Meilah 12

Chapter 12

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים
1 <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.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ר' אליעזר אומר מועלין בו ואין חייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא
2 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.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ר"ע אומר אין מועלין בו וחייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא
3 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.');"><sup>3</sup></span> PIGGUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GIos. Lev. VII, 18; Zeb. II, 3 and 28a.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד אמר ר"ע והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות
4 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.');"><sup>5</sup></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.
ה לא כשם שדמה פוטר את בשרה כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה
5 
ו אם פטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה דין הוא שיפטר את בשר עצמה
6 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.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמים
7 [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?
ח רבי אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא רבי עקיבא אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא
8 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.');"><sup>7</sup></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.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> והני תרתי למה לי
9 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.
י צריכי דאי איתמר בקדשי קדשים הוה אמינא בהא קא אמר ר' אליעזר מועלין בו משום דזריקה כתיקנה מפקא מידי מעילה שלא כתיקנה לא מפקא מידי מעילה
10 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.');"><sup>9</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why was it necessary to state both these instances? - It was necessary.
יא אבל לאיתויי לידי מעילה מודי לר"ע דאפילו שלא כתיקנה מייתא לידי מעילה
11 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.
יב ואי איתמר גבי קדשים קלים הוה אמינא גבי קדשים קלים הוא דאמר ר"ע מועלין בהן דאפילו זריקה שלא כתיקנה מייתא לידי מעילה
12 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.');"><sup>10</sup></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.
יג אבל קדשי קדשים דלאפוקי הוא שלא כתיקנה לא מפקא מידי מעילה קמ"ל
13 
יד אתמר אמר ר' יוחנן כי אמר ר"ע זריקה מועלת ליוצא שיצא מקצתו אבל יוצא כולו לא אמר ר"ע
14 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.
טו א"ל רב אסי לרבי יוחנן כבר לימדוני חבירי שבגולה
15 [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.');"><sup>11</sup></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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> My friends in the Diaspora [Babylon] have already taught me:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter