Meilah 14

Chapter 14

א נזרק דם של אחד מהם אי אתה מודה שכשם שדמה פוטר את בשרה מן המעילה אף יפטור בשר חבירתה מן המעילה
1 If the blood of one of them was sprinkled, do you not agree that like as the [sprinkling of the] blood exempts its flesh from the Law of Sacrilege so it exempts also the flesh of the other beast from the Law of Sacrilege?
ב אם הציל בשר חבירתה מן המעילה אף על פי שהוא פסול דין הוא שיציל את בשרה
2 Now, if it can save the flesh of another offering from the Law of Sacrilege, though it is disqualified, how much more must it save its own flesh.
ג אמר ריש לקיש משום רב אושעיא תשובה גנובה השיבו רבי עקיבא לאותו תלמיד בבת אחת אין בזה אחר זה לא
3 Said Resh Lakish in the name of R'Oshaia: Inexact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a stolen reply'.');"><sup>1</sup></span> was the reply that R'Akiba gave to that disciple, [as it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the phrase. 'they were slaughtered', and the repetition of 'both' in the text. Pseudo-Rashi 'reads: 'they were both slaughtered'.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד דכיון דפסול הוא מה לי בבת אחת מה לי בזה אחר זה
4 
ה א"ל רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש ואתה אי אתה אומר כן
5 suggests that his instance holds good] only if they were slaughtered simultaneously but not if successively. Now, since [the other offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one whose blood has not been sprinkled..');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ו אילו הפריש שתי אשמות לאחריות ושחט את שניהן וקדם והעלה אימורין של אחד מהן קודם זריקה אי אתה מודה שאם עלו ירדו
6 
ז ואי ס"ד חד גופא הוא אמאי אם עלו ירדו האמר עולא אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דם לא ירדו נעשה לחמו של מזבח
7 is, at all events] disqualified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a remnant of a sin-offering. Yet R. Akiba ruled that it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. He must apparently hold that the two sin-offerings are considered as one offering.');"><sup>4</sup></span> what is the difference between 'simultaneously' and 'successively'? Said R'Johanan to Resh Lakish: And you, do you not make this distinction?
ח אישתיק אמר ר' יוחנן קצצתינון לרגלוהי דינוקא
8 Suppose one set apart two guilt-offerings for surety<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case one is lost.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [one against the other], and he had them both slaughtered and had the emurim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> (יש) מעשה דמים בקדשי קדשים להקל ולהחמיר ובקדשים קלים כולהו להחמיר
9 of one of them placed upon the altar before sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the blood of the other offering was sprinkled');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י כיצד קדשי קדשים לפני זריקת דמים מועלין באימוריהן ובבשר לאחר זריקת דמים מועלין באימוריהן ואין מועלין בבשר
10 Would you not agree that although [those emurim were] already placed upon the altar they have to be brought down? Now, if your assumption was right that they are considered in such a case as one offering, why have they to be brought down?
יא ועל זה ועל זה חייב משום פיגול נותר וטמא נמצא מעשה דמים בקדשי קדשים להקל ולהחמיר
11 Did not 'Ulla rule: 'If the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same applies, of course, also to Most Holy sacrifices,');"><sup>8</sup></span> were laid upon the altar before the sprinkling they must not be brought down, as they have become the food of the altar!?
יב ובקדשים קלים כולן להחמיר כיצד קדשים קלים לפני זריקת דמים אין מועלין לא באימורין ולא בבשר לאחר זריקת דמים מועלין באימורין ואין מועלין בבשר
12 Thereupon he gave no reply. Said R'Johanan: I have cut off the legs of that child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., I have proved his argument to be wrong. Resh Lakish was younger than R. Johanan, hence the designation 'of that child'.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יג על זה ועל זה חייבין עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא נמצא מעשה דמים בקדשים קלים כולן להחמיר
13 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE ACT OF [SPRINKLING THE] BLOOD OF MOST HOLY SACRIFICES MAY HAVE EITHER A LENIENT OR A STRINGENT EFFECT, BUT WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT.
יד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קתני אין מועלין בבשר מעילה הוא דליכא הא איסורא איכא ואמאי הא ממונא דכהן הוא
14 HOW SO? WITH MOST HOLY SACRIFICES, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES BOTH TO THE EMURlm AND TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES TO THE EMURIM BUT NOT TO THE FLESH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the lenient outcome.');"><sup>10</sup></span> IN RESPECT OF BOTH ONE IS GUILTY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After sprinkling.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טו לא קשיא משום דנסיב רישא מועלין נסיב סיפא אין מועלין
15 OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR'PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 17. nn. 9-11. This is the stringent outcome.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טז אימא סיפא בקדשים קלים כולהו להחמיר כיצד בשר קדשים קלים לפני זריקת דמים אין מועלין בהן ובאימוריהן ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא לאחר זריקת דמים מועלין באימוריהן ואין מועלין בבשר
16 IT IS THUS FOUND THAT WITH MOST HOLY SACRIFICES THE ACT OF SPRINKLING HAS A LENIENT AS WELL AS A STRINGENT EFFECT. WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT', HOW SO? WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NEITHER TO THE EMURIM NOR TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES TO THE EMURlm BUT NOT TO THE FLESH; IN RESPECT OF BOTH ONE IS GUILTY OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.
יז מעילה הוא דליכא הא איסורא איכא ואמאי הא ממונא דבעלים הוא
17 IT IS THUS FOUND THAT WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It teaches:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first section of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>13</sup></span> 'THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES.
יח אמר ר' חנינא ליוצאין ור"ע היא
18 NOT TO THE FLESH' which implies that the penalty of Sacrilege is not inflicted, but the prohibition still remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to the priest.');"><sup>14</sup></span> But why? Is it not the possession of the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once the blood has been sprinkled.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - This is no difficulty, since in the opening clause he had to use [the phrase] 'THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES' he uses also in the concluding clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first section of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>16</sup></span> [the phrase] 'THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NOT'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of symmetry.');"><sup>17</sup></span> But read then the second section of the Mishnah: 'WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT', HOW SO? WITH FLESH OF SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NEITHER TO THE EMURIM NOR TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES To THE EMURIM BUT NOT TO THE FLESH. This implies: The penalty of sacrilege is not inflicted but the prohibition still remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to the layman.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Why? Is it not the possession of the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer given in the first instance is not applicable here, as there is no clause in this section which demanded the use of the phrase for the sake of symmetry.');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Said R'Hanina: [It refers] to an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court] and the Mishnah stands in accordance with R'Akiba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 8b.');"><sup>20</sup></span> For R'Akiba held that 'sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court]' only in regard to its burning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that it may not be burnt at once, like offerings whose disqualifications are essentially in themselves, but only after the flesh has begun to decay.');"><sup>21</sup></span> but
יט כי אמר ר"ע זריקה מועלת ליוצא לשריפה
19 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter