Ramban, on Exod 30:34

“And the Lord said to Moses: Take unto thee spices, stacte, and onycha, galbanum of sweet savour, and the clearest frankincense, all shall be of equal weight.”

“TAKE UNTO THEE ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS), STACTE, AND ONYCHA, AND GALBANUM; ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS) WITH PURE FRANKINCENSE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the interpretation of the verse is: “take unto you the aromatics which are stacte, onycha and galbanum; these spices [you are to take], and pure frankincense with them.” But it is not correct that Scripture should just repeat the word samim [in such a short verse], for it is not the normal way of Scripture to repeat words unless there is some lengthy interpolation or in order to indicate that it is a continuing thing. The truth is as our Rabbis have said, that the second word samim refers to other aromatics. Now Rashi wrote: “‘Samim’ — the least number of aromatics implied by the plural form of this word is two. Stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, make together five. ‘Samim’ adds a similar number to those already prescribed, thus making ten. With frankincense, makes eleven [altogether].” But one wonders! Why did Scripture not mention them explicitly? Perhaps Scripture is saying: “Take unto thee aromatics, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, many aromatics with pure frankincense,” thus insisting only on these four spices, for they were the ones that caused the cloud of the smoke of the incense to ascend; but He commanded that they add to them many other aromatic spices in order that the pillars of smoke [of the incense] should be fragrant. This is why He did not explain [in the case of the incense] the weight of each component [as He did in the case of the Oil of Anointment], nor how much of it should be burnt [daily], since He insisted only that these four [spices mentioned] should be alike [in weight], and that he should add to them other good spices for the burning. The reason for this is that just as He had said with reference to the Oil of Anointment that they make it in accordance with the art of the perfumer, and did not specify how it was to be made but relied upon it [that they knew how to make it], so He said in respect of this incense that he take an equal weight of these four [mentioned] aromatics, and add to them other aromatics and make out of all the components one incense, done after the art of the perfumer, [which implies by] using spices known to blend well with these [four] and by preparing them through the process by which they are usually prepared. It is of this incense that he had to put before the Testimony, so that its pillar of smoke should go up, as was the custom to put spices on coals before kings. In the same way He shortened the account of how to make the incense, and did not mention it when He referred to all the other spices. In a similar vein the Rabbis have said in the Gemara: “Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the word k’toreth? It is something which circles and rises.” (incense) is thus of the root kateir (surrounding, circling), because the smoke of the burning incense circles and rises. Thus the Torah only commanded in connection with the incense to use those spices the smoke of which circles and rises, in a way similar to the art of the perfumers. Perhaps it was explained to Moses on Sinai by word of mouth which spices are best for that purpose, as well as the whole process of making the incense, for the process of making the Oil of Anointment was likewise explained to him in this manner, even though Scripture made it dependent upon the art of the perfumers. Or it may be that He insisted only on those [four spices] expressly mentioned in the verse, commanding that he perfume them with other spices after the art of the perfumers. And so the Rabbis have said in Midrash Chazit: “The Sages investigated and found no more fitting components for the incense than those eleven spices.” It is also possible that samim (aromatics) and b’samim (spices) denote the same thing, as I have mentioned, and these three components These are generally translated as being various kinds of fragrant spices: “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum.” But Ramban will now question the two terms [stacte and galbanum]. which He specified are not spices, for ‘nataph’ and ‘chel’bnah’ are saps, and shcheileth is the onycha which comes from the ocean. And Scripture states: “Take unto you the mentioned samim [i.e., all components mentioned above in the preparation of the Oil of Anointment — namely, the flowing myrrh, the cinnamon, the calamus, and the cassia — as all these b’samim also went into the incense, as will be explained], and the nataph, and shcheileth and the chel’bnah, and other samim [in addition, as will be explained], with pure frankincense, and make of them a perfumed incense, after the art of the perfumer.” For the samim mentioned above in connection with the Oil [of Anointment] — flowing myrrh, cinnamon, and cassia — also went into the incense. And the knei bosem [mentioned among the components of the oil] is in my opinion the kiluphah mentioned by the Sages, called dratzini in Arabic, and so also in the language of the Gemara,,” which Rashi explained as “cinnamon.” which is a cane [of sweet spices] resembling reeds. And the samim which He commanded to add [to all those mentioned above] are: spikenard and saffron and the costus, in accordance with that which the Sages have taught. Perhaps Scripture only insisted on these nine — the cane of sweet spice — and cassia], and the four expressly stated in the making of the incense [nataph, shcheileth, chel’bnah, and frankincense]. With the three components [spikenard, saffron, and costus] added by the second word samim they form the eleven components of the incense. which He mentioned, but was not particular as to [the nature of] those included by means of the repetition of the word samim, except inasmuch as they are to be sweet, so that they may make a perfumed incense. Thus He shortened the account of the making thereof, as well as of the weights of the other components [except for the four mentioned in the making of the oil, where the weights are prescribed], because He commanded that they make it after the art of the perfumer. It appears to me that the Sages chose three spices [spikenard, saffron, and costus] because they are mentioned in the Song of Songs: Spikenard and saffron… and ‘oholoth,’ which is the costus. Its name is in the plural from [oholoth] because there are two kinds of it, the sweet and the bitter. Now Scripture mentioned there, calamus and cinnamon… frankincense, and myrrh together with these three [spikenard, saffron, and costus], and then said, with ‘all’ the chief spices, so as to include cassia. Thus you have there all the components of the incense. Now before that Scripture mentioned there: ‘k’pharim im n’radim’ (henna with spikenard plants). This is to include nataph ushcheileth v’chel’bnah [mentioned here in the verse] which are saps, for k’pharim is of the root ‘v’chapharta othah’ (and thou shalt pitch it), it being an adhesive sap. And the Targum Yerushalmi rendered: myrrh and ‘oholoth’ — [pure myrrh and] aksi lalu’an, means tree. See also Jastrow under the term aksiloliyon. which is that precious tree called in Latin linga lubin as aksi means “tree” in Aramaic, and lalu’an is the name of the tree. In Greek it is actually so called: aksiluin,) for the Greek term. and so it is called in Arabic — al urtib. But Onkelos rendered: ‘ka’aholim’ planted of the Eternal — k’busmaya (as spices), without specifying a particular name [for oholim, as did the Targum Yerushalmi mentioned above]. NATAPH’ — is tzori (balsam). Now in Rashi’s commentary it is written: “The balm itself is called triga,. — To this term Ramban will object, since a theriac is an electuary [a medical compound] composed of many ingredients. but because it is merely the sap which ‘drips’ from the wood of the balsam it is called nataph (dripping).” But I do not know whether this is the scribe’s mistake, or the one who so told Rashi misinformed him. For theriac [the triga mentioned by Rashi] is not one ingredient but is a compound of many ingredients, containing leaven and honey, the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, for the powder of dried scorpions and the flesh of the viper go into it, this being the reason why it is so called [theriac], for “poison” in Greek is called theriac. So also in the language of the Talmud: “Torkai (stung by) a serpent.” Similarly this compound is mentioned in the language [of the Rabbis]: “as theriac is good for the whole body.” And Heaven forbid that there should be in the incense the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, leaven and honey, for it is written, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. Rather, the tzori is the oily sap which drips from the balsam tree, called in the language of the Sages k’taph. It is this which we have been taught: “Rabban (Prince) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon ben Gamaliel says: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph (balsam) tree.” Perhaps it is called k’taph (plucking off) because they break off its branches on days in the hot season, and the balm runs down from the place where it is broken. In the Gemara of Chapter Bameh Madlikin it is stated: “Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: We do not light [the Sabbath lamp] with tzori, and so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar say: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap exuding from the balsam tree.” And there in the Gemara, 25b. the Sages explained the reason [why that balm is not used for the Sabbath lamp], because its fragrance spreads and he may come to use it as food [and taking off oil from a burning lamp is considered the same as extinguishing it]. Thus it is clear that the tzori mentioned [for the incense] is that good oil mentioned [in the above Gemara]. And I wonder! For Onkelos translated: ‘n’choth’ (spicery) ‘u’tzri’ (and balm) and labdanum — sh’aph u’ktaph. Similarly he rendered: a little ‘tzori’ (balm), 43:11. — k’taph. But nataph [here in this verse] he translated n’tupha, and did not translate it as he did in the case of the word tzori! as the Aramaic k’taph, he should have translated likewise here the Hebrew nataph, for as said above nataph is tzori, and so why did he translate it as k’topha? And Yonathan [ben Uziel] translated everywhere tzori as sh’aph, which is a term for an anointing oil in the language of the Talmud, such as in their saying: “[for him whose eyes hurt] they make shipha (an ointment of various components) in a vessel,” the word shipha being short of the letter ayin, which would make it she’ipha. A similar example is: “D’sha’yeiph (he anoints) him with the same kind he gave him” to eat. Here too, the word d’sha’yeiph is like d’sha’iph [with the letter ayin]. It appears from their opinions as k’taph, and from Yonathan who translated it as sh’aph. that both the balsam tree and its fruit are called tzori in the Sacred Language, just like t’einah (fig), rimon (pomegranate), ethrog, and many other names like them. The term n’choth is thus, according to them, [Onkelos and Yonathan], a generic name for all notable and fragrant oils. That is why Scripture states, and he [Hezekiah] showed them all the house ‘n’chothoh’ (of his treasure), because the treasure-house where the precious oil is stored is called by that name, seeing that it is the choicest of all treasure, and there in fact it is also written, and the precious oil. Therefore Onkelos said in the case of the present that Jacob sent to Joseph, that they brought him sh’aph [which is the Aramaic translation for the Hebrew n’chot],, 43:11. which is the term for that notable oil. And they further brought [in the present for Joseph] from the branches of the tzori-tree called k’taph. In other places where Scripture mentions tzori alone, speaking of it as a beneficial medicine — such as in the verse, Is there no ‘tzori’ in Gilead? — Yonathan translates it as referring to the oil called sh’aph. Onkelos translated [here] nataph as netupha, which is an oil called by that name because it “drips” from the broken branches. There is no justification here to translate nataph as sh’aph, for the incense did not contain any ointment. Now I have seen that Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] 2:4. included in the incense the bark of a tree called in Arabic od balsan. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel who said: “The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph-tree” thereby intended to differ with the Sages [who counted the tzori among the eleven components of the incense], and to say instead that tzori was not one of the ingredients of the incense, since tzori is nothing but a sap, and it was not the sap [of the k’taph] that was put into the incense, but the [bark of the] k’taph itself.”

Hebrew and Aramaic words are the commentator’s citations of the sacred text; the English translation that follows each is the translator’s.

Imported from an open dataset — not yet checked against the printed edition.