Commentary for Meilah 14:31

ליוצאין ור"ע היא כי אמר ר"ע זריקה מועלת ליוצא לשריפה

But why? Is it not the possession of the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once the blood has been sprinkled.');">¹⁵</span> - This is no difficulty, since in the opening clause he had to use [the phrase] 'THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES' he uses also in the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first section of the MISHNAH:');">¹⁶</span> [the phrase] 'THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NOT'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of symmetry.');">¹⁷</span> But read then the second section of the Mishnah: 'WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT', HOW SO? WITH FLESH OF SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NEITHER TO THE EMURIM NOR TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES To THE EMURIM BUT NOT TO THE FLESH. This implies: The penalty of sacrilege is not inflicted but the prohibition still remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to the layman.');">¹⁸</span> Why? Is it not the possession of the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer given in the first instance is not applicable here, as there is no clause in this section which demanded the use of the phrase for the sake of symmetry.');">¹⁹</span> - Said R'Hanina: [It refers] to an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court] and the Mishnah stands in accordance with R'Akiba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 8b.');">²⁰</span> For R'Akiba held that 'sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court]' only in regard to its burning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that it may not be burnt at once, like offerings whose disqualifications are essentially in themselves, but only after the flesh has begun to decay.');">²¹</span> but

Explore commentary for Meilah 14:31. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.