed. When the construction is completed, money of
Hekdesh is redeemed onto the building materials and the labor, and the money is given to the laborers
as their wages and to the merchants who sold the materials (on credit) to Hekdesh.

Shmuel's teaching seems to contradict the Gemara in Kesuvos (106a) which states that the "Magihei
Sefarim in Yerushalayim" received their wages from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, the funds of
Hekdesh. RASHI there (DH Magihei) explains that when the Beis Din saw that people were becoming
lax with regard to correcting errors in Sifrei Torah, they decided to allow the money of the Terumas
ha'Lishkah to be used to pay the wages of expert scribes to fix the Sifrei Torah. (It is forbidden to
possess a Sefer Torah with inaccurate text, as the Gemara there (19b) derives from the verse, "Do not
let wickedness dwell in your tent" (Iyov 11:14).)

Why are those who check and correct Sifrei Torah permitted to receive their wages from the money of
Hekdesh, while the craftsmen who do work for the Beis ha'Mikdash are not permitted to receive money
of Hekdesh as their wages until the money has been redeemed and has become Chulin?

TOSFDOS (DH Bonin) answers that there is a difference between the money of the Terumas
ha'Lishkah, which was collected from the public, and money donated to Hekdesh by an individual. For
public donations, the principle of "Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen" applies. This means that when Beis
Din collects the public donations, they make an unspoken condition that the money received from the
public will lose its Kedushah if it is needed to pay workers' wages. This enables the money to be paid
to the scribes. In contrast, "Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen" does not apply to private contributions,
even if the donor is Makdish his money with intent of handing it over to the public's use. for Since the
money of private contributions retains its Kedushah, the craftsmen cannot be paid with that money.6

The MIKDASH DAVID (Kodshim 35:3, DH Hikshu) explains that the reason why "Lev Beis Din
Masneh" does not apply with regard to the wages of craftsmen is that the Gemara in Temurah (31b)
states that the money given for the craftsmen's' wages should have Kedushah of Bedek ha'Bayis, as
derived from the verse, "You shall make for Me a sanctuary" (Shemos 25:8), which implies that it
should be built with money of Hekdesh. Therefore, the workers must be paid with money from
Hekdesh, which is done by transferring the Kedushah of the money to the building when the work is
completed, and then the money may be given to the workers. In contrast, the wages paid to the Magihei

5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/meilah/insites/ml-dt-014.htm#1
6
The MINCHAS CHINUCH (357:10) in KOMETZ MINCHAH notes that it is surprising that the distinction that Tosfos makes
is not cited by the Poskim. The CHOK NASAN, however, states that Tosfos' distinction applies only according to the view of Ben
Azai (Shekalim 6a, and cited by Tosfos in Shevuos 10b, DH Mafrishin Sechar), who maintains that money (or objects) of Hekdesh
cannot become redeemed onto work done for the Beis ha'Mikdash ("Ein Hekdesh Mischalel Al ha'Melachah"). Rebbi Akiva argues
and maintains that Hekdesh can be redeemed onto the labor of workers. The Halachah presumably follows the view of Rebbi Akiva
(see Eruvin 46b).

8
Sefarim need not be from Hekdesh at all, and thus they can be paid with money whose Hekdesh was
removed because of "Lev Beis Din Masneh Aleihen."

THE LABOR CAN BE WORTH MORE THAN THE BUILDING

The Gemara discusses a situation in which the building that workers build is not worth as much as the
value of the leftover Ketores that Hekdesh wants to redeem, while the wages of the workers
themselves is worth as much as the Ketores.

How can the wages due for work on a building be greater than the value of the building itself?
(TOSFOS DH Mosar)

(a) In his first answer, TOSFOS explains that the Gemara is referring to artisans that decorate a
building, not to builders that build one. The artists' craftsmanship often costs more than the appreciation
of value of the building that they decorate.

(b) Tosfos answers further that the Gemara means that the building is not worth as much as the Ketores
until the workers' wages are combined with the value of the building, and together they equal the value
of the Ketores.

(c) Tosfos gives a third answer and suggests that the Gemara is referring to a case in which the workers
started working but did not yet complete their job, and Hekdesh wants to pay them now for the entire
job before it is completed. The value of the wages for the completed job is more than the value of the
part of the building that has already been built. (Hekdesh may pay the workers in advance once they
have started, because the workers are not permitted to discontinue their work.)

Leftover Animals

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:7

How were the animals in the Temple purchased?

According to Rashi, the general practice in the Temple was to set aside six animals that had been
checked and found to be appropriate for sacrifice that would serve the needs of the upcoming
communal sacrifices. This way, there was always a reserve of animals available for the Temple’s
needs.

9
Tosafot ha-Rosh quotes an opinion which says that it all depended on availability. The kohanim in
the Temple tried to always have a reserve of animals, and if a particularly good buying opportunity
came up, they would buy a large number of animals.

According to both of these approaches, we can understand the question of the Gemara – what was
to be done with leftover korbanot (sacrifices)? With the new year for sacrifices beginning on the
first day of Nisan, when the end of Adar arrived there would often be a pool of animals that had
been set aside for sacrifices, but could no longer be used, since the new year’s sacrifices had to
come from the new year’s donations.

Our daf quotes a difference of opinion as to what happened to these animals. Shmuel rules that we
redeem them – we exchange them for money. Then, the animals would no longer have any holiness
attached to them, and the money could be used for the various needs of the Temple, as we will
explain. Rabbi Yohanan says that we cannot remove the holiness of the sacrificial animals so
easily; we can only redeem them after they have become blemished in some way so that they can
no longer be brought as korbanot.

Rashi explains Shmuel’s position as limiting the possible use of the animals even after they are
redeemed. He explains that, immediately after being redeemed, they are repurchased for use in the
Temple. The source for this ruling is, apparently, that this is the position of the Gemara with regard
to leftover ketoret – incense used in the Temple service. It was redeemed, but immediately
repurchased for use in the Temple.

The Torat Hayyim – Rabbi Avraham Hayyim Shor –

points out that the Rambam (Hilkhot Shekalim 4:11 ) accepts the position that these animals can
be redeemed, and makes no mention of the need for repurchase. He argues that unlike
the ketoret, which could not be left in the hands of someone unconnected with the Temple service,
since its use outside of the Temple was forbidden, these animals could be used by anyone once
they had been redeemed and were no longer holy.

Sara Ronis writes:8

Corpse impurity — becoming impure from direct or indirect contact with a dead body — was a
big problem in ancient Judaism. The Torah prescribes a complex ritual for undoing it. It starts with
an entirely red heifer (a very unusual coloring for a cow), as described in Numbers 19. According
to the Torah, this red heifer must be completely free of blemish and never have experienced a yoke
on its neck. The priests slaughter the red heifer, burn it entirely on the Temple altar and then mix
the ashes with water to make a concoction usually translated as “water of lustration.” This
concoction is then applied to impure people and objects with a hyssop branch in order to purify
them.

The rabbis of the Talmud said that the red heifer was initially brought to the Temple but was then
actually slaughtered on the Mount of Olives, which overlooked the Temple Mount. But there is a
concern: If the red heifer was led from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olivesthrough the

8
Myjewishlearning.com

10
bustling city of Jerusalem, there was a risk that the officiating priests or (God forbid!) the red heifer
itself, might encounter something that made it ritually impure. Remember: this relatively rare
animal was necessary to reverse corpse impurity (a serious and unavoidable condition) — one did
not want to risk messing this up!

And so, the Mishnah tells us that a special ramp was constructed so that the animal and the priests
could bypass the city entirely, maintaining their purity all the way to the site of the ritual on the
Mount of Olives. But setting aside the mechanics of this all-important ritual, today’s daf asks a far
more practical but no less important question: who paid for the ramp?

Mishnah Shekalim 4:2 lists Temple items that were purchased from the communal funds. An initial
view is that the ramp, like many other things we are reading about in this chapter, was constructed
from communal funds. But the mishnah adds a dissenting opinion:

Abba Shaul says: The high priests construct the ramp for the red heifer from their own
funds.

But why? The Gemara adds some amoraic commentary:

Rabbi Hanina said: There was great haughtiness among the high priests, as they would spend
more than sixty talents of gold on it. This expenditure was unnecessary, as the previous ramp
of the heifer was still standing. But not one of the high priests would take out his heifer on
his fellow’s ramp. Rather, he would demolish it and build a new one from his own funds.

You may recall that the rabbis were ambivalent about the priesthood during the Second Temple
period, which was in many cases more than a little corrupt. Or, as in this case, self-aggrandizing.
According to Rabbi Hanina, each of the high priests insisted on building his own ramp for the red
heifer just so he could show off his wealth and further cement his already lofty status. (As if a high
priest needs to prove anything!)

Rabbi Ulla then raises a problem with Rabbi Hanina’s interpretation:

Wasn’t it taught that Simeon the Righteous performed the rites of two red heifers, and the
ramp on which he took out this one he did not use again to take out that other one?

Although many high priests were corrupt and despised by the rabbis, Simeon the Righteous was,
as his name suggests, actually a great one — even according to the rabbis. He helped restore the
Temple and direct the Jewish people toward correct worship and a closer relationship with God.
He gave us one of the most famous teachings in a rabbinic collection of greatest-hit
teachings: Upon three things the world depends: Torah, service, and acts of kindness. (Pirke
Avot 1:2) And according to the rabbis, during Simeon the Righteous’s tenure, many miracles were
performed for Israel — including the discovery of not one but indeed two red heifers.

As Rabbi Ulla points out, Simeon the Righteous constructed new ramps for each of these red
heifers. While we might be inclined to interpret each new high priest building their own ramp as
some kind of status symbol, this interpretation can’t explain the behavior of Simeon the

11
Righteous — who never would have done it for that reason. Rabbi Ulla thus offers a different
explanation: that the ramps were constructed because of the importance and grandeur not of the
high priest, but of the ceremony itself.

Interestingly, the later commentators make this whole debate moot. As the 15th century
commentator Ovadiah of Bartenura notes in his commentary of the Mishnah: “the halakhah does
not follow Abba Shaul.” The ramp, like so many other aspects of Temple service, is constructed
from public funds.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

Having made reference in the previous Mishna (Shekalim 4:2) to the special ramp that was built
for the transportation of the Parah Adumah from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives - whose
function was to protect all those involved from the possibility of becoming ‫( טמא מת‬spiritually
impure through contact with the dead) on that journey - we read in today’s daf (Shekalim 11a) that
each Kohen Gadol who was privileged to offer a Parah Adumah during their years of service would
spend a large amount of money building a new ramp.
According to Rabbi Chanina, the fact that every Kohen Gadol was unprepared to use the ramp of
their predecessor must have been due to the ego of the Kohen Gadol, each of whom wanted the
mitzvah of the Parah Adumah to be associated with them and not with their predecessor.
Rabbi Ulla seemingly rebutted this thesis by noting how Shimon HaTzaddik was privileged to
offer two Parot Adumot during his years of service, and on each occasion, he built a new ramp.
Clearly, at least in this instance, Rabbi Chanina’s thesis didn’t apply. But why then did Shimon
HaTzaddik build a second ramp? According to Rabbi Ulla, it was to emphasise the sanctity of the
mitzvah - and to show honour towards the mitzvah - of the Parah Adumah.
Before proceeding, I should explain that when I first read the interpretation of Rabbi Chanina, I
thought it strange how such a highly critical commentary about the Kohanim Gedolim could be so
easily dismissed by the historical fact presented by Rabbi Ulla. However, from a close reading it
would seem that Rabbi Ulla does not fully disagree with Rabbi Chanina that there were Kohanim
Gedolim whose actions were driven by ego and whose building of a new ramp was done because
they wanted the Parah Adumah to be associated with them and not with their predecessor. Instead,
what Rabbi Ulla comes to add is that this did not apply to all Kohanim Gedolim.
What we see from these two interpretations is that the very same act of spending money on the
building of an already existing infrastructure can either be self-serving, or it can be done in order
to generate greater respect and reverence for a mitzvah, and while ego can be the primary motivator
for some leaders, it is not the motivator for all.

Mark Kerzner writes:10

Twice daily they burned incense in the Temple. Additionally, two handfuls of this incense were
burned by the High Priest on Yom Kippur. If some of it remained after the end of the year in
Nissan, when new shekels were brought, then the old incense would become unfit. What did they
do with it?

9
https://web.whatsapp.com/ Rav Johnny's Daf Insights
10
http://talmudilluminated.com/shekalim/shekalim11.html

12
They would first exchange it against the money donated for the upkeep of the Temple and
designated as payment for the artisans. Now the incense was completely deconsecrated. Then they
would give the incense to the artisans as wages. They could not (and should not) use it, because it
is prohibited for personal use. Instead, it was bought from them with the new shekels. Thus, they
have bought the incense with the new money, and it became consecrated for use in the new year.

The Significance of the Incense

Rav Yehuda Rock writes:11

The incense (ketoret) appears in parasha Korach in two contexts. First, following the complaint
of Korach and his company, Moshe sets up a test:

,‫ֲﬠָדתוֹ‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ֹקַרח ְוֶאל‬-‫ה ַו ְיַדֵבּר ֶאל‬
‫לוֹ‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ ֹבֶּקר ְו ֹיַדע ְיהָוה ֶאת‬,‫ֵלאֹמר‬
‫ ְוִהְק ִריב ֵאָליו; ְוֵאת‬,‫ַהָקּדוֹשׁ‬-‫ְוֶאת‬
.‫ ַיְק ִריב ֵאָליו‬,‫בּוֹ‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר ִיְבַחר‬
5 And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying:
'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is
holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him
whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.
Num 16:5

"He spoke to Korach and to all of his company, saying: In the morning God will show who
is His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to Him; He will cause him who He
chooses to come near to him.

(6) Do this: take censers, Korach and all of his company,

(7) and put fire in them and place incense upon them before God tomorrow, and it shall be
that the man whom God chooses – he shall be holy…

(16) And Moshe said to Korach: You and all of your company – be before God, you and they
and Aharon, tomorrow.

(17) Let each man take his censer, and let them put fire upon them, and place incense in
them, and present yourselves before God, each man with his censer – two hundred and fifty
censers, and you, and Aharon; each with his censer.

11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/significance-incense

13
 (18) So they took each man his censer and put fire upon them, and placed incense in them,
and they stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, with Moshe and Aharon.

(19) And Korach gathered the whole congregation against them at the entrance to the Tent
of Meeting, and God's glory appeared to all of the congregation…

(35) And a fire came out from God and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered
the incense."

Further on in the story, when God is about to destroy the nation, it is Aharon's incense that stops
the plague:

-‫ ַקח ֶאת‬,‫ַאֲהֹרן‬-‫יא ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֹמֶשׁה ֶאל‬ 11 And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Take thy fire-pan, and put
‫ָﬠֶליָה ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל ַהִמְּזֵבַּח ְוִשׂים‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ְוֶתן‬ fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense thereon, and
‫ ְוַכֵפּר‬,‫ָהֵﬠָדה‬-‫ ְוהוֵֹל• ְמֵהָרה ֶאל‬,‫ְקֹטֶרת‬ carry it quickly unto the congregation, and make atonement
‫ ֵהֵחל‬,‫ָיָצא ַהֶקֶּצף ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ֲﬠֵליֶהם‬ for them; for there is wrath gone out from the LORD: the
.‫ַהָנֶּגף‬ plague is begun.'

‫ ַוָיָּרץ‬,‫יב ַו ִיַּקּח ַאֲהֹרן ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִדֶּבּר ֹמֶשׁה‬ 12 And Aaron took as Moses spoke, and ran into the midst
;‫ ָבָּﬠם‬,‫ ְוִהֵנּה ֵהֵחל ַהֶנֶּגף‬,‫תּוֹ• ַהָקָּהל‬-‫ֶאל‬ of the assembly; and, behold, the plague was begun among
.‫ָהָﬠם‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ַו ְיַכֵפּר‬,‫ַהְקֹּטֶרת‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ַו ִיֵּתּן‬ the people; and he put on the incense, and made atonement
for the people.

;‫ וֵּבין ַהַח ִיּים‬,‫ַהֵמִּתים‬-‫יג ַוַיֲּﬠֹמד ֵבּין‬ 13 And he stood between the dead and the living; and the
.‫ ַהַמֵּגָּפה‬,‫ַוֵתָּﬠַצר‬ plague was stayed.
Num 17:11-13

(17:11) "Moshe said to Aharon: Take the censer and put fire in it from off the altar, and
place incense, and go quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them…

(12) So Aharon took as Moshe had spoken, and he ran to the midst of the congregation, and
behold – the plague had begun among the people. And he put incense, and made atonement
for the people.

(13) And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was halted.

It is not clear from these verses for what reason it was specifically incense, rather than any other
aspect of the service of the Sanctuary, that was chosen as a test of holiness and of God's selection.
Rashi explains:

"The incense is more beloved than any of the sacrifices, and [also because] it contains
the drug of death, with which Nadav and Avihu were burned…"

14
Rashi distinguishes two characteristics of incense: firstly, it is "more beloved than any of the
sacrifices" – but gives no basis or reason for this. Secondly, he asserts that incense is dangerous,
as proven by what happened to Aharon's sons. However, this still does not tell us how or why it is
that specifically the Divine service of incense is dangerous.

In order to understand the significance of incense in general, let us first review the places in the
Torah where it is mentioned.

a. Ex. 30: in the command concerning the Sanctuary, as part of the command to build the
golden altar (the incense altar), the Torah states that incense must be offered on the golden altar,
twice each day. Further on, the preparation of the incense is discussed.

b. Vayikra 9: On the eighth day of the inauguration of the Sanctuary, Nadav and Avihu offer
incense with "foreign fire"; as a result they die.

c. Vayikra 16: As part of the order of the Yom Kippur service, the Kohen Gadol is
commanded to offer incense in the Holy of Holies.

d. Bamidbar 7: At the dedication of the altar, the prince of each tribe offers various sacrifices,
including a golden spoon full of incense.

e. Parshas Korach

In the fourth appearance – the sacrifices of the princes – incense appears among all of the
necessities for the Sanctuary that were provided by the princes, and so nothing may be deduced
from this source with regard to the significance or characteristics of the incense. The first and third
appearances concern commandments for all generations concerning offering of the incense by the
kohen. The second and fifth are narratives of events involving sin and a punishment of death.

Let us start with the first mention of incense in the Torah: the commandment of the golden altar.
A number of difficulties arise with regard to this unit, the first of which concerns its location. The
command to build the Sanctuary, in the parashot of Teruma and Tetzave (Ex. 25-29) has a
relatively clear structure; its focus moves from the inside of the Sanctuary outward. Parashat
Teruma begins (after the command to collect the raw materials) with a command to construct the
inner vessels – the Ark, the Table, and the Menora. This is followed by the structure of the
Sanctuary itself: the curtains, covering, boards, rings, sockets, and the veil. Then comes the altar,
and the courtyard of the Sanctuary – its hangings, pillars, and screen. After every part of the
Sanctuary has been described, there are commands concerning the kohanim and their garments,
and the sanctification of the kohanim and of the Sanctuary (during the seven days of inauguration).

In Ex. 29:38 we find the parasha of the daily sacrifice, which clearly concludes the body of
commands concerning the Sanctuary. The daily sacrifice appears as the central rite of worship
performed upon the altar facing the Tent of Meeting. It is also a rite that facilitates the dwelling
of the Divine Presence, which was described at the beginning of this lengthy unit as its purpose.

15
Following this entire structure comes the command about the golden altar (Ex. 30:1-10). Ramban
notes that the proper place for this unit would seem to be among the discussion of the inner vessels,
along with the Table and the Menora. He brings support for this view from the description of the
actual building of the Sanctuary, in parashat Vayakhel, where the golden altar does in fact appear
along with the Table and the Menora. He comments as follows:

"You shall make an altar for offering incense' – but the incense altar is one of the inner
vessels; it should have been mentioned with the Table and the Menora, since it stands
together with them, and they are mentioned [together] accordingly in parashat Vayakhel."

Why, then, is this unit not located in its proper place? Ramban answers:

"The reason for it being mentioned here, after the Sanctuary and all of the vessels and the
sacrifices, is because God said, after all of that, "It shall be sanctified with My glory" (29:43);
"I shall dwell in the midst of Bnei Yisrael" (45). This implied that He would still require
them to construct an altar for the offering of incense for the glory of God. This was a secret
that was conveyed to Moshe – that the incense halts the plague, for incense is of the attribute
of justice… that they should acknowledge My glory, for it will not tolerate your sins; so let
them be cautious concerning My glory."

Therefore, He says here, "And you shall place it before the veil that is upon the Ark of Testimony,
before the covering that is over the Testimony where I shall meet with you'. For why should He
elaborate as to all of this? After all, He did not say, "You shall place it before the Ark of Testimony
in the Tent of Meeting" when He conveyed the parasha of Vayakhel (40:5)! However, it comes to
indicate our point."

Ramban notes the Torah's emphasis on the location of the golden altar, facing the place of the
Divine presence, and explains that since the Divine Presence dwells in the Sanctuary in the wake
of the daily sacrifice, this demands a show of honor. The incense symbolizes the attribute of justice
by arousing honor for the Divine Presence.

Ramban's explanation brings together a number of assumptions:

a. The basic structure of the command concerning the Sanctuary, up to the unit on the daily
sacrifice, includes those factors that bring the Divine Presence (as indicated by the introduction to
the command – "Let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst," and from the
end of the command in the discussion of the daily sacrifice), and does not include those objects or
actions which are required as a result of God's Presence.

b. The Divine Presence necessitates a show of honor, in accordance with the verse from the
daily sacrifice: "It shall be sanctified by My glory."

c. The incense expresses the attribute of justice.

16
d. Acknowledgment of the attribute of justice arouses honor.

This presentation raises several difficulties. Ramban does not explain in what way the incense
expresses the attribute of judgment. Furthermore, the simple meaning of the verses, according to
his approach, is not that the Divine Presence necessitates honor, but rather that the honor of God
brings sanctity and the Divine Presence: "I shall meet there with Bnei Yisrael, and it shall
be sanctified with My honor… and I shall dwell in the midst of Bnei Yisrael…."

The Vilna Gaon, in Aderet Eliyahu (Parashat Tetzaveh) offers an explanation that is similar to that
of Ramban in his first assumption ('a' above):

"You shall make an altar for incense" – this was not mentioned among the vessels of the
Sanctuary that were to be made.

First God gave the details of the Sanctuary and its vessels, the garments, and the preparation
of Aharon for the [service of the] altar. Thereafter He commanded the offering of the daily
sacrifice, saying, "By means of this I shall dwell in your midst." Then He mentions the
fashioning of the incense altar and the atonement money.

This tells us that these [latter elements] were not a necessary precondition for the dwelling
of the Divine Presence; they were merely for atonement for Israel. And so the Torah says,
with regard to the atonement money, "To make atonement for your souls" (Ex. 30:16)."

The Vilna Gaon asserts, like the Ramban, that the golden altar lies outside of the basic structure of
the command concerning the Sanctuary because it does not contribute towards the Divine Presence
dwelling there. However, while Ramban understands its purpose as showing honor towards the
Divine Presence, the Vilna Gaon maintains that the incense is necessary for atonement – like the
half-shekel, which appears in the text immediately thereafter.

The Vilna Gaon does not tell us why it is that the Torah provides for these means of atonement
specifically here. We may propose that God's Presence among Bnei Yisrael brings a higher level
of the attribute of justice, such that there is greater need for atonement.

The idea of the incense as bringing atonement is obviously based on the narrative in our parasha,
where Aharon does indeed make atonement for Bnei Yisrael by means of incense. However,
in parashat Tetzaveh, in the context of the golden altar and the daily offering of incense, there is
no mention of atonement. The concept of atonement appears only in the context of the "blood of
the sin-offering of atonement" of Yom Kippur, some of which is placed upon the golden altar on
that day. And still it is not clear why the incense should serve as atonement rather than any other
sacrifice.

The key to this puzzle appears to lie in a question raised by Ridbaz on the Rambam, but the
substance of his question concerns not the Rambam, but rather the incense altar:

17
 "It is asked in the midrash: no sacrifice was offered upon it; why, then, is it called an
'altar'?"

The verse states: "You shall make an altar for offering incense" ("mizbeach miktar ketoret").
Ridbaz notes that the word 'altar' (mizbeach), as a noun derived from the root "z-v-h," is not
appropriate for this golden altar. Not only are no sacrifices offered upon it, but there is actually an
explicit negative command that prohibits offering sacrifices upon it: "You shall not offer foreign
incense upon it, or any burnt offering, or any meal offering…" (Ex. 30:9). Moreover, the Torah
itself provides a suitable name: "miktar." This noun parallels "mizbeach," being derived in this
case from the root "k-t-r." Hence, this would seem to be a better name for a vessel meant for
burning incense; why, then, does the Torah add the word "mizbeach" to describe this incense altar?

Ridbaz answers:

"According to the plain meaning we may say that its form and its purpose resembled the
form and purpose of the outer (sacrificial) altar, since the outer altar, too, was square.
They would not slaughter the animals at the top of the altar, but would bring the carcass
up to there and offer it (maktirin), and because of the smoke [that was thereby created]
this was called "haktara" (literally, "offering incense"). Likewise, incense was offered
upon the inner (golden) altar, and it is called "ketoret" because of the smoke that arises
from it, and [the form of this altar] was also square, like that of the outer altar."

In other words, to Ridbaz's view, the golden altar is called a 'mizbeach' because it resembles the
outer, sacrificial altar. The similarity involves both their form (square) and the fact that an act of
'haktara' – burning that gives rise to smoke - is performed on both of them.

This would seem to be a surprising interpretation. Is the golden altar really called a 'mizbeach' only
because of its physical resemblance to the sacrificial altar, and because of the similarity of the
technical actions performed on them, using different substances (sacrifices vs. incense)? Can we
suggest such an explanation when the action in question is precisely that which would make the
name 'miktar' more appropriate, and where the name 'mizbeach' is altogether inappropriate from
the point of view of its function?

In fact, the Ridbaz's explanation gives rise to another question: If the golden altar and the sacrificial
altar have different functions, why are they so similar in form? Why does the Torah command that
the altar form be imitated for a vessel that is going to be used for offering incense?

We may propose the following explanation:

The main purpose of the Sanctuary is for God's Presence to dwell in the mist of Bnei
Yisrael. It is meant to reflect, more than anything else, a relationship of closeness
between God and Israel. However, man is limited; Bnei Yisrael have their deficiencies
and their transgressions; they cannot live in close proximity with God's Presence
without being harmed (by punishment) or distanced. In the words of Yishayahu (6:5),

18
 "I said: Woe to me, for I am ruined; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the
midst of a nation of unclean lips, for my eyes have seen the King, Lord of Hosts."

For this reason, the Sanctuary is constructed in concentric form, with barriers within barriers – the
courtyard, the Tent of Meeting, and the Holy of Holies. Thus, the Sanctuary expresses the tension
between closeness and distance: a fundamental relationship of closeness, while maintaining a
proper distance and separation. God is in the midst of Bnei Yisrael, but He dwells within the
Sanctuary, while they are outside of it.

This tension is given prominent expression in the context of the sacrifices. As noted, in the unit
discussing the daily sacrifice, in parashat Tetzaveh, the Torah describes how the sacrifices bring
the Divine Presence: "This is how you shall prepare the sacrifice… and I shall meet there with
Bnei Yisrael, and it shall be sanctified with My glory… and I shall sanctify the Tent of Meeting
and the altar… and I shall dwell amongst Bnei Yisrael…."

The Divine Presence is depicted here as an expression of acceptance and favor shown towards the
sacrifices by God. As such, it would seem that the Divine Presence should really rest at the place
where the sacrifices are offered – on the sacrificial altar. However, the altar is the place where Bnei
Yisrael perform the sacrificial service – and, as we have mentioned, man and the Divine Presence
cannot exist in the same place without man being harmed. This presents a problem: the Divine
Presence must express acceptance of the sacrifices, and therefore should be at the place where the
sacrifices are offered. But Bnei Yisrael cannot offer sacrifices in the place where the Divine
Presence rests!

The golden altar seems to offer a solution to this problem. The Torah commands that inside the
Tent of Meeting, a model of the sacrificial altar be constructed – the golden altar; upon it will be
an expression of the fire and the cloud of the Divine Presence – the incense.

The Divine Presence at the end of parashat Mishpatim – the same Divine Presence that descended
into the Sanctuary at the end of parashat Pekudei, (which has clear linguistic links to the end
of Mishpatim) – is described as a cloud, with "the glory of God" within it, with "the appearance of
God's glory like a consuming fire." It would seem that God expresses this image for all generations
not by means of miraculous fire and cloud, but rather by means of His emissaries – the kohanim
who offer up the incense. The kohanim perform the service of the incense – not as one of the
sacrifices, which express man's service of God, but rather as emissaries of God. The incense is
fundamentally an expression of God's Presence, His closeness to Israel, and – in the case of the
daily incense on the golden altar – His acceptance of their sacrifices, specifically the daily sacrifice
offered on the sacrificial altar.

Now the nature of the golden altar is clear: it is fashioned in the same form as the sacrificial altar
because it symbolizes it and is meant to be the place that receives the Divine Presence, which in
turn expresses the acceptance of the sacrifices that are offered on the sacrificial altar. It is called
'miktar' because of the service that is actually performed on it, but it is also – and more importantly
– a 'mizbeach,' because of its fundamental significance. The unit describing the golden altar comes

19
as a continuation to the unit on the daily sacrifice, because it serves as a solution to the "problem"
of the Divine Presence that arises in that context.

Let us try to anchor the perception of the incense as an expression of the Divine Presence more
firmly in the text. Firstly, in the offering of the incense there is an emphasis on the "fire" that is
placed in the censer, in a number of places (as in our case, concerning Korach: "Each man took
his censer and they put fire on them, and they placed incense in them…"). As we shall see further
on, the same can be said of the cloud of incense. These elements of fire and cloud resemble the
elements of the Divine Presence at the end of Mishpatim.

The incense as an expression of the Divine Presence is almost explicit in a beraita in Yoma,
discussing the incense of Yom Kippur (53a): "It would rise up like a staff, until it reached the
ceiling. Once it reached the ceiling it would come down the walls, until the Sanctuary was filled
with smoke, as it is written, "And the Sanctuary was full of smoke."" The verse cited in
the beraita is from Yishayahu, chapter 6, which discusses the revelation of the Divine Presence:
"In the year of the death of King Uzziah, I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne, high and elevated,
and His train filled all of the Temple. Serafim stood above him… and they called to one another,
saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole world is filled with His glory… and the
House was filled with smoke."

In two different places, the Torah stipulates that the fire – i.e. the coals – upon which the incense
is placed, must be atop the altar. Thus, in the Yom Kippur service (Vayikra 16:12) we find, "He
shall take a censer full of burning coals from off the fire before God, and his hands full of incense
beaten fine…." Likewise, in our parasha, when Moshe sends Aharon to stop the plague, he tells
him: "Take the censer and place fire on it from off the altar, and place incense…."

In light of what we have said, the reason for this is clear: the specific expression of the Divine
Presence that is realized by means of the incense is God's closeness in the wake of the offering of
sacrifices; it is an expression of favor and acceptance of the sacrifices. This is expressed in the fact
that the incense "rests" upon fire (coals) taken from the altar, and thereby comes to symbolize the
fire of the altar.

Let us now consider the other type of commandment of incense – the incense offered by the Kohen
Gadol on Yom Kippur. Thereafter we shall come back to the two narratives that involve incense –
the sin of Nadav and Avihu, and our parasha.

The Tziddukim and the Perushim were divided as to how the incense is offered on Yom
Kippur (Yoma 53a): "He shall place the incense upon the burning coals before God – he should
not arrange them in place outside [of the Holy of Holies] and then enter, except the Tziddukim
who say that he should arrange it outside and then bring it in." In other words, the view of the
Tziddukim is that the Kohen Gadol offers the incense while he is still outside of the Holy of Holies,
and only then does he enter with the censer. Unquestionably, this view regards the incense as a
sort of screen that protects the Kohen and separates between him and the Divine Presence (as
Rashbam explains). The halakha, on the other hand, stipulates that the Kohen offers the incense
only after he enters. Clearly, then, the function of the incense is not to create a barrier.

20
In light of what we have said, the matter is clear: the crux of the Yom Kippur service is the
atonement that is made for the places of the Divine Presence (Vayikra 16): "… And he shall make
atonement for the holy place, from the impurities of Bnei Yisrael, and from their transgressions in
all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of
their impurity… and he shall finish making atonement for the holy place and for the Tent of
Meeting and for the altar… and he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and for the Tent
of Meeting, and for the altar shall he make atonement…." The incense in the Holy of Holies creates
a tangible expression of the Divine Presence; only after this does the Kohen Gadol come and make
atonement for it.

We mentioned previously that the essence of the Yom Kippur service is atonement for the places
of the Divine Presence – the Holy of Holies, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar. Which altar is
referred to here? In the order of the service, at the stage where Aharon is in the Tent of Meeting,
we read: "He shall go out to the altar which is before God and make atonement for it…." This
means that he goes out to the courtyard of the Sanctuary, and the altar in question is the sacrificial
(outer) altar.

In contradiction to this stands the verse in the unit concerning the golden altar (Ex. 30:10): "Aharon
shall sprinkle upon it for atonement, once in the year, of the blood of the sin offering of
atonements." Clearly, this is talking about the golden altar, and the Mishna decides the halakha
accordingly in Yoma. How, then, are we to understand the verses in the order of the Yom Kippur
service?

The order of the Yom Kippur service was conveyed to Aharon in the wake of the deaths of Nadav
and Avihu on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Sanctuary. On this day, the devouring fire
of the Divine Presence emerged outward to the sacrificial altar and was visible to the
nation (Vayikra 9:23-24): "And the glory of God appeared to all of the nation, and a fire came out
from before God and it consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fats, and all the nation
saw…." For this reason, in the order of the first Yom Kippur service that Aharon performed, the
Divine Presence was in its proper place – on the sacrificial altar. For this reason, the atonement
was likewise made upon it. But for future generations, as we have seen, the resting of the Divine
Presence upon the altar was realized in the golden altar, in the form of the incense. Therefore, for
future generations, the atonement for the altar is performed on the golden altar.

On the eighth day of the inauguration, Nadav and Avihu brought incense, which was a "foreign
fire." It seems that they believed that the Divine Presence that is expressed through the incense
rests especially on the person who offers the incense. By means of the incense they meant to direct
the Divine Presence itself. As a result of their actions, a fire emerged from before God and
consumed them – the same "consuming fire" that is meant to be symbolized by the incense. Not
only could Aharon's sons not control it, it came out and killed them.

The lesson to be learned is stated by Moshe: "That is as God spoke, saying: I shall be sanctified
by those close to Me, and before the entire nation I shall be honored." Moshe explains the
significance of the commandment of incense and the promise of the Divine Presence: only the

21
selected, close few, actually perform sanctification by offering the incense, but God's glory is not
limited to them; He is glorified before all the nation equally.

Korach and his company sinned in the same way as Nadav and Avihu. They too aspired to be
among the kohanim in the Sanctuary who effected the bringing of the Divine Presence. Moshe's
test was meant to prove that only God's chosen – a person who is appointed and sent for this by
God – is really capable of bringing the Divine Presence. And they, too, like Nadav and Avihu were
consumed by God's glory, the consuming fire – the same fire which they had sought to control.

Aharon was able to make atonement and to halt the plague, not because the incense is
fundamentally a mechanism of atonement, but because in this way he – as the person so authorized
and appointed – was able to correct that which had been perverted, and to show that the Divine
Presence indeed rests only by means of the actions of His chosen servants – the kohanim. Aharon's
act of repair, as a counteraction to Korach and his congregation, indeed made atonement for Bnei
Yisrael and halted the plague.

The Tale of the Sadducee who Incorrectly Prepared the Yom

Kippur Ketoret

Dr. Yonatan Feintuch12 writes:13

How and why the Bavli reworked the tale and turned the Sadducee into an
inglorious martyr

The highlight of the Yom Kippur Service in the Temple was the once-a-year entry of the High
Priest into the Holy of Holies. The High Priest is instructed by the Torah to bring incense on the
first of a series of entries on that day (Leviticus 16:12-13):

,‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬ And he shall take a panful of glowing coals scooped from

‫ ְקֹטֶרת ַסִמּים‬,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬ the altar before the Lord, and two handfuls of finely

-‫ ְוָנַתן ֶאת‬.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬ ground aromatic incense, and bring this behind the

‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה; ְוִכָסּה ֲﬠַנן‬,‫ָהֵאשׁ‬-‫ַהְקֹּטֶרת ַﬠל‬ curtain. And he shall put the incense on the fire before

12
Dr. Yonatan Feintuch teaches Talmud and Rabbinics at Bar Ilan University and Herzog College, and specializes in talmudic
narratives. He holds a PhD in Talmud from Bar Ilan University.
13
https://thegemara.com/the-sadducee-who-incorrectly-prepared-the-yom-kippur-ketoret/index.html

22
 ‫ָהֵﬠדוּת ְול ֹא‬-‫ַהַכֹּפֶּרת ֲאֶשׁר ַﬠל‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ַהְקֹּטֶרת‬ the Lord, so that the cloud from the incense screens the

‫ָימוּת‬ cover that is over [the Ark of] the Pact, lest he die.

Entering the Holy of Holies and the Debate about the Ketoret

A well-known contentious debate between the Pharisees and the

Sadducees/Boethusians1 (henceforth: Sadducees, for the sake of brevity) concerns the precise
timing of the placing of the incense on the burning ember by the High Priest (Sifra, Aharei Mot,
Parasha b):2

’‫…ונתן את הקטרת על האש לפני ה‬ ‘And he shall place the incense on the fire before the Lord’

‫ שהרי‬,‫– שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס‬ – that he shouldn’t fix (the incense) outside and bring it in,

‫הצדוקין אומרין יתקן מבחוץ‬ since the Sadducees say he should fix (it) outside and bring

…‫ויכניס‬ it in…

According to the Sifra, the Sadducees ruled that the incense was placed on the ember prior to
entering the holy chamber, thus the entrance itself was already accompanied by a cloud of smoke
rising from the burning incense. Conversely, the Pharisees held that the incense was only burnt
once the priest entered.

The Meaning of the Debate

What was this Second Temple debate all about? This question is a matter of some scholarly
controversy and does not have an absolute answer.3 I will offer here one possibility4 which relates
fundamentally to the nature of the divine encounter that took place when the High Priest entered
the Holy of Holies.

The Sadducees required that the priest raise the cloud of incense before entering the Holy of
Holies. The incense thus functioned, quite literally, as a smokescreen;5 the Ark and the heavenly
presence upon it were to be shielded from his eyes, according to the Sadducees, at all moments.
Conversely, according to the Pharisees the incense had a completely different function. It was
not meant as a screen. Some interpreted it as “a means of propitiating God.”6 A different view
which I would like to embrace, was that the cloud of incense was the very means for God’s
revelation of His presence upon the Ark. This interpretation could read verse 16:2 thus: “For by

23
the means of the cloud I will reveal myself on the Ark cover (kapporet).”7 Thus, the Ark would
be visible to the High Priest, at least at the moment of entry.8

A description of an oath that, according to the Mishnah, the High Priest had to take preserves a
memory of the emotional charge this debate engendered (Mishnah Yoma 1:5):9

‫ אנו‬,‫ אישי כהן גדול‬,‫…ואו’ לו‬ …And they would say to him: My master, High Priest, we

‫ ואתה שלוחינו ושלוח‬,‫שלוחי בית דין‬ are the representatives of the beit din, and you are our

‫ משביעים אנו עליך במי‬,‫בית דין‬ representative and the representative of the beit din. We

‫ שלא‬,‫ששכין את שמו בבית הזה‬ make you swear, by He Who caused His name to dwell in

.‫תשנה דבר מכל מה שאמרנו לך‬ this house, that you will not change a thing from all that we

‫ והן פורשין‬,‫והוא פורש ובוכה‬ have told you. He would retire and cry, and they would retire

.‫ובוכין‬ and cry.

The Story of the Sadducee and the Incense

A climactic point in the literary history of this debate is found in a short story that appears in
several rabbinic sources and tells of a Sadducee High Priest who ostentatiously disobeys the
Pharisaic ruling by producing the “cloud of smoke” before entering the Holy of Holies. The
earliest extant version of this story appears in the Tosefta (a compilation of tannaitic material). A
comparison with a later version that appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) highlights some
surprising elements that are missing from the earlier versions and offers a window into the views
of the Bavli redactors on this issue.

The early tannaitic version of the story in the Tosefta reads:10

‫שכבר היה מעשה בביתסי אחד שהקטיר‬ There was already a case of a certain Boethusian who

‫ ויצאה ענן הקטרת‬,‫עד שהוא בחוץ‬ burnt (the incense) while he was still outside, and the

…‫והרתיע את כל הבית‬ cloud of the incense emerged and shook the whole

building…
‫ כל ימיכם הייתם‬,‫כשיצא אמ’ לאביו‬

‫דורשין ולא הייתם עושין עד שעמדתי‬

24
 ‫ אע”פ שאנו דורשין‬,‫ אמ’ לו‬.‫ועשיתי אני‬ When he emerged, he said to his father: all your days you

‫ואין אנו עושין שומעין אנו לדברי חכמים‬ would expound (scripture) but you wouldn’t execute (it),

‫ לא שהא‬.‫תמהני עליך אם תאריך ימים‬ until I arose and executed (it).He said to him: Even

.‫שלשה ימים עד שנתנוהו בקברו‬ though we expound we do not execute (it), we obey the

words of the Rabbis. I wonder if you shall live long? Not

three days passed and they placed him in his grave.

The version in the Bavli differs in form, style and content (Bavli Yoma 19b):11

‫תנו רבנן מעשה בצדוקי אחד שתקן‬ Our Rabbis taught: There was a case of a Sadducee who

‫מבחוץ והכניס פגע בו אביו אמר לו‬ arranged the incense outside, and then brought it inside. His

‫בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו שומעין‬ father met him and said to him: My son, although we are

‫ אמ’ לו כל ימי הייתי‬.‫אנו לפרושין‬ Sadducees, we obey of the Pharisees. He replied: All my

‫ “כי בענן‬:‫מצטער על מקרא זה‬ days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I appear in

‫אראה על הכפרת” עכשו שבא לידי‬ the cloud over the ark-cover”. Now that I have the

?‫לא אקיימנו‬ opportunity shall I not fulfil it?

It is reported that he did not have the chance to complete it

‫אמרו לא הספיק לגמור את הדבר עד‬
(ha-davar) until he died and was thrown on the dung heap,
‫שמת ומוטל באשפה והיו‬
and worms came forth from his nose and were entering his
‫תולעים יוצא(ו)י[ן מחוטמו ובאין‬
mouth. Some say: He was smitten as he came out [of the
.‫ ויש אומ’ ביציאתו נגף‬.‫לתוך פיו‬
Holy of Holies].

‫דתני ר’ חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה‬

For R. Hiyya taught: Some sort of a noise was heard in the
‫שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו‬
Temple Court, for an angel had come and struck him down

on his face (/to the ground), and his brethren the priests came

25
 ‫אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל‬ in and they found the trace as of a calf’s foot on his

…‫בין כתפיו‬ shoulder…

Contrasting the Two versions of the Story

One striking difference between the versions relates to the priest’s death. The Bavli, in contrast
with the Tosefta, reads that the priest is killed instantaneously, thus creating a tighter link
between the priest’s action and his punishment. The immediacy of the death is also reminiscent
of God’s wrath against Nadav and Avihu who brought a “strange” incense offering (Leviticus
10:1-7), and thus creates a stronger effect, emphasizing the improperness of the priest’s conduct.
It also adds, in the version quoted here, that his decaying body is cast in a pile of
garbage,12 emphasizing the disgrace of the priest in his death, while the Tosefta describes him
being placed in his grave.

Similarities between the Stories of

R. Akiva’s and the Sadducee’s Death

Another element that is unique to the Bavli story is noteworthy. Surprisingly, the Bavli version
of the story contains a sentence that closely parallels another Bavli story – that of R. Akiva’s
death in bBer 61b:13

…When R. Akiva was taken out for execution, it was

‫…כשהוציאו לר’ עקיבא להריגה זמן‬
the hour for the recital of the ‘Shema’, and they were
‫קרית שמע היתה והיו מסרקין את בשרו‬
combing his flesh with an iron comb, and he was
‫ והיה מקבל עליו מלכות‬,‫במסרק של ברזל‬
accepting upon himself the kingship of heaven with
‫ אמרו לו תלמידיו ר’ עד‬.‫שמים באהבה‬
love. His disciples said to him: Our teacher, even to this
?‫כאן‬
point?

He said to them: All my days I have been troubled

‫אמ’ להן כל ימי הייתי מצטער על פסוק‬
over this verse, ‘with all thy soul’, [which I interpret,]
‫זה בכל נפשך אפילו נוטל את‬
‘even if He takes thy soul’, and I said: When shall I

26
 ‫נפשך ואמרתי מתי יבוא לידי‬ have the opportunity of fulfilling this? Now that I

?‫ עכשיו בא לידי ולא אקיימנה‬,‫ואקיימנה‬ have the opportunity shall I not fulfill it?

‫ולא הספיק לגמור את הדבר עד שיצתה‬ And he did not have a chance to complete it (ha-

.‫נשמתו באחד‬ davar) until his soul left his body while reciting the

word ‘Ehad’.

Several general thematic points of affinity between the two stories may be pointed out:

1. Both stories portray the main protagonist defying a certain authority by performing what
he viewed as a religious obligation, and then dying an ugly death.
2. Each of these main protagonists (the Sadducee, R. Akiva) is confronted by another
character (the father, the disciples) who questions his actions.14

These affinities are buttressed in the Bavli by the striking use of the formula: “All my days I
have been troubled over this verse”. In the Bavli, this formula appears only in these two stories
and in one more location 15 hence its appearance in both the abovementioned stories creates a
significant link between them.16

When did the Sadducee Die?

Another striking literary connection between the two stories appears in the description of the
death of the main protagonist in each story. The R. Akiva story17 says: “he did not have a chance
to complete it until his soul left his body while reciting the word ‘Ehad’”. Similarly, the Bavli’s
version of the Sadducee story reads: “he did not have a chance to complete it until he died”.

This last sentence fits smoothly only in the R. Akiva story, where he was engaged in reciting
the Shema, and his soul leaves his body as he is reciting the last word.18 In the Sadducee story, by
contrast, this sentence is confusing, and its reference is not clear. It is presumably referring to the
burning of the incense before entering the chamber,19 however, this cannot be the case since we
are told that after he emerges from the Holy of Holies he meets his father and has a conversation
with him. On the other hand, if “davar” were referring to the conversation with the father, we
would expect the plural “devarim”. Thus, the continuity in the R. Akiva story is impaired by this
sentence. This further supports the idea that the authors/redactors of the Sadducee story were
borrowing verbal motifs from the R. Akiva story. 20

27
 The Meaning of the Bavli’s Version of the
Sadducee Story: Comparing Martyrs
What then should we make of the Babylonian storytellers’ likely use of motifs from the R. Akiva
story in their reworking of the story of the Sadducee?21 This reworking may be emphasizing the
high stakes of the issue under discussion for both parties by indicating that the Sadducee was
prepared to forfeit his life in an ‘act of martyrdom’ in order to execute his community’s tradition.
However, in light of the exceptionally negative attitude that is expressed in the Bavli version of
this story toward the Sadducee, which is heightened by contrast to earlier versions, it appears to
me that the comparison that the Babylonian redactors meant to draw between the Sadducee and
R. Akiva is an ironic one: R. Akiva’s martyrdom, defying the Romans over the essentials of
studying and observing Torah, and suffering a terrible yet honorable death by Roman hands, is
reduced, in the story in bYoma, to a young, arrogant, priest defying the Rabbis, and suffering a
shaming death inflicted on him by divine judgment. This ironic presentation of the priest appears
to remove from him any dignity with which the original story may have awarded him.

To this we may add also that the ending of the stories also presents a contrast: in the R. Akiva
story the angels protest his terrible fate, while in the bYoma story it is an angel that strikes him
dead

The Bavli’s Hostile Attitude towards the Sadducees

What could have motivated the Babylonian redactors to design their version of the story in a
manner that enhances the negative light in which the Sadducee priest is presented? Many connect
this to the Bavli’s highly negative attitude toward the Sadducees.22 That may be true but I believe
an additional factor is at work here as well: this story reflects the importance that the Bavli
attributed to the idea underlying the pharisaic/rabbinic perception of the Yom Kippur service.

Emphasizing God’s Closeness on Yom Kippur

As mentioned previously, one way of understanding the Sadduceean-Pharasaic debate concerns

the overall meaning of the Yom Kippur avodah, and the incense ritual in particular. The Bavli
redactors may have been interested in further endorsing the pharisaic view of the encounter
between the priest who represents Israel and God on the day of forgiveness – an encounter of re-
unification, intimate closeness, a removal of barriers – by rejecting the idea that the function of
the incense is to create a barrier, a veil that prevents a direct encounter between the Jewish
people’s representative and God.23 The Bavli enhances the criticism of the Sadducee’s creating
just such a barrier, both by emphasizing the immediacy and the disgracefulness of his death and
by creating the ironic comparison to R. Akiva.

28
Indeed, the irony in the story isn’t confined to this comparison. In the Bavli, God’s instant wrath,
which is usually directed in the Torah at those who come too close, is ironically directed in a
very similar manner toward those who would not come close enough. The design of the story in
the Bavli thus embraces the interpretation that the function of the incense was not to create a
barrier, but rather to enable a direct encounter between the priest and both the Ark and the
presence that descends upon it.

‫כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה’ תטהרו‬

NOTES

1. The Boethusians were a group related in some way to the better-known Second Temple sect known as the Sadducees.
For scholarly views about the two groups and relationship between them see, e.g., Yaakov Sussman, ‘The History of the
Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma‘ase Torah (4QMMT)’
(Hebrew), Tarbiz 59 (1990), pp. 48-55, and in the footnotes.
2. According to MS Vatican 66. Translations of rabbinic texts here and below are mine (texts from the Bavli were translated
with the aid of the Soncino Talmud). Biblical sources are translated according to the New JPS Tanakh translation.
3. According to the tannaitic recording of this debate (Sifra, ibid; Tosefta Kippurim 1:8) it stems from diverse interpretations
of the verses in the description of the Yom Kippur sacrificial service in Leviticus 16. The order of the actions in verses
12-13 (cited above) supports the Pharisaic opinion, while the Sadducees base their opinion on the opening verse of the
description of the service (16:2): “…for in the cloud I shall appear over the ark-cover (kapporet).” However, this verse
is somewhat ambiguous (see: Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(The Anchor Bible), New York 1991, pp. 1014-1015). Furthermore, the Pharisees as well were inconsistent with regard
to following the simple order of all the actions related in the biblical account (see, e.g., Israel Knohl and Shlomo Naeh,
‘Millu’im ve-Kippurim’, Tarbiz 62 (1993), p. 29). Thus, commentators are at odds about the precise point of conflict:
was the disagreement between the Pharisees and Sadducees over textual interpretation, or did the differences in
interpretation stem from an underlying conflict of views with regard to priestly conduct or the Yom Kippur service? If
the latter is true, what, precisely, was this underlying issue?
4. This interpretation is one of many possibilities previously suggested by commentators and scholars, see previous note,
and below, note 7.
5. See, e.g., Milgrom, ibid, p. 1029
6. See, e.g., Milgrom, ibid, p. 1029. According to this explanation, the incense is a means of atonement, as it functions in
Numbers 17:11.
7. See Yehuda Brandes, ‘Ketoret’, in: U-ve-Yom Tzom Kippur Yehatemun (ed. Amnon Bazak), Alon Shevut, 2005 , pp. 91-
109, and Cf. Knohl and Naeh (above, n. 3); Milgrom, ibid; Cf. also Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological
Background of Their Faith³, Philadelphia 1966, pp. 654-660.
8. The obvious question of the precise meaning of ‘seeing’ God’s presence in the Holy of Holies (as it appears also in the
story about the High Priest R. Ishmael b. Elisha in bBer 7a; see below, n. 23), merits a separate discussion, and cannot
be discussed in the present context.
9. MS Kaufmann.
10. Tosefta Kippurim 1:8 (ed. Lieberman, p. 222-223). The version in the Yerushalmi (yYoma 1:5, 39a) is similar, albeit not
identical. For the sake of brevity I will not relate to it here. A comprehensive analysis of the various versions may be
found in my article: ‘The Story of the Sadducee and the Incense in Bavli Yoma – Text and Interpretation,’ Sidra 29
(2014), 79-94 (Hebrew)
11. Translated according to the Munich 6 MS.
12. The worms coming out of his nose are reminiscent, unsurprisingly, of a midrashic description of the death of Nadav and
Avihu, who’s tragic death is mentioned at the beginning of the Leviticus 16, see Sifra, Shemini, parasha a.
13. Translation based on the Genizah Fragment Oxford, Bodl. heb. b. 1 (2673) (see below, n. 16). I completed words that are
partially unclear in the Genizah Fragment in accordance with MS Oxford 366.
14. R. Akiva is in fact confronted twice: once by his disciples, who ask him: “Rabbi, this far”? And secondly, earlier in the
passage in the Bavli another clash is recorded with Papos ben Yehuda. Pappos asks: “aren’t you afraid of this nation”,
which reminds us of the Sadducee’s father’s words that they obey the Pharisees.
15. bMeg 24b.
16. Several scholars have dismissed this link as secondary, on the grounds of the abovementioned sentence’s presumed
appearance solely in Ashkenazic manuscripts, and absence from others. According to these scholars, the R. Akiva story
probably borrowed these phrases from the Sadducee story, not vice-versa. However, I argued elsewhere that the
‘Ashkenazic’ text is supported by early eastern Genizah fragments. For a comprehensive discussion of this see the article

29
 referred to above, n. 10. For a different approach Cf. Paul Mandel, ‘Was Rabbi Aqiva a martyr?: Palestinian and
Babylonian influences in the development of a legend’, in: Rabbinic Traditions between Palestine and Babylonia (ed. R.
Nikolsky and T. Ilan), Leiden, 2014, pp. 306-353.
17. As it appears in most of the manuscripts and in the genizah fragments.
18. Thus, ‘it’ refers to the ‘Shema’.
19. Or, alternatively, the Avodah as a whole.
20. Theoretically, one could argue that the authors/redactors of the R. Akiva story may have borrowed motifs from the
Sadducee story, although the thought of designing the story of R. Akiva’s martyrdom in light of the story of a Sadducee
who defied the rabbis on Yom Kippur and received a divine death penalty appears to me to be highly counterintuitive.
For a more comprehensive discussion of this issue see the article referred to above, n.10
21. See previous note.
22. See, e.g., Sussman, ‘History of the Halakha’, p. 50 n. 168.
23. This approach is evident in another well-known story, which appears only in the Bavli, of the encounter of R. Ishmael
b. Elisha in the Holy of Holies (bBerakhot 7a): “It was taught: R. Ishmael b. Elisha says: I once entered into the Holy of
Holies to offer incense, and saw Akathriel Yah the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne. He said to me:
Ishmael, My son, bless Me! I said before him: May it be Thy will that Thy mercy may suppress Thy anger and Thy mercy
may prevail over Thy other attributes, so that Thou mayest deal with Thy children according to the attribute of mercy
and mayest, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice! And He nodded to me with His head” (translation
based on MS Paris 671); and see above, n. 8.

30