Meilah 10

Chapter 10

א ה"נ לאו דוקא אמר רב אסי אם כן למה לי למיתני תרתי
1 and likewise here, [that the text is] not to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., where it was received by the fit and sprinkled by the unfit, for even in such a case the Law of Sacrilege applies since the slaughtering has been properly performed. The inference that 'permitted for sprinkling' is meant would then be invalid.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Said R'Assi: If so, why has this [loose phrasing] been used twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both here and in Zeb. 92a.');"><sup>2</sup></span> You must therefore indeed say that used in connection with the Law of Sacrilege is to be taken precisely [as excluding other instances],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that it refers to a case where both receiving and sprinkling were performed by the unfit, though the phrasing in Zeb. is not to be taken precisely, as proved by the verse Lev. VI. 20; v. n. 1.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב אלא לעולם דמעילה דוקא
2 [yet your objection that to state this twofold disqualification was unnecessary does not hold good as] it is to let us know that an unfit person [through his sprinkling] renders [the blood]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Also that life-blood which remained in the body of the beast.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג והא קמ"ל דפסול עושה שיריים
3 a residue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must not be used again and poured out into the duct, v. Zeb. 34b. Had the sprinkling not been performed by the unfit, receiving as well as sprinkling could have been executed again by a fit person from the life-blood that remained in the body of the beast. Cf. Zeb. 32a.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד אע"ג דקיבל פסול וזרק וקיבל כשר וזרק לאו כלום היא מאי טעמא דשיריים נינהו
4 so that although after the unfit received and sprinkled [the blood] a fit priest received and sprinkled it again, the action of the latter is of no avail.
ה והא בעא מיניה ר"ל מר' יוחנן פסול מהו שיעשה שיריים
5 Why Because the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Left over after the receiving and sprinkling performed by the unfit.');"><sup>6</sup></span> is considered a residue.
ו וא"ל אין לך דבר שיעשה שיריים אלא חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו הואיל ומרצין לפיגולן
6 But did not Resh Lakish put this forward as a query to R'Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 34b.');"><sup>7</sup></span> 'Does [the act of] an unfit person render the blood a residue'?
ז מאי לאו בר מפסול לא אפילו פסול
7 Whereupon the latter replied: 'Nothing makes [the blood] a residue save [the sprinkling while purposing an act] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, because such a sprinkling [is in so far of effect as to] render [the sacrifice] 'acceptable' in respect of piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he who eats thereof is liable to the penalty of kareth. Cf. Zeb. 28b.');"><sup>8</sup></span> Now, does this not exclude [the sprinkling by] an unfit person? - No, also the [sprinkling] by] the unfit [is included].
ח והא אין לך קתני
8 But does it not say: 'Nothing.
ט ה"ק אין לך דבר שאינו מרצה בציבור ועושה שיריים אלא חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו אבל טמא דאיתיה בציבור משוי שיריים
9 save'? - This is to be understood in the following manner: There is no [disqualification] such as to render [an offering] nonacceptable in the case of a congregation [sacrifice]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., piggul, nothar and 'taking out of the Temple Court'.');"><sup>9</sup></span> and yet to make the blood a residue save that caused by [the thought of executing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place; but a defiled [priest],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unfit to whom R. Assi in his explanation of our Mishnah is meant to refer.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
י שאר פסולין דלא איתנון בציבור לא משוין שיריים
10 
יא ת"ש הפיגול לעולם מועלין בו
11 since he is considered fit in the case of the congregation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the majority of the congregation are unclean, v. Pes. 66b. 77a.');"><sup>11</sup></span> makes the blood a residue, whilst other unfit [priests]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., those with a blemish.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יב לאו דלא זרק ושמע מינה היתר זריקה שנינו
12 who are not considered fit in the case of the congregation, do not make the blood a residue. Come and hear: 'The Law of Sacrilege applies to piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., of Most Holy sacrifices.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יג לא זרקה
13 always',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No matter whether the disqualification was accomplished with the slaughtering or the receiving.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יד ומאי לעולם הא קא משמע לן כדרב גידל דאמר רב גידל אמר רב זריקת פיגול אינו מוציא מידי מעילה ואינו מביא לידי מעילה
14 Does this not refer to a case where the blood has not been sprinkled, and would then prove<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the conclusion that if, however, both slaughtering and receiving were in order the Law of Sacrilege would no longer apply.');"><sup>15</sup></span> that 'permitted for sprinkling' is meant? - No, it [refers to a case where the blood] has been sprinkled. And what is the meaning of 'always'? - It is to confirm the statement of R'Giddal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3b.');"><sup>16</sup></span> For R'Giddal said in the name of Rab: 'The sprinkling of [the blood of a sacrifice rendered] piggul] [with slaughtering] effects neither exemption from nor inclusion in the Law of Sacrilege'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Always' means thus 'for ever'.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter