Mesorat%20hashas for Meilah 29:28

מהאי קרא קדשי בדק הבית שמעין מינה קדשי מזבח לא שמעין מינה

But does he adduce a Biblical text [as proof]? - It is a mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. But does not 'Ulla say in the name of R'Johanan: 'Consecrated animals which died are according to Biblical law exempted from the Law of Sacrilege'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 12a.');">¹⁶</span> Now, to what does this refer? Shall I say to things dedicated for Temple repair; then the Law of Sacrilege should apply to them even after they have died; for suppose a man would dedicate a midden for Temple repair, would the Law of Sacrilege not apply to it? It must then refer to things dedicated for the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From 'Ulla's statement we learn that before they died they were subject to sacrilege by Biblical law.');">¹⁷</span> But then they should not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Jannai's view.');">¹⁸</span> be subject to sacrilege by Biblical law! - Rather what the School of R'Jannai taught was that from that text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Lev. V, 15.');">¹⁹</span> you can only derive things dedicated for Temple repair; but things dedicated for the altar you cannot derive from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But from Lev. III, 16.');">²⁰</span> [

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Meilah 29:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.