Reference for Meilah 4:22
סלקא דעתך
May we then infer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbah's interpretation of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>10</sup></span> that the statement of 'Ulla in the name of R'Johanan has already been learnt [in our Mishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since on the view of Rabbah sacrifices slaughtered on the south are treated as if they were strangled, their case is on a par with that of sacrifices which died, the ruling of R. Johanan can be derived from the Mishnah and hence is superfluous.');"><sup>11</sup></span> - Although it has been learnt, 'Ulla's statement is still necessary, for it might otherwise have entered your mind to say: [In the instance of our Mishnah the Rabbis have enacted the application of the Law of Sacrilege, because] people do not keep away from those sacrifices;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are, therefore, likely to make unlawful use of them.');"><sup>12</sup></span> but in the case of sacrifices which died, since people do keep away from them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are repulsive.');"><sup>13</sup></span> I might have thought that even as a Rabbinical enactment Sacrilege does not apply to them. Therefore ['Ulla has made his view] known to us. But has not also [the case of sacrifices which] died been learnt already? [For we have learnt]: If one enjoyed of a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., by plucking of its wool.');"><sup>14</sup></span> if it was still alive he is not guilty of Sacrilege until he diminished its substance, but if it was dead he is guilty of Sacrilege. as soon as he had benefitted from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is interpreted to the extent of the value of a Perutah, v. infra 18a. Thus the case of animals which died has already been taught, wherefore then 'Ulla's ruling in the name of R. Johanan?');"><sup>15</sup></span> - ['Ulla's statement is still necessary. for] it might otherwise have entered your mind