Meilah 21
IF BEFORE THE OWNER HAD BEEN ATONED, IT SHALL GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT [FOR SACRIFICE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until it contracts a blemish. This phrase refers, of course, only to the one which has passed the age-limit. for in the other instance the animal is found with a blemish.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
in the first clause while in the concluding a distinction is made? - In the first clause the ruling is absolute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no object in making this distinction, for in all the three instances of the first clause the position is final; the young and the exchange are themselves not considered offerings, and in the case of the owners' death the sin for which the offering was brought is already expiated.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE HAS SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without specifying what portion of the sum is designated for each of the required offerings, viz., a sin-offering, a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. V. Num. VI, 14f.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
IT MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT, AS IT MAY ALL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of each coin one may say, perhaps this is designated for the peace-offering (Rashi) . Tosaf.: The whole sum may be used for the peace. offering, and the other offerings bought with other money.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR A BURNT-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A BURNT-OFFERlng;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A burnt offering is not brought for atonement. It can therefore be offered even after its owner's death. The same applies to the peace-offering.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A PEACE-OFFERING, AND IT HAS TO BE CONSUMED WITHIN A DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of the peace-offering of a Nazirite and not as in the instance of an ordinary peace-offering whose flesh may be consumed during two days and the night in between.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Resh Lakish demurred: Why does not [the Mishnah] teach also the following case: If one has set aside monies for bird-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be offered e.g., by him who recovered from gonorrhoea; v. Lev. XV. 1ff.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
they may not be used but the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them because he might buy with them turtledoves which have not reached the prescribed age or pigeons which have passed the prescribed age?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Turtle-doves are fit for offerings only after they have reached a certain age, pigeons only under that age. cf. Hul. 22b. The argument is: As he might buy with the money something which is not subject to sacrilege. the money. too, should not be subject to the Law of Sacrilege, as in the instance of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>14</sup></span>
SAYS: [THE LAW RELATING TO] BLOOD IS LENIENT AT THE BEGINNING [OF THE OFFERING CEREMONY] AND STRINGENT AT THE END; [THAT RELATING TO] LIBATIONS IS STRINGENT AT THE BEGINNING AND LENIENT AT THE END; BLOOD IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT IS SUBJECT TO IT AFTER IT HAS FLOWED AWAY TO THE BROOK KIDRON;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yoma 58b.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
LIBATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT ARE EXEMPTED FROM IT AFTER THEY FLOWED DOWN INTO THE SHITTln.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., pits at the side of the altar into which the remainder of libations was poured. V. Tosef. Suk. III, 3.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
The School of R'Ishmael taught: [It reads there] to make atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 11.');"><sup>20</sup></span> [meaning], I have given it for atonement, but not [to make it subject] to the Law of Sacrilege. R'Johanan says: Scripture Says. For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>22</sup></span> [The blood] before [the act of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sprinkling of the blood.');"><sup>23</sup></span> atonement is to be compared to its status after the act of atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It is' is understood to convey as much as 'it remains in the same status', Rashi Yoma ibid.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Just as after the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege, so before the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. But why not infer [in the other direction]: Just as before the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it, so also after the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it? - Is there at all a thing to which the Law of Sacrilege applies after the Prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith! - But why not?