Meilah 12

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE FLESH OF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] BEFORE THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And brought in again, and then the blood was sprinkled.');">¹</span>

R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRllege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling does not effect an exemption from the Law of Sacrilege since the offering is invalid.');">²</span>

AND ONE DOES NOT BECOME GUILTY IN REGARD TO IT OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'left over'. Lev. VII, 17.');">³</span>

PIGGUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GIos. Lev. VII, 18; Zeb. II, 3 and 28a.');">⁴</span>

AND DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 21. For only a valid sprinkling can bring the sacrifices within the scope of these laws.');">⁵</span>

R'AKIBA SAYS: IT ls EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE CAN BECOME GUILTY OF [TRANSGRESSING IN REGARD TO IT THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.

SAID R'AKIBA: IF ONE SET ASIDE HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER IN ITS STEAD AND AFTERWARDS THE FIRST WAS FOUND SO THAT BOTH WERE DESIGNATED [FOR SLAUGHTERING].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he slaughtered both and after receiving the blood of each in two separate vessels he sprinkled the blood of only one of them.');">⁶</span>

[DO YOU NOT AGREE] THAT LIKE AS [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD [OF THE ONE BEAST] EXEMPTS ITS OWN FLESH [FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE] SO IT EXEMPTS THE FLESH OF THE OTHER BEAST?

NOW, IF THE SPRINKLING OF ITS BLOOD CAN EXEMPT THE FLESH OF OTHER BEASTS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it be invalid, as the remnant of a sin-offering.');">⁷</span>

FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, HOW MUCH MORE MUST IT EXEMPT ITS OWN FLESH.

IF THE EMURIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portions that are to be offered upon the altar.');">⁸</span>

OF SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS WERE TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] BEFORE THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED, R'ELlezer SAYS: THEY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE DOES NOT BECOME GUILTY IN REGARD TO THEM OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR'PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.

R'AKIBA SAYS: THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE DOES BECOME GUILTY [OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling does not effect the application of the Law of Sacrilege, since the offering is invalid.');">⁹</span>

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why was it necessary to state both these instances? - It was necessary.

for if [the instance of] the Most Holy sacrifices alone was stated, I might have said: In this case ruled R'Eliezer that it is still subject to the Law of Sacrilege, because [he held that] sprinkling executed according to the proper procedure effects exemption from the Law of Sacrilege, but [a sprinkling] not according to the proper procedure does not effect exemption.

But as to effecting the inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in the direction of greater stringency.');">¹⁰</span>

he might concede to R'Akiba that also [sprinkling that was] not performed in accordance with the proper procedure effects the inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege.

And if the instance of a sacrifice of a minor degree of holiness alone was stated, I might have said: In regard to sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness only did R'Akiba rule that the Law of Sacrilege applies.

because [he held that] even sprinkling that was not performed in accordance with the proper procedure [has the power of] including [the flesh] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege; but in regard to Most Holy sacrifices in which case [the sprinkling] is to effect the exemption from the Law of Sacrilege.

[I might say that] if not performed in accordance with the proper procedure it does not possess the power of exempting from the Law of Sacrilege.

Therefore he informs us [regarding both instances]. It was stated, R'Johanan said: R'Akiba held his view that the sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out, only if it was par taken out [of the Temple Court],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the sprinkling is then of effect for the portions that remained inside.');">¹¹</span> but if it was wholly taken out [R'Akiba did] not [hold this view]. Said R'Assi to R'Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. do not read 'to R. Johanan'. The following discussion is then independent of R. Johanan's statement.');">¹²</span> My friends in the Diaspora [Babylon] have already taught me: