Meilah 19

Chapter 19

א וסיפא רבנן אמר רב גביהא דבי כתיל לרב אשי הכי אמר אביי רישא רבי שמעון וסיפא רבנן
1 while the latter clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which makes no distinction whether or not the owners had been atoned for.');"><sup>1</sup></span> is in accordance with the Sages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who dispute with R. Simeon, v. Tem. 15a.');"><sup>2</sup></span> Said R'Gebiha of Be Kathil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Tigris N. of Bagdad.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב אמר רבא הכל מודים שאם נהנה מבשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא (קודם זריקה) ומאימורי קדשים קלין לאחר שהעלן דפטור
2 to R'Ashi: [Indeed] thus said Abaye: 'The former clause reflects R'Simeon's view and the latter that of the Sages'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This tradition in the name of Abaye is quoted as a confirmation of the anonymous answer given before.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Said Raba: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab as well as R. Johanan, whose dispute is mentioned supra 9a, v. Tosaf.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג פשיטא מאי קא מפסיד
3 agree that if he enjoyed of the flesh of Most Holy sacrifices which was defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was defiled before the sprinkling of the blood. The flesh is not fit to be offered upon the altar but has to be burnt by the priests.');"><sup>6</sup></span> or of the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness after they had been placed upon the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And charred, so that sacrilege is no longer applicable to it, since the ceremony of offering may be considered as completed.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד מהו דתימא בשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא אית ליה מצות שריפה לכהנים אימורי קדשים קלין איכא מצוה להפוכי בצינורא קמ"ל דלא
4 he is free [from the payment of indemnity].
ה אמר רבא הא דאמרת כבר קרבה חטאת ילכו לים המלח הני מילי דאתידע ליה קמי כפרה אבל לאחר כפרה יפלו לנדבה מאי טעמא אין מפרישין מתחלה לאיבוד
5 Is this not obvious? For what loss did he cause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This means he has in the first case made use of something which cannot be used by the priests and in the second case of something which is no longer within the scope of the service of the Temple.');"><sup>8</sup></span> - I might have thought that since the flesh of most holy sacrifices became defiled there is still attached to it the duty of being burnt by the priests,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is still sacred; the religious procedure has not finished yet.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים מועלין בהם משהוקדשו
6 and with the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness [placed on the altar fire] the duty of turning it over by the poker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hook'.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז קדשן בכלי הוכשר ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורים ובלינה וחייבין עליו משום נותר ומשום טמא ופיגול אין בה
7 We are therefore informed [that he is free].
ח זה הכלל כל שיש לו מתירין אין חייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא עד שיקריבו מתירין
8 Said Raba: The statement,'If the sin-offering has already been offered the money is to be taken to the Dead Sea', holds good only in the case where he became aware of his transgression [of the Law of Sacrilege] before this atonement, but if after his atonement, it goes to the nedabah fund.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he became aware of his sacrilegious use of a part of the money designated for his sin-offering prior to the offering of this sacrifice, we may consider the indemnity he has to pay as forming part of the sum to be used for the sin-offering. Consequently if before the indemnity was paid a sacrifice was bought for the remainder of the amount originally set aside for the offering, the indemnity is to be regarded as money designated for a sin-offering which can no longer be used for this purpose, as its owner has already been atoned for. It has then to be destroyed in accordance with our general rule. But if at the time of the offering he had no knowledge of his trespass against the Law of Sacrilege, his indemnity cannot be considered as set aside for his sin-offering, and when paid it need not be destroyed.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Why?
ט וכל שאין לו מתירין כיון שקידש בכלי חייבין עליו משום נותר וטמא ופיגול אין בה:
9 Because one may not at the outset set aside [holy things] for destruction. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING], THE FRANKINCENSE, THE INCENSE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A PRIEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');"><sup>12</sup></span> THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 3ff and Hor. III, 4.');"><sup>13</sup></span> AND THE MEALOFFERING THAT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LIBATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one that is offered with a freewill peace-offering.');"><sup>14</sup></span> FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE THEY HAVE BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY], THEY BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR 'ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT', OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATSOEVER HAS THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE [FOR THE ALTAR OR FOR THE USE OF THE PRlests]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to make it 'acceptable' (v. Lev. XIX, 7) . E.g., the flesh of sin-offerings and sacrificial portions of peace-offerings where the sprinkling of the blood renders these permissible respectively to the priest or for the altar.');"><sup>15</sup></span> IS NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT UNTIL THAT ACT HAS BEEN PERFORMED. AND WHATSOEVER HAS NOT THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the handful and frankincense and other offerings enumerated in our Mishnah, which require no other things to make the offering fit for the altar.');"><sup>16</sup></span> BECOMES SUBJECT [TO THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT AS SOON AS IT HAS BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY], BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.