Mesorat%20hashas for Meilah 6:20

איסורא דמייתי לידי פיגול

nor inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege in the case of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The principle is that the application of the Law of Sacrilege ceases from the moment the blood is sprinkled on the altar in the case of Most Holy sacrifices and in regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it becomes operative only between the moment of the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the portions - and that only as far as the sacrificial portions are concerned.]');">¹⁶</span> Abaye was sitting and quoting this ruling, when R'Papa raised an objection to him: If the thank-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a sacrifice of a minor degree of holiness.');">¹⁷</span> was slaughtered inside [the Temple Court] while the bread thereof remained outside the wall, the bread has not become sacred. If it was slaughtered before the loaves in the oven had formed a crust - even if all the loaves but one had formed a crust - the bread has not become sacred. [But] if it was slaughtered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa assumed that the other acts of offering, too. were performed with this disqualifying intention,');">¹⁸</span> [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, the bread has become sacred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Law of Sacrilege applies to it, v. Men. 78b.');">¹⁹</span> Does this not prove that [the performance of the acts of offering of a sacrifice rendered] piggul brings [sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege? - Thereupon he [Abaye] was silent. When he came before R'Abba the latter replied: It is through the sprinkling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, we should assume, was performed unqualified.');">²⁰</span> [that the bread has become sacred].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While R. Giddal's ruling refers to a case where all the acts were performed with disqualifying intention.');">²¹</span> Said R'Ashi to Raba: But has not 'Ulla ruled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 43a.');">²²</span> that if the handful of [a meal-offering, which was rendered] piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the handful having been taken with disqualifying intention.');">²³</span> was laid upon the altar the disqualification ceased?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to the extent that it must be placed upon the altar if it happened to spring off, and consequently the Law of Sacrilege applies to it.');">²⁴</span> Now, the separation of a handful [of a meal-offering] corresponds to the slaughtering [of an animal-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are respectively the first acts of offering. 'Ulla's statement proves then that the first act alone can render an offering piggul, contrary to R. Abba's reply. And still it states that the bread is made sacred which shows that sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness are brought within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege by acts of offering performed subsequently to a slaughtering that rendered them piggul contra R. Giddal.');">²⁵</span> He thereupon replied: ['Ulla's statement is to be understood in the following manner: The taking of the handful with disqualifying intention] is a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., when the other acts, too, will be performed with disqualifying intention, but the taking of the handful itself does not render completely piggul. nor the act of slaughtering in itself unless followed by other acts, such as sprinkling with the same disqualifying intention, which is the case to which R. Giddal refers.');">²⁶</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Meilah 6:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.