Daf Ditty Yoma 48: ‫וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬

A Handful of Stillness

‫ִמְמּל ֹא‬--‫ ְמל ֹא ַכף ָנַחת‬,‫ו טוֹב‬ 6 Better is a handful of quietness, than both the
.‫ וּ ְרעוּת רוַּח‬,‫ָחְפַנ ִים ָﬠָמל‬ hands full of labor and striving after wind.

Eccl 4:6

The stillness of the silent heart.

When it doesn’t beat, and it doesn’t speak.
Oh, the stillness of the heart when its quiet.
When it doesn’t move, it’s still.
When it’s grown contempt with its surroundings or come to terms with its
turmoil.
The heart, when it’s lost its heat and its fire.

1
 Oh, the stillness of the heart when its silent.
When it doesn’t make a sound.
When it’s grown too weak to weep.
When it’s grown tired of trying.
When there is nothing left to hear.

Oh, the stillness of the heart when it doesn’t speak.

When there is no words to form a rhythm or a beat.
When it doesn’t move or quiver.
When it doesn’t lash out or scream.
When it doesn’t click of clammer.

Oh, the stillness of the heart when its quiet.

When it doesn’t mumble or moan.
When it doesn’t wince or whisper.
when it doesn’t murmur or mutter.
When it doesn’t have tenants or tones.

Oh, the stillness of the heart when it’s still.

When its calm as night.
When its knots are un-tied.
When its movement has died.
When its lids are dark.

Oh, the stillness of the heart when its grown contempt and come to terms.
When it doesn’t complain or compare.
When it doesn’t fume or fight.
When it doesn’t stretch or strive.
When it doesn’t define or despair.

Oh, the stillness of the heart when it’s lost its flame and its fire.
When it’s grown cold.
When it’s hard as rock.
When its ache and hurt is gone.
When it doesn’t hurt or long.

Oh, it's still.

Warren Arends

2
3
Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states:

12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off

‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫יב ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬ the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet
‫ ְקֹטֶרת‬,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬ incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.
.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ַסִמּים ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬
Lev 16:12

“His hands full” (Leviticus 16:12), it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands,
by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together.

4
However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a
handful with his fingertips? Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to
upward? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he
scooped a handful with this hand and with this hand and brought them together? These
questions are not answered either, and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states:

12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off

‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫יב ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬ the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet
‫ ְקֹטֶרת‬,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬ incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.
.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ַסִמּים ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬
Lev 16:12

“His hands full” it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands, by placing the backs
of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. However, Rav Pappa raised a
dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips?

5
Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to upward? What is the halakha
if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this
hand and with this hand and brought them together? These questions are not answered either,
and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

§ Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Should the handfuls to which the Sages referred be smoothed
over or slightly overflowing? Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear an explicit
statement in a baraita: The handfuls to which the Sages referred should be neither smoothed
over nor overflowing, but full, without any flour spilling out.

6
§ We learned in a mishna there, in Zevaḥim 32a: If the blood of the sacrificial animal spilled on
the floor instead of being collected directly into a vessel, and a priest collected it from there into
a vessel, it is disqualified, as it was not collected properly. Conversely, if the blood spilled from
the vessel onto the floor, after it was collected properly, and a priest collected it and put it back
in the vessel, it is valid.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a halakhic
midrash: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5); this
means that the priest shall take from the blood of the soul, i.e., the bull’s blood that flows from
the place of slaughter as the animal dies, and not from the blood of the skin, which bleeds out
when the skin is cut before the slaughter, nor from the blood squeezed from an animal after the
initial spurt.

7
The baraita interprets the phrase “from the blood of the bull,” as though these words were written
in a different order: Blood from the bull, i.e., the priest shall receive it directly. For if it should
enter your mind that the letter mem, which means “from” in the phrase “from the blood of the
bull,” is limiting and indicates that even if the priest received some of the blood, his action is
acceptable, didn’t Rav Yehuda say: He who receives the blood must receive all of the blood of
the bull, as it is stated:

‫ַק ְרנוֹת‬-‫ַהָדּם ַﬠל‬-‫ז ְוָנַתן ַהֹכֵּהן ִמן‬ 7 And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of the
,‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ִמְזַבּח ְקֹט ֶרת ַהַסִּמּים‬ altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tent
‫ַדּם‬-‫ ְבֹּאֶהל מוֵֹﬠד; ְוֵאת ָכּל‬,‫ֲאֶשׁר‬ of meeting; and all the remaining blood of the bullock shall
,‫ ְיסוֹד ִמְזַבּח ָהֹעָלה‬-‫ ֶאל‬u‫ ִיְשֹׁפּ‬,‫ַהָפּר‬ he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which
.‫ ֹאֶהל מוֵֹﬠד‬,‫ֶפַּתח‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬ is at the door of the tent of meeting.

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7)? This
verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all of the bull’s blood, which is possible only if he has
collected all of it.

Rather, learn from this that what is the meaning of the phrase: “From the blood of the bull”?
It means that the priest must receive the blood directly from the bull. And this Sage maintains
that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, i.e., one may take a letter from one
word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner.

8
§ Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above ruling: What is the halakha if the incense
from his handfuls scattered? Is his hand considered like the neck of the animal, and the
incense is disqualified?

Or perhaps his hand is considered like a vessel used in the Temple service, and if the incense
fell from his hand, it is not disqualified. No answer was found for this question either, and the
Gemara again concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

9
§ Rav Pappa raised another dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest thought a
disqualifying thought during the taking of the handful of the incense, e.g., if he intended to burn
it after its appropriate time? Does this thought invalidate the rite or not? Do we say that this
halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy of “handfuls” and “handfuls,” from the case
of a meal-offering, as follows: Just as there, with regard to the meal-offering, thought is
effective to invalidate it, so too here, with regard to taking a handful of incense, thought is
effective to invalidate it? Or should the two cases not be compared?

10
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear a resolution to your dilemma: Rabbi
Akiva added the handful of fine flour and the incense, and the frankincense, and the coals
that are collected in a vessel, to the ruling of the Sages that if one who immersed himself during
the day touched part of them, he disqualifies all of them.

Due to the respect in which sacred objects are held, these objects are treated as one solid unit. This
is so despite the fact that its parts are not really attached to each other but are separate small
segments and therefore, logically, one who immersed himself during the day should disqualify
only those parts of the item with which he came into direct contact.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

11
12
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

There is a question as to whether the side of a vessel satisfies the requirement

that the kometz (fist-full of flour) be placed in a vessel.

The Kohen is required to scoop a fist-full from the minchah (meal offering) and place it on the fire
of the Altar. Before he burns it, he must place it in a vessel. The Gemora inquires: What would be
the halachah if that kometz got stuck to the side of the vessel? Is the requirement merely that the
kometz should be in the vessel, or must it be placed properly?

The Gemora asks a similar question regarding turning the vessel inside out and placing it inside.
Is the requirement to place the kometz inside, or is the requirement to do so in a normal manner?
If the incense spills out of the Kohen Gadol’s cupped hands, it is unclear whether this disqualifies
it. There is a requirement when slaughtering a sacrifice that the blood should be accepted in a
vessel.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Yoma_48-1.pdf

13
The Gemora quotes a Mishnah which says that if the blood spills on the floor of the Courtyard
before it is received in the vessel, it is disqualified. If, however, the blood spills after it has been
accepted in the vessel, it can be gathered up and thrown on the Altar.

The Gemora inquires: What would be the rule regarding the incense on Yom Kippur? If it spills
from the Kohen’s cupped hands, is it considered the equivalent of the blood spilling from the neck
of the animal, and therefore, passul (disqualified), or is it considered like spilling from a vessel,
and, therefore, it would be valid?

When taking the hands-full of incense, improper intention can disqualify the offering.

There is rule regarding sacrifices that if any of the service was done with the intention to eat or
burn the sacrifice at the wrong time, the sacrifice is disqualified, and if one eats the meat of the
sacrifice, he is liable for kares (a heavenly punishment).

This prohibition is called piggul.

The same rule applies to the minchah. If one takes the kometz with the intention of burning it on
the Altar at the improper time, it is disqualified. The Gemora inquires: Doesthe piggul rule (of the
minchah) apply to the incense as well? The Gemora notes that there is an identical word in the
parshah of the minchah and the parshah of the incense on Yom Kippur. This might enable us to
apply the rule of the minchah to the incense. The Gemora concludes that the rule of piggul is
applicable in the case of the incense as well. The Gemora reasons that there are other laws
regarding sacrifices that are also applicable to the incense. Both tevul yom and linah disqualify the
incense. Tevul Yom is someone who was tamei (impure) and has been to the mikveh that day. The
halachah is that he is considered tahor (pure) except in relation to kodashim.

Rabbi Akiva says that a tevul yom disqualifies the incense. Linah is a disqualification that comes
about when items which are sanctified are left overnight. The Gemora asserts that if these two laws
apply to the incense, the law of piggul applies as well. There is a question whether having an
improper intention when taking the coal for the incense disqualifies the incense or not. As
mentioned above, taking the incense with the intention to offer it at the wrong time disqualifies
the offering. The Gemora inquires whether the same rule applies to the taking of the coals. The
question is whether the preparation for a mitzvah is considered part of the mitzvah. In this case,
the taking of the coal is necessary for the burning of the incense. If it is considered part of the
mitzvah, improper intention would disqualify the mitzvah.

It is permissible to carry sacrifices to the Altar using the left hand.

There is a general rule that service in the Temple must be done with the right hand. Bringing the
offerings to the Altar is considered a service. It is unclear, however, if the rule of not using the left
hand is applicable when bring the offerings to the Altar, because this service is never explicitly
mentioned in the Torah.

14
The Gemora brings a proof that the left hand is valid from the Mishnah. The Mishnah says that the
Kohen Gadol would carry the spoon full of incense in his left hand. We see, therefore, that it is
permissible to carry in the left hand.

Only Fat Kohanim should Apply

The Gemora concluded that it is preferable that a fat kohen should perform the kemitzah in order
that the flour should not remain between his fingers. In Hagaos Yaavetz, he wonders if this actually
transpires that a skinny kohen would forego the avodah of kemitzah and allow a fat kohen to do it.
This conclusion is omitted by the Rambam.

The Gemora arrives at the same conclusion regarding the chafinah of the kohen gadol on Yom
Kippur. The Chafetz Chaim comments that the Rambam omits this halachah as well, for it is not
found any place that the prerequisite to become a kohen gadol is to be fat. The Yaavetz mentions
that perhaps just like a kohen gadol must be handsome and strong as a prerequisite to being
appointed, so too, he must be fat.

The question remains, though. Why did the Rambam omit these halachos by kemitzah and
chafinah?

Holy Hands the Gemora inquires as to what the halachah would be if the
ketores, which was in the hands of the kohen gadol, spilled onto the floor; will
he be allowed to gather it up.

The basis for this question is how we view his hands. Are his hands like the animal's neck, and
therefore it will be disqualified (similar to blood that spilled from the neck of the animal, or do we
consider his hands like a ministering vessel, and hence it will be valid?

The Ritva explains why his hands should be considered a ministering vessel, by quoting the
previous Gemora which stated that, in truth, the Torah does not mention the use of a utensil by the
ketores; it is used because there was no method to bring the handful of ketores by hand together
with the pan containing the coals.

Consequently, one can say that the kohen's hands served as the ministering vessel. Tosfos poses a
solution to the dilemma of that Gemora, based on our Gemora that his hands will be regarded as a
ministering vessel.

He can hold the ketores in his hands and place the shovel on top of it. When he enters the Kodesh
Kadashim, let him loosen his hands, enabling the ketores to fall to the ground, place the coals down
and then scoop up the ketores (which will now be allowed) and place it on the coals.

15
 "PIGUL" DISQUALIFIES THE COALS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld

Rav Papa asks whether a Machshavah of Pigul, an invalidating thought, disqualifies the Ketores if the
Kohen has such a thought while he performs the Chafinah of the Ketores. The Gemara proves from a
Beraisa that a Machshavah of Pigul does disqualify the Ketores. The Beraisa states that when a person
who is Tamei as a Tevul Yom touches part of the Ketores he invalidates it. This implies that the degree
of sanctity of the Ketores is great enough that it can become disqualified with Linah (being left
overnight) as well. Accordingly, the degree of sanctity of the Ketores is also great enough that it can
become disqualified through a Machshavah of Pigul (intent at the time of the Chafinah to leave it
overnight).

Rav Papa asks another, related question. Does a Machshavah of Pigul disqualify the coals on which
the Ketores is burned if the Kohen has such a thought while he shovels them from the Mizbe'ach? Are
the coals, which are Machshirei Mitzvah, considered like the Mitzvah (the Ketores) itself and a thought
of Pigul disqualifies them, or are they not considered like the Mitzvah itself and a thought Pigul does
not disqualify them?

What is Rav Papa's question? The same Beraisa that states that the Ketores becomes disqualified when
a Tevul Yom touches it (from which the Gemara infers that the Ketores also becomes disqualified with
Linah and Pigul) states that coals become disqualified when a Tevul Yom touches them! The Gemara
should infer that the coals also become disqualified through Linah and Pigul, just as it infers that Linah
and Pigul disqualify the Ketores!

(a) RASHI apparently addresses this question. In his first explanation of the Gemara, Rashi writes that
Rav Papa's question is not whether the coals become disqualified by a Machshavah of Pigul. Rather,
his question is whether the Ketores becomes disqualified if the Kohen, as he shovels the coals for the
Ketores, thinks about leaving the Ketores overnight. Is the shoveling of the coals considered the
beginning of the procedure of the Ketores, such that a Machshavah of Pigul during the shoveling of
the coals disqualifies the Ketores? The answer to that question cannot be inferred from the Beraisa.

(b) In his second explanation, Rashi writes that Rav Papa's question indeed is whether the coals
themselves become disqualified with Pigul. Nevertheless, the answer to his question cannot be inferred
from the Beraisa. When the Beraisa teaches that the coals are holy and become disqualified when
touched by a Tevul Yom, this implies only that the coals can become disqualified with Linah as well,
but not with Pigul. To become disqualified with Pigul, the Kohen must have the Machshavah of Pigul
during an Avodah, but the act of shoveling the coals is not an Avodah. Even though the coals have
Kedushah (and therefore can become disqualified when touched by a Tevul Yom or through Linah),
perhaps they cannot become disqualified with Pigul because the act of shoveling the coals does not
constitute an Avodah. (TOSFOS (DH Chishav) accepts this explanation as well.)

(c) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH explain that when the Beraisa states that a
Tevul Yom's touch disqualifies the coals, it does not imply that Linah and Pigul also disqualify the
coals. Linah is equivalent to the Pesul of Tevul Yom only in the case of an object which itself is offered
("b'Etzem ha'Davar ha'Karev"), such as the Ketores. The coals, though, are not offered themselves

16
(they are used only to offer the Ketores), and therefore Linah and Pigul might not affect them even if
they have Kedushah.

(d) RABEINU CHANANEL groups the two questions together (does Pigul disqualify the Ketores,
and does Pigul disqualify the coals). He writes that the Gemara indeed proves from the Beraisa that
Pigul disqualifies both. He apparently had a different text in the Gemara, according to which the
Beraisa is cited after the question of the coals. (This indeed was the Girsa in an early edition of the
Gemara, as cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim, note #400.)
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:27) rules that Pigul does disqualify the coals.
The commentators question why the Rambam gives a conclusive ruling in the matter when the Gemara
itself leaves the matter unresolved (and as the Rambam himself rules with regard to the other
questions). (With regard to the other questions in the Gemara which are left unanswered, the Rambam
rules that one may be lenient b'Di'eved.)

The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM and the CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) suggest that the
Rambam had the same Girsa as Rabeinu Chananel, according to which the Gemara itself rules that
Pigul disqualifies the coals.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

There are four activities that are considered essential to the sacrifice and must be done by a kohen.
Following the slaughter of the animal (which can be done by someone who is not a kohen),
the kohen must perform:

1. kabbalah – collecting the blood from the animal

2. holakhah – carrying the container with the blood to the altar
3. zerikah – sprinkling the blood on the mizbe’ah
4. haktarah – burning the fats and innards of the sacrifice on the mizbe’ach

Of these four activities, the second one – holakhah – is qualitatively different from the others.
As Rashi points out, the other three activities are clearly enumerated in the Torah, which
commands that they be performed by a kohen, whereas holakhah is only hinted at in the text as an
essential part of the service. In fact, as noted by the Rishonim, if the sacrifice was slaughtered right
next to the altar, the blood could be collected and sprinkled on
the mizbe’ach without holakhah taking place at all, as long as the other three essential elements
were performed correctly. Thus, there exists the possibility that not all of the rules that apply to
the rest of the activities connected to the korban apply to holakhah.

With this in mind, we can understand the question that is presented to Rav Sheshet – whether
a korban is disqualified if holakhah was done by a kohen who carried the blood in his left hand
(generally speaking, all of the avodah [=service] in the Temple was done with the right hand).

2
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_4450/

17
Rav Sheshet answers by pointing to the rule taught in our Mishnah (47a), which dictates that
the mahtah (=shovel) was given to the kohen gadol to hold in his right hand, while
the kaf (=spoon) was held in his left hand. This is understood by Rav Sheshet to clearly indicate
that holakhah can be done with the left hand, as well.

Rav Sheshet points to the Mishnah by using the expression tanituha, which means “you have
already learned it in the Mishnah.” This expression, commonly used by Rav Sheshet, indicates that
the question can be answered by examining Mishnayot that are commonly known.

Mark Kerzner writes:3

They asked Rav Sheshet a question, "If a Kohen carries a part of a sacrifice in his left hand, is it
valid or not?" He replied, "We should learn the answer from Yom Kippur: the High Priest carries
the incense in his left hand, and the coals in his right , and that is OK!" Firstly, why does he have
to bring such a strong proof, from Yom Kippur? - Because he wants to show that even in this
serious case where atonement depends upon it, the service done with the left hand is still valid.
But secondly, there is an explicit ruling that any service done by a blemished Kohen, or while
sitting, or with the left hand is invalid! With this, Rav Sheshet's answer is completely disproved.

And Rav Sheshet, how could he make such a mistake? We have heard him quote this explicit
ruling in another situation!? The answer is exactly that: previously he did not know this ruling, so
he compared to Yom Kippur, then they taught him this ruling; now he changed his mind, and in
fact later taught it to others.

Unanswerable questions of Rav Pappa

Another question: if a High Priest scooped the incense but died before he got a chance to bring it
to the Holy of Holies, can a substitute High Priest use his prior scooping or does the procedure
have to be repeated? Here, after a few attempts, the Talmud does arrive at the answer: since later
on the High Priest will have to pour the incense out into the shovel and then scoop from it again,
we see that a substitute High Priest can do the same in case the first one dies. This proves it.

"In between, obvious, leveled, scattered" is a mnemonic sign to remember the following inquires;
however this is nothing but a hidden mystical key. All of the Talmud used to be learned by heart,
so having a key such as this one would be of little help in other places.

First question: the incense between the fingers and hands of the High Priest on Yom Kippur -
should it be burned on the coals, or no? In the phrase, "and he will scoop with full hands, and he
will bring..." which word is more important? If it is "he will scoop with full hands" then even the
particles in between are included, but if it is "and he will bring" - then it is not his intention to bring
them, and so they are not included.

3
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma49.html

18
Second: it is obvious that scooping should be done in the normal way. However, what if he did it
just with his fingertips, or by pushing his hands into the incense and allowing it to collect inside -
is this still acceptable or not?

As a preface to his third question, we need to recall that if one spilled the blood of a sacrifice on
the floor and then scooped it back up, it is invalid, but if he received it into a vessel, then spilled
from the vessel and scooped back, then it is valid. In the case of High Priest, if he spills the incense
from his hands onto the floor and picks it up - is this valid or does he have to scoop again from the
shovel?

Do we compare his hands to the neck of the animal, so that his procedure is invalid, as above, or
do we compare his hands to a Temple vessel, and then it is valid? The questions above remain
without an answer.

Try a Little Harder

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:4

One of the major debates in Jewish law is whether mitzvoth require kavanah, intent to fulfill the
mitzvah (see for example Brachot13a). As a general rule, those mitzvoth which are dependent on
actions--for example, shaking a lulav or eating matzah--are mitzvoth for which kavanah, while
ideally present, is not required; after all, I did what I had to do. Those mitzvoth for which it is our

4
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-48-try-a-little-harder

19
inner thoughts or feelings that matter most--for example, accepting the yoke of heaven through
recital of the first verse of the shema--kavanah is crucial [1].
This is especially so regarding korbanot, where even the slightest inappropriate thought may
render the korban invalid. Korbanot, more than any other area of Judaism, depend on our feelings.
It is for these reasons that our prophets, time and time again, ridicule and castigate those who think
that the act of bringing sacrifices has independent value. Minus intent to mend one's ways, a
sacrifice becomes a debasement of religion (see for example, Yeshayahu, 1).
The importance of absolute fidelity of thought and action is expressed in the notion of piggul, the
prohibition to sacrifice an animal that one intends to eat beyond the allotted time. Similarly, if one
intends to offer the sacrifice in a different place--even if one does not actually do so--
the korbanot are invalidated. In the former case, eating such a sacrifice carries the penalty of karet,
excision, no different than eating on Yom Kippur or "marrying" one's aunt.
The mitzvah of ketoret requires that one take a handful of spices and burn it on coals taken from
the altar. The Gemara (Yoma 48a) rules that if one scoops the spices with the intent of burning
them the next day, the ketoret would be invalid. The Gemara then raises the question of
whether piggul would apply regarding the removal of the coals on which the ketoret is to be
burned. The Gemara explains that the resolution to this question is dependent on
whether machserei mitzvah k'mitzvah dami--is the preparatory stage of a mitzvah the same as a
mitzvah itself?
The Gemara, unsure as to the status of hechsher mitzvah, leaves the question unresolved; teiku, it
shall stand[2].
The Gemara's response reflects much more than uncertainty; it is the only possible answer to the
question. Whether the preparatory stages of a mitzvah are a mitzvah is dependent on what happens
next. If one builds a sukkah but does not sit in it, little has been accomplished. If one carries through
and completes the mitzvah, then all the steps leading up to the mitzvah are part and parcel of the
mitzvah. A hechsher mitzvah stands in suspension, "waiting" for the next steps.
The actions we take today impact on the present, the future, and the past. They demonstrate not
only what we hope to accomplish, but whether our prior efforts have been put to good use or were
a waste of time. Our lives are full of teiku, of things that are standing in abeyance waiting for what
will happen next. It is up to us to determine whether our past efforts have been well spent or wasted.
A lot of good work is lost for want of a little more. It is our task to put in that extra effort so
that teiku, that which stands, can move forward [3].

[1] The details of when kavanah is or is not required, and the definition of kavanah itself are subject to much debate and nuance
and is beyond the scope of this thought (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 60:4). A fascinating question is whether kavanah is
crucial in the realm of mitzvoth between man and man.

20
[2] While many were taught at a young age that teiku is an acronym for Tishbi yetaretz kushiot veubayot, that Eliyahu Hanavi will
answer all unresolved questions in the Messianic Age, such was said as a means to inculcate a yearning for and belief in the coming
of the mashiach. It reflects a historical truth, but not a legal one. In fact, Jewish law rules that a prophet may not answer halachic
questions, that being the domain of more earthly rabbis.
[3] Perhaps this reflects another idea of teiku and Eliyahu. If we do not follow through on our efforts, we shouldn't expect others
to do so; and it will wait a long time--until the Messianic Age--to be fulfilled. In such a case, teiku is not belief in the future, but is
a rebuke to us for waiting for the Messiah to solve our problems.

Rachel Scheinerman writes:5

Today our daf continues its discussion of a mishnah introduced on the previous page which
describes how the high priest measures out incense to be offered in the Holy of Holies on Yom
Kippur. Rav Pappa dominates the page, raising a total of six questions, four of which end with the
word teyku — ”let it stand.” Meaning: We don’t know the answer.

This has actually been going on since yesterday when the Gemara introduced a mnemonic — bein
habeinayim pashto umachatz ufizer vechishev bachafinat — a handy way of remembering all of
Rav Pappa’s questions on this mishnah.6 Between Yoma 47 and 48, there are a total of nine
dilemmas raised by Rav Pappa, seven of them ending in teyku — the talmudic equivalent of
throwing one’s hand in the air in a gesture of surrender. Some of Rav Pappa’s questions are directly
related to the mishnah above and some are not.

Sugyas (talmudic arguments) like this one, which have such an obvious schematic structure, offer
a tantalizing window into the formation of the Talmud, allowing us to speculate a bit about how it
was all put together. We say that the Talmud is part of the Oral Torah — a set of verbally
transmitted teachings. Every page is filled with rabbis speaking, not writing, their teachings. And
yet, it is now obviously a written text. What oral form did these teachings originally take? Who
wrote them down? How much did the compilers shape the traditions they received? When did they
do it? How many hands were involved?

Much like the Talmud itself, I don’t have all the answers. No one does. But let me offer a few more
observations. Often the Talmud collects sets of teachings by a named authority (as it does today

5
www.myjewishlearning.com
6
We saw a similar mnemonic idea on Pesachim 103 when the rabbis used a much shorter string of letters, yaknahaz, to remember
the correct order of blessings recited at a festival meal that coincides with the conclusion of Shabbat.

21
from Rav Pappa) and presents them as a unit. Shamma Friedman, who did an analysis of these
grouped teachings, notes that they often come in sets of three or seven (or six or 14, twice three
and seven) — much like the digits of a phone number. Grouping teachings in sets of this size
makes them easier to remember. Today’s page matches Friedman’s findings. Between yesterday
and today, we have nine teachings from Rav Pappa (three times three) of which seven are
unresolved.

The 20th century scholar Rabbi Louis Jacobs wrote an entire book on the word teyku. He notes
that it appears 319 times in the Babylonian Talmud and not at all in the Jerusalem Talmud. This
strongly suggests it is something the editors of the Babylonian Talmud used to organize and present
their material. He also notes that teyku is frequently applied to a set of rabbis we’ll deem the “usual
suspects.” Rabba introduces 47 problems that are unresolved and left to stand, Rav Pappa (today’s
rabbi) introduces 33, and Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yirmiya each introduce a few dozen. This also
suggests that it is a device used by later editors of the material.

Steinsaltz notes that the mnemonic on today’s page is corrupt — it doesn’t quite fit the problems
presented in the name of Rav Pappa. Was there once a better one? The version of the Babylonian
Talmud that we are reading is considered standard, but it is not the only one in existence.
Handwritten manuscripts, some of them discovered in the famous Cairo Genizah, attest that there
were other versions of the sugya on today’s page. Some of these manuscripts present the problems
in a different order. Some have a different mnemonic for Rav Pappa’s questions, and some have
no mnemonic at all. This too provides circumstantial evidence that it was a later hand that gathered
up these teachings, attributed them to Rav Pappa, and labelled them as unresolved. And that there
was fluidity in the creation of the Talmud.

Scholars of Talmud can (and do) spend their lives exploring questions about how the Talmud was
assembled. There is still much we do not know. The debates continue, and in some cases the answer
may be teyku — we’ll never know.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

In yesterday’s daf (Yoma 47b) we encountered three questions of Rav Pappa, to which the Gemara
responded with the word ‘Teiku’. In our daf (Yoma 48a-b), we encountered three further questions
of Rav Pappa, along with an additional question of Mar Bar Rav Ashi, to which ‘Teiku’ was again
the response. And in tomorrow’s daf (Yoma 49a), we find a further question posed by Rav Pappa,
to which the Gemara - once again - responds with ‘Teiku’.

Significantly, not all these questions query the same point of law. Still, most address the same
theme, namely the way in which a Kohen should grasp things in his hand. For example, ‘Does the
law of the mincha offering where what is in-between the fingers doesn’t count, apply to the incense
which the Kohen Gadol holds on Yom Kippur?’, or ‘Does a full fistful include with fingertips, or
if taken from below, or if taken from the sides?’, or ‘Do two separate handfuls put together count?’,
or ‘Must the Kohen Gadol himself take with his hands, or can someone else do this for him?’. And
in response to each of these questions, the Gemara tells us ‘Teiku’.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
Reflecting on this repeated response of ‘Teiku’, I am reminded of what Rav Soloveitchik was told
by his father when he encountered this word.

‘I asked him why the Talmud did not resolve the problem under discussion in so many cases
[and] instead… concludes with the phrase ‘teiku’ [“stalemate”]. Why was no conclusion
reached by the talmudic sages? My father explained to me that a Jew must apprehend that they
cannot understand and comprehend everything. When a Jew learns that there are halakhot
which are ambiguous, then they will also come to the realization that there are other areas that
are also not clear-cut. [Similarly], in matters of faith, teiku will also be encountered. The
greatness of Avraham, our forefather, was that he knew how to say “Here I am” (Bereishit 22:1)
even though he did not understand the request that God made of him. The basis of faith is teiku.
If a Jew does not master the concept of teiku, then they cannot be a true believer.’

The Rav Vol. 2 p. 62

Applying this to the various questions posed by Rav Pappa and by Mar Bar Rav Ashi, it is clear
that there are things in life which we can grasp, and it is equally clear that there are things that we
cannot. But there are also things that we aren’t certain whether we can or we can’t grasp them.
And even if we do, we are not sure whether we have truly or fully grasped them.

And it is this knowledge of not knowing what we can or cannot grasp that is, ultimately, the
meaning of ‘Teiku’.

Chafina of Ketoret on Yom Kippur

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:8

One of the central components of the Yom Kippur ceremony in the Beit Ha-mikdash entailed
burning spices in front of the aron ha-berit. The Torah relates that the kohen would carry a
'complete two-handfuls' of the ketoret spice into the Holy of Holies and pour this spice on top of
burning coals. This week's shiur will address the exact role which 'scooping up' these handfuls
played.

The first thought which comes to mind concerns an analogous scenario: that of the 'full
kometz.' A kometz represents the portion of a mincha offering (flour either raw or baked) which
fits into the 3 middle fingers when clenched. The kohen separated this amount from the rest of the
korban mincha and burnt it on the altar. It is very clear that the actual 'skimming' of this volume
of mincha was an essential feature of the mincha ritual. Hence the 'kometz' did not merely
represent the AMOUNT of flour intended to be burnt. Rather, the ACT of kemitza or skimming a
kometz was part of the ceremony and loosely comparable to the shechita of a sacrificial animal
(the act immediately prior to sprinkling the blood on the mizbei'ach). Having determined this
about the act of kemitza, can the same be said about chafina, the act of separating a quantity of
"melo chofnav" – two handfuls? Is this process also an integral aspect of the avoda or is it merely

8
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/talmud/seder-moed/massekhet-yoma/chafina-ketoret-yom-kippur-i

23
intended to separate the requisite quantity? Is it an 'avoda' or just a technical means to designate a
desired amount?

Keep in mind that when referring to kemitza, the Torah repeatedly uses an active verb "ve-
komatz" the kohen should separate, indicating that the act itself is crucial. By contrast, regarding
the Yom Kippur ceremony, the Torah specifically avoids using a verb to describe the act of
separating two handfuls of ketoret. Instead, the Torah writes (Vayikra 16:12):
12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off
‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫יב ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬ the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet
‫ ְקֹטֶרת‬,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬ incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.
.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ַסִמּים ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬
Lev 16:12

"He (the kohen gadol) should take a full pan of coals from the mizbei'ach before Hashem
as well as two handfuls of ketoret spice, and he should bring them within the parokhet (the curtain
separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the mikdash)." This textual variance might support
a distinction between chafina and kemitza: whereas kemitza is an integral part of the avoda in the
mikdash, chafina is a technical step necessary ONLY to arrive at the desired quantity.

Apparently, the gemara itself deliberates concerning this issue. The gemara in Yoma
(47a) questions the possibility of replacing the manual measuring of the ketoret by the kohen
gadol's hands with a measuring cup. Though the gemara cites a verse to reject this possibility, the
very raising of this option seems striking. Furthermore, we are left uncertain as to why this idea
was ultimately rejected. Does the gemara view the chafina (skimming of the handfuls) as part of
the avoda and therefore not to be replaced by a measuring cup? Or perhaps the gemara insists that
even though the scooping isn't part of the avoda nevertheless the act itself must be performed? The
volume of chafina - (2 handfuls) - is unlike other purely quantitative volumes, because here the
volume must be generated by actual human hands. Indeed, it could be that this scooping is NOT
considered part of the avoda but still the two scoopfuls must be a volume designated by actual
manual separation and therefore, no measuring cup could be used in substitution.

A second question which might bear upon our issue concerns the status of the spice which was
picked up but doesn't sit within the handfuls themselves. This question is referred to by the gemara
as 'bein ha-beinayim,' namely spice which was drawn up by the kohen gadol's hands but isn't
contained within them; rather, the spice is held by the backs of his fingers. Is this quantity to be
considered part of the chafina which is burnt in the kodesh ha-kodashim? This question is raised
by Rav Pappa in the gemara Yoma (47b). Here, the particles of spice are clearly integrated into
the QUANTITY of two-handfuls; however, they were not actively picked up by the kohen's hands
but rather were swept up by other particles or by the back of his fingers. If chafina is merely
functionary to arrive at the desired quantity, we might consider including these particles as they
are contained within the volume. If, however, the chafina entails a distinct ACT – part of the avoda
- we might be able to include only those particles upon which the ACT of chafina was performed.

So far, we have examined two issues raised by the gemara which could potentially shed
light on our original inquiry concerning chafina. We wondered if the scooping was an integral

24
part of the avoda on Yom Kippur, or merely a technical step necessary to generate the desired
volume of ketoret to be burnt? One issue involved using a 'pre-measured' quantity of spice while
the second pertained to particles which become part of the quantity without, however, undergoing
any decisive act of chafina.

A third question (which might be structurally similar to the previous ones) can be found in the
gemara Yoma (49a). What would happen if a different kohen were to perform the ACT of chafina
and then pour the pre-measured quantity into the kohen gadol's hands immediately prior to the
latter's entry into the kodesh ha-kodashim? This case also describes an instance in which the
quantity of 'two-handfuls' is acquired, even though the kohen gadol does not perform the ACT of
chafina. In fact, this case is so reflective of our basic inquiry and so similar to the previous
examples that the Rishonim question the gemara's raising it as a separate issue. In theory, if spices
which were gathered by another kohen are included, so should spices which are swept up between
the backs of the kohen gadol's fingers. Conversely, if the spices MUST be scooped by the kohen
gadol and not his colleague, then these 'peripheral spices' should also be invalid. See the Ritva
and Tosafot for discussions as to how these questions are truly distinct. Though each expresses
some disagreement regarding the relationship between these two questions, they both agree that
the cases are structurally quite similar.

In the same vein the gemara proceeds to raise an additional scenario: What happens if the actual
kohen gadol scooped the quantity of ketoret but then passed away? The first mishna in Yoma
informs us that a 'backup' kohen gadol was designated should the primary one pass away or become
impure. If the kohen gadol passed away AFTER he had scooped - is the replacement required to
perform a new act of chafina, or could he just proceed with the 'two-handfuls' which were already
scooped? Seemingly, this question also mirrors our inquiry: if chafina is a vital part of the Yom
Kippur ceremony, then we might require that the kohen who burns the spices also has scooped
them prior to his offering the ketoret. If, however, the scooping merely generates the required
quantity, then we might suffice with the scooping of the previous kohen gadol. As opposed to the
use of a measuring cup, spices between the fingers and even the scooping of a regular kohen, in
this final case the scooping WAS performed by a kohen gadol within the context of the Yom
Kippur ritual and the quantity WAS generated by the actual hands of the kohen gadol during this
avoda. Of all cases, this might be the most acceptable - but only if we do not view the scooping
as an integral stage of the avoda.

Above we have introduced a basic question about the role of chafina, the scooping of ketoret
(incense) on Yom Kippur, performed immediately by the kohen gadol before he entered the inner
sanctum to burn these spices upon the aron ha-kodesh. We inspected several issues about the
format of this scooping hoping to uncover its essential nature.

Now below9 we will I"h broaden that analysis and deal with the related issue of how often was the
chafina performed?

The gemara in Yoma 49a cites a position that chafina was actually performed twice. The kohen
gadol would scoop two handfuls of ketoret before entering the kodesh ha-kodashim. However,
before doing so, he had already gathered a pan of coals on which to burn these spices. These coals

99
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/talmud/seder-moed/massekhet-yoma/chafina-ketoret-yom-kippur-ii

25
also had to be transferred into the kodesh ha-kodashim at the same time as the ketoret. To free one
of his hands to carry these coals, he transferred the spices to a 'spoon' which he carried with his
left hand, while carrying the coals with his right. Once entering the kodesh ha-kodashim, the kohen
gadol placed the pan of coals on the aron (or the 'even ha-shtiya' (foundation stone) located on the
floor during the second beit ha-mikdash when there was no aron hakodesh).

However, according to one position, the ketoret is not poured directly from the spoon onto the
coals, as we might have expected. Instead, the kohen gadol performs a SECOND chafina scooping
'two-handfuls' from the spoon and pouring them onto the coals. Our understanding of the role of
the chafina cannot be complete until we assess the need for TWO chafinot. Tosafot claim that the
latter chafina was, in fact, unnecessary according to the Torah, and was only a rabbinic addition to
assure that the original quantity of ketoret had arrived safely within the kodesh ha-kodashim. The
wind might have strewn some ketoret along the way and the kohen gadol must assure that the
original measurement is still intact.

Thus, Tosafot believe that: 1) the second chafina is rabbinic in nature 2) it plays no
independent of fundamental role but merely rechecks the original measurement.

Tosafot Yeshanim (47a s.v. She-lo) (a variant text of Tosafot printed on the margin of the gemara
Yoma) take a fundamentally different approach. They write "the reason that a second chafina is
performed is because the Torah writes 'a full two-handfuls should be brought within the parokhet,'
meaning that he should transfer the two handfuls with his HANDS and not with a utensil."
Evidently, the re-scooping is not merely a final check but plays some more essential role.
Understanding this role requires inspecting a broader issue – the role of the spoon in this transfer
process.

The gemara in Yoma (47a) describes the spoon as a temporary carrier introduced simply to free
one hand to carry coals. This introduction of the spoon is puzzling since the gemara labors to base
this allowance upon a textual source (the use of spoons to carry the tribute offered by the nesi'im
(tribal leaders) during the inauguration of the mikdash). Had the spoon allowance been merely a
'last resort' or 'no choice' option why does the gemara base its use upon precedent?

This question helps us confront a central issue regarding the burning of the ketoret: does the spoon
serve as an essential part of the spice-offering avoda just as other utensils served as vessels from
which blood or water was offered upon the altar? Or as the spice-offering basically performed with
the kohen gadol's hand while the spoon serves as merely a temporary container when one of his
hands are occupied? This issue brings to mind some very interesting possibilities. What happens
if a kohen, while entering the kodesh ha-kodashim the first time, neglected to bring spice and only
transported the coals. He must return to retrieve the spices.

At this stage, when he has two free hands should he still pour the spices into the spoon? Or should
he just carry the spices in his two empty hands? This question crystallizes our above issue. Was
the spoon introduced as a secondary, practical measure or does it become 'mapped' onto the actual
avoda (sacrificial ritual), required even when both hands are unoccupied? The Rishonim
themselves do not discuss this issue but do raise more subtle issues which reflect the very same
factor. What happens if while carrying the spoon the kohen has impure thoughts? Generally, a

26
kohen who maintains inappropriate thoughts during part of the actual avoda can render the sacrifice
invalid. Does the carrying of the spoon constitute part of the avoda (parallel to carrying the blood
to the altar) and would such thoughts during this juncture invalidate the sacrifice?10.

To return to our point of departure – according to the Tosafot Yeshanim this question - whether
the ketoret becomes an avoda of a vessel (spoon) or remains an avoda of the hands – was in fact
the foundation of the argument whether or not the kohen gadol performed a second chafina.
Tosafot themselves saw this second chafina as technical - to assure that the original quantity
remained intact. According to the Tosafot Yeshanim, though, the ketoret is meant to be an avoda
of the kohen's hands and the spoon merely served as temporary carrier. To reestablish the ketoret
as an avoda of the hands it was scooped again inside the kodesh ha-kodashim.

Having understood the Tosafot Yeshanim we can now reflect upon our original question - is the
scooping merely to generate the desired quantity or does it participate in the actual avoda.
According to Tosafot Yeshanim, at least one opinion in the gemara (that which requires a second
scooping) viewed it as part of the avoda. That is precisely the reason that it had to be performed a
second time – so that the hands themselves should pour the ketoret onto the coals. At least the
second chafina was performed not merely to collect the necessary volume but as an integrated
aspect of the avodat ketoret. It should be noted that we still are unable to conclude the nature of
the original scooping; was it a fundamental part of the avoda or merely to separate the required
shiur? We have, however, determined a possible fundamental role for the second scooping. There
is one final question to consider in our attempt to analyze the nature of chafina. What would happen
if a kohen gadol, during the scooping of the ketoret, were to intend to burn the spices outside of
the mikdash rather than in the kodesh ha-kodashim?

Such thoughts, occurring during standard avoda, generally would render a korban "piggul,"
invalidating it. Does chafina qualify as an avoda during which these thoughts would blemish a
korban? The gemara in our daf (48a) raises this question and on first glance this is the issue being
considered. The Rav zt"l (in his Sefer "Avodat Yom Hakippurim, page 48) discusses this gemara
and suggests that even if the chafina were intended to merely quantify a shiur, it could possibly
serve as the context for the harmful effects of improper thoughts. The Rambam in Hilkhot Avodat
Yom Ha-kippurim (5:27) rules that piggul thoughts during chafina do in fact affect the korban for
"chafina is considered an avoda."

A similar opinion is expressed by the Ritva (Yoma 48) on our daf who claims that "chafina is
parallel to shechita" (slaughtering). Just as the shechita begins the process of separating the part
which will be burned on the mizbei'ach from that which will remain (and will generally be eaten),
so too chafina designates some ketoret for burning and excludes the rest from this process.

One can be fairly certain from both their halakhic positions (that piggul does apply) and more
compellingly from the language which the Rambam and the Ritva employ, that chafina is not
merely the technical manner of arriving at the necessary quantity of ketoret, but constitutes an
elementary part of avodat Yom Ha-kippurim May the Ribono Shel Olam grant us all a Ketiva Va-
chatima Tova, and may He allow Am Yisrael to once again witness the grandeur of Yom Kippur
in the Beit Ha-mikdash.

10
See the Ritva Yoma 48a for a discussion of this issue

27
 Midrashic Musings on the full hand

,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫יב ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬
.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ְקֹט ֶרת ַסִמּים ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬

LEV 16:12

Midrash Tanchuma, (Tetzaveh 15:1) paints a dramatic picture at the moment

the KG throws the ketores up and depending on the shape will determine his very life.

Having survived the annual ordeal, he returned to rejoicing and merriment troping on
the verse: Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart…referring to perfumery in friends
meeting each other rather than the Yom Kippur ritual.

The baal ha-Midrash has moved the fraught nature of the ritual to that (having
survived it) of the perfumery surrounding the meeting of friends where the
heartfelt counsel of a friend is as sweet as perfume and incense.

28
And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon (Exod. 30:1). Scripture states
elsewhere in allusion to this verse:

-‫ְיַשַׂמּח‬ ,‫וְּקֹט ֶרת‬ ‫ ט ֶשֶׁמן‬9 Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart; so doth
.‫ָנֶפשׁ‬-‫ ֵמֲﬠַצת‬,‫ ֵלב; וֶּמֶתק ֵרֵﬠהוּ‬the sweetness of a man's friend by hearty counsel.

Prov. 27:9

Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart.

This verse refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, and to Israel. How is that? When the
high priest was officiating on the Day of Atonement, he would place the incense in a

29
pan and bring it into the innermost part of the Holy of Holies, as it is written: And he
shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar. What else is written there?

Ye shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may
cover the ark cover (Lev. 16:12–13). What is the meaning of may cover? It is an
expression that indicates forgiveness, as in the verse Thou hast covered up all their sins
(Ps. 85:3).

Whenever the cloud of incense ascended and spiraled upward, like a cluster of grapes,
on the Day of Atonement, he knew that Israel’s sins were forgiven, as it is said: My
beloved is unto me as a cluster of henna in the vineyards of En-gedi (Song 1:14).

If the smoke of the incense resembled a cluster and rose straight upward, he knew that
Israel was forgiven and his service was acceptable, but if the smoke of the incense did
not cover the ark-cover he knew that he would die, as it is said:

,‫ָהֵאשׁ‬-‫ַהְקֹּטֶרת ַﬠל‬-‫יג ְוָנַתן ֶאת‬ 13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before
-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה; ְוִכָסּה ֲﬠַנן ַהְקֹּטֶרת‬ the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover
‫ ְול ֹא‬--‫ָהֵﬠדוּת‬-‫ַהַכֹּפֶּרת ֲאֶשׁר ַﬠל‬ the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he die
.‫ָימוּת‬ not.

Lev 16:13

That the cloud of the incense may cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony,
that he die not .

Consequently, the high priest and all Israel trembled from the moment the high priest
entered the innermost Sanctuary until he withdrew in peace.

When he departed from the Sanctuary a great rejoicing took place among the Israelites,
since it meant that it (the offering) had been received favorably, as it is said: Ointment
and incense rejoice the heart (Prov. 27:9).

30
 More than a Handful

‫ִמְמּל ֹא‬--‫ ְמל ֹא ַכף ָנַחת‬,‫ו טוֹב‬ 6 Better is a handful of quietness, than both the
.‫ וּ ְרעוּת רוַּח‬,‫ָחְפַנ ִים ָﬠָמל‬ hands full of labor and striving after wind.

Eccl 4:6

31
I cite the following brilliant analysis in addition to the midrash above in order to
demonstrate the ways chazal made use of the incense ritual as part of the spiritual
journey.

Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan writes:11

Vayikra Rabba 3:1 is a petichta which offers multiple explanations of Kohelet 4:6,

‫ִמְמּל ֹא‬--‫ ְמל ֹא ַכף ָנַחת‬,‫ו טוֹב‬ 6 Better is a handful of quietness, than both the
.‫ וּ ְרעוּת רוַּח‬,‫ָחְפַנ ִים ָﬠָמל‬ hands full of labor and striving after wind.

“Better is a handful of quietness than both the hands full of labor and pursuit of the wind.”

11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/talmud/studies-gemara/midrash-and-aggada/more-hands-full

32
33
The first section of the petichta, presents six different illustrations of the lesson of this verse - that

one should work with one’s own natural resources, be they intellectual or financial, and not

overreach to attempt to become something one is not. The focus is on what we have called the

ideological aspect of midrash - explaining ideas and teaching lessons.

This next section is more interpretive in nature. It makes use of the tools of midrashic interpretation

to understand the verse from Kohelet in ways that place it into the context of incidents in the Torah:

R. Berekhya said: Better one footstep trodden by the Holy One, blessed be He, in Egypt, in that

it is said, “For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night” (Ex. 12:12) Than “both the

hands full” of soot of the furnace [thrown] by Moses and Aharon.

Why? For through the former there was redemption, but through the latter there was no

redemption.

In this reading, the verse in Kohelet compares two different events from the book of Shemot:

God’s passing over the land of Egypt during the plague of the slaying of the first-born, and Moshe

and Aharon’s throwing soot into the sky, during the plague of boils. This reading is not based on

a consideration of the moral message of the Kohelet verse as in the previous section. Rather, it

emerges from a midrashic consideration of the language of the verse. The phrase melo hofnayim,

“both hands full,” in the Kohelet verse recalls the description of God’s command to Moshe and

Aharon before the plague of boils, kechu lakhem melo hofnekhem pi’ach ha-kivshan (“Take

handfuls of soot from the kiln”) (Shemot 9:8) To the midrashic mind, which always seeks to create

connections between disparate verses in the Bible, this similarity in language can be no

coincidence. This phrase from Kohelet is now to be understood not as referring to a universal moral

34
lesson about overreaching, but to a particular incident in the drama of the Exodus: Moshe and

Aharon’s casting up handfuls of soot in order to precipitate the plague of boils.

If this is the case, then the verse in Kohelet contrasts the events in Shemot 9 to another event which

is referred to as melo kaf nachat which we have translated as “a handful of quietness.” But to

what incident in the Torah might this phrase refer? The key to the midrash’s interpretation of these

words is their understanding of the word kaf. We translated this word as meaning “handful,”

which is the simple peshat of the verse. However, the word can also refer to the sole of the foot,

as in the verse from Isaiah, mi-kaf regel ve-ad rosh (“From the sole of the foot unto the

head”) (Isaiah 1:6). Proceeding from this premise, the phrase kaf nachat can be understood not as

“a handful of quietness,” but as “resting of a foot”. It is on the basis of this interpretation that the

rabbis explain this phrase as referring to the verse in Shemot describing God’s movements during

the plague of the slaying of the first-born, “For I will go through the land of Egypt in that

night.” Elsewhere, the rabbis understand this verse as describing God swiftly passing through

Egypt. Here, the suggestion is that God merely rested His foot in Egypt as he passed through.

In this reading of the verse from Kohelet, the two full hands of Moshe and Aharon are contrasted

with the light footstep of God. The mortals’ actions bring about only the plague of boils, which

did not succeed in getting Pharaoh to let the Children of Israel out of Egypt. God’s actions, on the

other hand, precipitated the slaying of the first-born, which led to Pharaoh letting the people of

Israel go free. In this reading, the lesson of this verse is not moral, but theological. God can

accomplish more with the bottom of his foot than Moshe and Aaron together can do with both of

their hands full.

The next section gives yet another theological reading of the verse:

35
R. Chiyya b. Abba said: “Better is a handful of quietness” means the Sabbath; “Than both the

hands full of labor” refers to the six work days; But it is “the desire of the spirit"; it is one's

desire to do his work in these [six days]. You have proof that this is so, in that Israel are to be

redeemed only by the merit of the Sabbath, as it is said, "Through rest and repose shall you be

saved” (Isa. 30:15)

This reading focuses on the opposition between the words nachat “quietness” and amal “labor”

presented in the verse. This opposition suggests the contrast between the Sabbath, the day of rest

and quiet, and the weekdays, which are days of labor. The implication of the verse is that the

Sabbath is superior to the weekdays. More specifically, it is through the Sabbath that the final

redemption shall arrive. This section thus continues the theme of redemption from the previous

one. The midrash establishes the link between the Sabbath and the final redemption by citing the

verse from Isaiah: “Through rest and repose shall you be saved,” (“be-shuva va-nachat

tevashe’un”). The rabbis’ reading of this verse as referring to the Sabbath appears to emerge from

the words nachat and shuva. The word nachat appears already in the petichta verse and has

already been interpreted as referring to the Sabbath. It is therefore not much of a jump to

understanding it a referring to the Sabbath in the context of the Isaiah verse as well. The

word shuva actually means Shabbat in the dialect of Aramaic used in the midrash.

I am not clear on the exact meaning of the phrase, “it is one's desire to do his work in these [six

days].” This line is given as an interpretation of the words re’ut ru’ach, which in the rest of

this petichta is understood as an empty, unachievable desire. Here it would seem that desiring to

do one’s labors during the six days of the week is reasonable and even laudatory. Perhaps this line

seeks to emphasize the futility of ever completing all of the work that a person needs to do. Hence,

36
the rest of the Sabbath, which brings the redemption, is ultimately more productive than the work

done the rest of the week. (I would think this is a correct reading).

The next section can be seen as a continuation of the previous one. Throughout rabbinic literature,

the Sabbath is described as “a taste of the World to Come”. The contrast between the Sabbath and

the days of the week thus recalls the contrast between this world and the World to Come:

R. Jacob b. Kurshai said: “Better is a handful of quietness”; that is the World to Come. “Than

both hands full of labor”; that is this world. But it is “the desire of the spirit”; it is the desire of

the wicked to do their [wicked] deeds in this world, in retribution for which penalty is exacted

from them in the World to Come. Even as we have learnt: Better is one hour of repentance and

good deeds in this world than the whole life of the World to Come; and better is one hour of the

even-tempered spirit of the World to Come than all the life of this world (Pirkei Avot 4:17).

In this reading, the “quietness” of the first part of the verse refers to the World to Come, while

the “labor” of the second part of the verse refers to life in this world. The midrash unequivocally

takes the position that, in and of itself, life in this world is a fruitless endeavor. It can only have

significance to the extent that behavior in the world leads to rewards in the next world. Indeed, it

is only evil doers who focus their energies on this world, and they are punished for their deeds in

the World to Come.

In order to back up this position, the midrash cites the famous words of the mishna in Pirkei Avot.

The midrash is clearly focused on the second half of the mishna: “better is one hour of the even-

tempered spirit of the World to Come than all the life of this world” This line sums up the

midrash’s argument for the absolute superiority of the World to Come over this world. Further,

37
both the midrash and mishna associate the World to Come with repose: nachat, “quietness," in the

midrash and korat ru’ach, “even tempered spirit," in the mishna.

In fact, however, the mishna presents a far more nuanced and, indeed, paradoxical approach to the

relationship between this world and the World to Come. Its statement consists of two potentially

contradictory claims.

First, the mishna declares that: “Better is one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than

the whole life of the World to Come.” This would appear to stress the potential superiority of this

world over the World to Come. Repentance and good deeds in this world are seen not simply as

means to gaining entry to the World to Come. Rather, they are their own reward. The experience

of doing mitzvot in this world is, in fact, superior to any reward one might receive for them in the

World to Come. It is only after it has argued for the superiority of this world that the mishna

declares, “better is one hour of the even-tempered spirit of the World to Come than all the life

of this world,” apparently taking the opposite position that it is indeed the World to Come that is

superior. It would seem to me that the mishna here is deliberately asserting a paradox. Each world

can be seen as the superior one. We should not denigrate the importance either of this world or of

the World to Come. Such a position is in contrast with other schools of thought in the time of the

rabbis. Some schools of thought, like that of the Sadducees, rejected outright the existence of the

World to Come and focused entirely on life in this world. Others, like the Essenes, placed all of

their emphasis on the World to Come, negating the value of this world. The rabbis took a middle

view, affirming the importance of both this world and the World to Come. If my reading of the

mishna is correct, the midrash is selectively reading the mishna in order to advocate a more one-

sided view of the relationship between the two worlds.

38
The next reading of the petichta verse once again connects the verse to events that took place in

Biblical times:

R. Isaac explained the verse as referring to the tribe of Reuben and to the tribe of Gad. When

these entered the Land, and saw how much sowing capacity and planting capacity was there,

they said: “Better is a handful of quietness” in this land, “than both hands full of labor” on the

other side of the Jordan. In the end they said: Have we not ourselves chosen it for ourselves?’

for so it is written, “Let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession” (Num. 32:5). This

is meant by ‘The desire of the spirit’; it had been their own wish.

This interpretation understands the petichta verse as referring to the story of the tribes who took

their inheritance on the eastern side of the Jordan. As the reader will recall, at the end of the forty

years in the desert Moshe leads the children of Israel into battle against the kings Sichon and Og,

whose territory was on the northeastern side of the Jordan. The tribes of Reuven and Gad (as well

as half of the tribe of Menashe) see the lush pasture land in these territories and request them in

lieu of inheritances in the Land of Israel proper, to the west of the Jordan. Moshe agrees to this

deal under the condition that these tribes send fighters to participate in the conquest of the Land

along with the other tribes. Thus far is the story told in the Bible. But the midrash adds in one more

detail. When the tribes of Reuven and Gad arrive in the Land of Israel they see that the Land of

Israel is even more fertile than the trans-Jordanian territories they opted for and they regret their

choice. The midrash takes for granted that the Land of Israel is superior to other lands and that

anyone who passes up an opportunity to gain property in the Land will surely come to regret it.

39
The midrash links this incident with the petichta verse from Kohelet. The handful of quietness of

the verse is identified as referring to the Land of Israel and the two fistfuls of labor are identified

as referring to the inheritance of Reuven and Gad on the other side of the Jordan. Like the

interpretations at the beginning of the petichta, this reading has an implicit moral lesson about

desire and overreaching. One should not give in to one’s desires and take the first good thing that

comes. Rather, one should patiently wait and have faith that better things are to come.

This reading of the petichta verse is, in a certain sense, ironic. As we noted at the outset of last

week’s class, the simple meaning of the Kohelet verse is akin to the English proverb, “a bird in the

hand is worth two in the bush.” In other words, that which is readily available is more desirable

than something that one needs to work for in order to secure. One would think that the tribes of

Reuven and Gad followed this advice. They took the inheritance that was readily available in trans-

Jordan over the promise of an inheritance in the as-yet-to-be conquered Land of Israel. Yet, the

midrash finds fault with their decision and cites the very verse that would appear to support their

decision as part of its critique. I do not know if this irony was consciously intended in this case.

However, in general, my sense is that the rabbis did delight in midrashically inverting biblical

verses so that they take on a meaning that is opposite to the simple understanding of the verse.

Finally, the midrash arrives at its last interpretation of the petichta verse which links

the petichta verse to the Torah reading of the day:

Another interpretation:

“Better is a handful of nachat”; that is a handful of [the flour of] the free-will meal-offering

(mincha) of a poor man, “Than the two hands full of labor, and striving after the wind”; that

40
is, the finely ground incense of spices of the congregation, since the former carries with it

expiation, while the latter does not carry with it expiation.

This reading links the petichta verse from Kohelet to yet another verse in the Torah. The

phrase melo hofnayim, “two handfuls,” recalls the verse from Vayikra (16:12):

12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off

‫ֵאשׁ ֵמַﬠל‬-‫ַהַמְּחָתּה ַגֲּחֵלי‬-‫יב ְוָלַקח ְמל ֹא‬ the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet
‫ ְקֹטֶרת‬,‫ וְּמל ֹא ָחְפָניו‬,‫ ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬ incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.
.‫ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬,‫ַסִמּים ַדָּקּה; ְוֵהִביא‬
Lev 16:12

And he shall take… two handfuls (melo hofnav) of finely ground aromatic incense and bring this

behind the curtain.

This verse describes the High Priest’s activities on Yom Kippur. He takes coal and incense and

brings them into the Holy of Holies. The second part of the petichta verse is thus understood as

referring to this incense sacrifice.

Now that we have established that the petichta verse deals with the realm of sacrifices we can

understand the midrash’s interpretation of the first half of the verse. The “handful” of the first half

of the verse reminds the darshan of the kometz, the handful of flour that the priest takes from the

meal offering and brings to the altar. In this reading, the petichta verse contrasts two different

sacrifices. One sacrifice is brought on behalf of all of Israel by the High Priest himself in the Holy

of Holies on the holiest day of the year. The other is brought by a pauper who has no resources to

bring an animal sacrifice. One would think that the incense of Yom Kippur would be considered

among the most sublime of sacrifices while the poor man’s meal offering would be considered a

common sacrifice of little stature. However, the midrash insists that it precisely the poor man’s

sacrifice which is of the greater significance. This is because it is not offered out of a need expiate

41
sin, like the Yom Kippur incense, but rather out of the poor man’s desire to serve God. This teaches

a fundamental lesson about sacrifices. The most important aspect of the sacrifice is not the size or

the expense of what is offered. Rather, it is the motivation that lies behind the sacrifice that

counts. As the mishna says in Menachot (13:11), “Whether one sacrifices a little or a lot, what

counts is that one’s heart is directed to heaven.”

42