Meilah 11

Chapter 11

א תא שמע רבי שמעון אומר יש נותר שמועלין בו ויש נותר שאין מועלין בו
1 Come and hear: R'Simeon said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. I, 1.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 'There is a kind of nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Portions left over from sacrifices. Lev. VII, 17.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב כיצד לן לפני זריקה מועלין לאחר זריקה אין מועלין
2 that is subject to the Law of Sacrilege and there is a kind of nothar that is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege.
ג קתני מיהת מועלין בו לאו דהוה שהות למיזרקיה דאי בעי זריק
3 
ד ושמע מינה היתר אכילה שנינו
4 How is this? If [the blood was] left overnight before sprinkling it is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, if after the sprinkling it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege'.
ה לא דקבליה סמוך לשקיעת החמה דלא היה שהות למזרק
5 Now it states, at all events: 'Is subject to the Law of Sacrilege'.
ו אבל היה שהות מאי הכי נמי דאין מועלין
6 Does this not refer to a case wh there was still time [during the day] to sprinkle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was received in the vessel on the same day but not sprinkled till the following.');"><sup>3</sup></span> it, so that if he wished, he could have performed the sprinkling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was thus 'fit for sprinkling' and is yet subject to the Law of Sacrilege.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ז מאי איריא דתני לפני זריקה ליתני קודם שקיעה ולאחר שקיעה
7 This would then prove that 'permitted for consumption' is meant? - No, it refers to a case where the blood was received near sunset, so that there was no time for sprinkling.
ח הכי נמי קתני קודם שיראה לזריקה ולאחר שיראה לזריקה
8 But what would be the case if there was time [during the day to sprinkle it]? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply?
ט תא שמע ר"ש אומר יש פיגול שמועלין בו ויש פיגול שאין מועלין בו
9 Why then was it necessary to instance 'before the sprinkling'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to distinguish between 'before sprinkling' and 'after sprinkling'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Let [the distinction] be made between 'before sunset' and 'after sunset'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'there being time before sunset' and 'there being no time before sunset'.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
י כיצד לפני זריקה מועלין לאחר זריקה אין מועלין
10 - This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz. , 'Before it was ready<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the day.');"><sup>7</sup></span> for sprinkling' and 'after it was ready for sprinkling'.
יא קתני מיהת לפני זריקה מועלין בו לאו דהוה שהות למיזרקיה דאי בעי זריק וקתני מועלין בו וש"מ היתר אכילה שנינו
11 Come and hear: R'Simeon said, 'There is piggul that is subject to the Law of Sacrilege. and there is piggul that is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege.
יב לא דלא הוה שהות למיזרקיה אבל הוה שהות למיזרקיה [מאי] ה"נ דנפק מידי מעילה
12 How is this? If [enjoyed] before the sprinkling it is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, if after it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege'. It states, at all events: 'If before the sprinkling it is subject to the La Sacrilege'.
יג מאי איריא דתני לאחר זריקה ליתני קודם שקיעה ולאחר שקיעת החמה
13 Now does this not refer to a case where there was still time [during the day] to sprinkle it, so tha if he wished he could have performed the sprinkling, yet it states that it comes under the Law of Sacrilege, which would prove that 'permitted for consumption' is meant? - No, there was no time during the day to sprinkle it.
יד ה"נ קאמר קודם שיראה לזריקה לאחר שיראה לזריקה
14 But what would be the case if there was time during the day to sprinkle it? Would it indeed cease to be subject to the Law of Sacrilege?
טו ת"ש הפיגול בקדשי קדשים מועלין מאי לאו דזרק ושמע מינה היתר אכילה שנינו לא דלא זרק
15 Why then was it necessary to instance 'after sprinkling'? Let [the distinction] be made between 'before sunset' and 'after sunset'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'there being time before sunset' and 'there being no time before sunset'.');"><sup>8</sup></span> - This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz. , 'Before it was ready<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the day.');"><sup>9</sup></span> for sprinkling' and 'after it was ready for sprinkling'. Come and hear: 'The Law of Sacrilege applies to Most Holy sacrifices that were rendered piggul'.
טז אבל זרק מאי הכי נמי דאין מועלין בו מאי איריא דתני בקדשים קלים אין מועלין בו
16 Now, does this not refer to a case where the blood has been sprinkled. and would then prove that 'permitted for consumption' is meant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the inference that if, however, it was not piggul the law of Sacrilege would not apply to it.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יז ליתני כאן לפני זריקה כאן לאחר זריקה
17 - No, it was not sprinkled.
יח הא אתיא לאשמועינן כל לאיתויי לידי מעילה זריקה כתיקנה מייתי לידי מעילה
18 But what would be the case if sprinkled? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply to it? Why then was it necessary to state:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the concluding clause.');"><sup>11</sup></span> 'But if the sacrifices were of a minor degree of holiness they are exempted from the Law of Sacrilege'? Let [the distinction] be made between 'before sprinkling' and 'after sprinkling'? - [The distinction made is to be preferred] to let know the rule: Whatsoever has to be brought within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. the sacrificial portions, emurim, of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness, v. supra p. 8. n. 6.');"><sup>12</sup></span> can achieve this status only if the sprinkling was according to proper procedure, but whatsoever has to cease to be subject to the Law of Sacrilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the flesh of Most Holy sacrifices. R. Giddal's statement is thus refuted, v. ibid.');"><sup>13</sup></span> can achieve this also by a sprinkling that was not in accordance with the proper procedure.
יט כל לאפוקי מידי מעילה אפילו שלא כתיקנה נמי מפקע מידי מעילה:
19 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter