the reflection [bavua] of a reflection of his reflection he shall know that he will return and come to his home. The Sages say about this: And this is nothing, i.e., one should not practice these divinations, as perhaps he will become despondent if he does not see the positive sign and his fortune will turn bad, and this itself will result in his failure.

Abaye said: Now that you have said that a sign is a substantial matter, a person should be accustomed to eat, at the start of the year, gourd, fenugreek, leeks, beets, and dates, as each of these grow and multiply quickly, which is a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year.

With regard to positive omens, Rav Mesharshiyya said to his sons: When you want to go to study in the presence of your teacher, initially study the mishnayot and then ascend before your teacher. And when you sit before your teacher, see your teacher’s mouth, as it is stated: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). And when you learn a halakha, learn near a source of flowing water, as just as the water flow continues, so too, your learning should continue.

Rav Mesharshiyya gave his sons additional advice: It is better for you to dwell on the garbage piles [akilkei] of the city Mata Meḥasya and not to dwell in the palaces [apadnei] of the city Pumbedita. It is better to eat rotten fish [gildana] than high-quality kutḥa, which uproots and tosses rocks from their places, i.e., it is a very spicy, powerful flavoring.

The Gemara further discusses the issue of anointing and good omens. Hannah said in her prayer after her son Samuel was born: “And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara notes that Hannah said: “My horn is exalted,” and she did not say: My jug is exalted. With regard to David and Solomon, who were anointed with oil from a horn, this was a good omen for them, and their kingships lasted. But with regard to Saul and Jehu, who were anointed with oil from a jug, their kingships did not last.

§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive karet: One who blends the incense according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service, for purposes other than use in the Temple. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who blends the incense in order to teach himself how to prepare it or in order to transfer it to the community is exempt from liability. But if he prepares it in order to smell it he is liable to receive karet, as it is stated: “He who prepares it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:38). And one who actually smells the incense mixture is exempt from the punishment of karet and from bringing a sin offering; but he has misused consecrated property, and is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering if he acted unwittingly.

The Gemara asks: And is there the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to smell? But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to exposure to the sound, or to the sight, or to the smell of consecrated items, including incense, these are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?

The Gemara answers: With regard to exposure to the smell of the incense, the following distinction applies: The smell of the incense that is emitted when the spices are placed on the coals on the altar is subject to the prohibition, since this is the manner in which the mitzva is performed. By contrast, the smell emitted after the flame catches and the column of smoke rises is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that its mitzva has already been performed, and you have no case in which an item is at the stage after its mitzva has already been performed and yet one is liable for its misuse.

The Gemara asks: And why not say that misuse of consecrated property applies to an item whose mitzva has been already performed? But there is the case of the daily removal of the ashes of the offerings from the altar, whose mitzva has been performed, as the offerings have been burnt, and yet one who uses the ashes is liable for misusing the ashes, as derived from the verse: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3).

The Gemara answers: This case does not disprove the principle, since the halakhot of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments of white linen worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and there is a principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. In other words, if a halakha is stated twice with regard to two separate cases, this halakha applies only to those cases. Had the Torah wanted to teach that this halakha applies to all other relevant cases as well, it would have mentioned it only once, and other cases would be derived from there. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates they are exceptions.

The Gemara comments: The fact that the Torah mentions this halakha twice works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur require interment. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, what can be said? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the sacred place, and he shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23). This phrase teaches that his vestments require interment. Although their use for the mitzva has been completed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from these garments. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rabbi Dosa says: These priestly vestments may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, but they are fit for use by an ordinary priest, as they are similar to those worn by ordinary priests on a daily basis. Rabbi Dosa adds: And what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall leave them there”? This teaches that the High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur. According to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, only one verse teaches there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to an item that has already been used for performing its mitzva. Therefore, one should derive a principle from the verse discussing the removal of the ashes.

The Gemara answers: One cannot derive a general principle from this case, because the removal of the ashes and the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken, from which one may not derive benefit after that rite has been performed, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara elaborates: What is the case of the removal of the ashes? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This teaches that they require interment. What is the case of the heifer whose neck is broken? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). This teaches that such heifers require interment.

The Gemara adds: And even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, here they certainly do not teach that misuse of consecrated property applies to items whose mitzva has been performed. This is due to the fact that there are two terms indicating exclusions with regard to these halakhot, limiting this halakha to those cases. With regard to the removal of the ashes it is written: “And he shall put it.” The word “it” teaches that in this particular case, yes, there is misuse of consecrated property, but with regard to any other matter this prohibition does not apply. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: “The heifer that had its neck broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). The word “the” indicates that with regard to the heifer that had its neck broken, yes, but with regard to any other matter the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: How is the blending of the incense performed? Balm, and onycha, and galbanum, and frankincense, each of these by a weight of seventy maneh, i.e., seventy units of one hundred dinars. Myrrh, and cassia, and spikenard, and saffron, each of these by a weight of sixteen maneh. Costus by a weight of twelve maneh; three maneh of aromatic bark; and nine maneh of cinnamon. Kersannah lye of the volume of nine kav; Cyprus wine of the volume of three se’a and three more kav, a half-se’a. If one does not have Cyprus wine he brings old white wine. Sodomite salt is brought by the volume of a quarter-kav. Lastly, a minimal amount of the smoke raiser, a plant that causes the smoke of the incense to rise properly. Rabbi Natan says: Also a minimal amount of Jordan amber.

And if one placed honey in the incense he has disqualified it, as it is stated: “For you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). If he omitted any one of its spices he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Shimon says: The balm mentioned here is nothing other than a resin exuded from the balsam tree, not the bark of the tree itself. The Kersannah lye mentioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary as one rubs the onycha in it so that the onycha should be pleasant. Likewise, the Cyprus wine is required as one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good for this purpose, but one does not bring urine into the Temple because it is inappropriate.

The Gemara comments: This final ruling supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who says with regard to a verse that discusses the incense: It is sacred, it shall be sacred to you (see Exodus 30:36–37), that this teaches that all of its actions should be performed only in the sacred area of the Temple.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Shekalim 4:6): With regard to one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, they are consecrated for Temple maintenance. And if among them there were items suitable for use as communal offerings, which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance so that they can be properly consecrated for sacrificial use? They are given to Temple artisans as their wages, and they are thereby desacralized. They can then be consecrated again for their proper purpose.

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: These items that are suitable for use as communal offerings, what are they? If they are domesticated animals and undomesticated animals, the tanna taught the halakha with regard to them later in that same mishna. Likewise, if they are wines, oils, and flours, the tanna taught them in that mishna as well. Rather, is it not referring to incense consecrated by a private individual? If so, this would mean that one can prepare and consecrate incense outside the Temple.

Rabbi Oshaya said: The mishna is referring to that incense which is given to the Temple artisans as their wages, i.e., the incense was prepared in the sacred place and was desacralized when it was given to the artisans, who subsequently consecrated it. As it is taught in a mishna (Shekalim 4:5): 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 they do with it in order to render it usable? The Temple treasurers would remove an amount of it equal to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. And they would then desacralize that incense by transferring its sanctity to the money owed the artisans. They would then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. And finally, they would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels.

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: How can the mishna in Shekalim 4:6 be interpreted as referring to artisans who consecrated leftover incense? With regard to all leftovers the tanna teaches: They would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the new collection of shekels, as stated in the mishna earlier. And yet here, in tractate Shekalim, the tanna does not teach this clause, indicating that it is not speaking of incense paid to the artisans and repurchased from them.

Rather, Rav Yosef says: The mishna is referring to one of the ingredients of the incense, which an individual consecrated when it is not in the Temple. It is not speaking of incense that has already been blended, as this action may be performed only in the sacred area, as claimed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The incense was prepared from ingredients amounting to the weight of 368 maneh, i.e., 368 units of one hundred dinars. Of these, 365 of them correspond to the days of the solar year. The additional three maneh are those from which the High Priest would bring in to the Sanctuary his handful required on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:12), and the rest, i.e., the incense that was not used over the course of the year, was given to the artisans as their wages.

This is as it is taught in the aforementioned mishna (Shekalim 4:5): With regard to the leftover incense, what would they do with it? The Temple treasurers would remove an amount of it equal to the value of the wages of the artisans who worked in the Temple. And 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. And finally, they would return and purchase the incense from the artisans with funds from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.