Meilah 22

What of the ashes removed [from the altar] which are subject to the Law of Sacrilege although the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why not take this as an example for similar instances?');">¹</span>

- The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the limbs of the scapegoat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, too, according to one view in Yoma ');">²</span>

constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For were it the intention of the Torah that these laws should serve as a model to similar cases one text would suffice.');">³</span>

This would be right according to the view that one may make no use of the limbs of the scapegoat, but what would be your argument according to him who holds that one may use them? - The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the garments of the High priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. 117a.');">⁴</span>

constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them.

This would be right according to the Rabbis Who hold [that the text].

And he shall place them there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 23.');">⁵</span>

teaches that they have to be hidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as not to be used again, i.e., they are subject to the Law of Sacrilege.');">⁶</span>

but what would be your argument according to R'Dosa who holds that a common priest may wear them? - The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the heifer whose neck has been broken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 1ff, and Sot. IX. 1f.');">⁷</span>

constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing [and from such texts no general rule can be derived].

But this [reply] would be right [only] according to him who [indeed] holds that one cannot derive a general rule [from such laws]; but what would be your argument according to the view that one can derive a general rule [from such laws]? - [In this case] there are written two limitations [excluding other instances]: Here it is written.

The heifer whose neck has been broken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 6. The definite article is to exclude other cases.');">⁸</span>

and there it is written, And he shall place it by the side of the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the removed ashes are still holy and therefore subject to the Law of Sacrilege is learnt from the fact that we are commanded to place it 'by the side of the altar'. In the text commanding this, Lev. VI, 3, the word 'it' is regarded as unnecessary and is taken to indicate that only the ashes are sacred even after the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith, and not other things.');">⁹</span>

implying that only in these [instances does the Law of Sacrilege apply even after the prescribed ceremony has been performed], but not in others.

LIBATlons ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING etc. May we assume that our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Zadok?

For 'it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 492'');">¹⁰</span>

R'Eleazar son of R'Zadok said: There was a small passage between the ascent [of the altar] and the altar, on the west side of the altar.

Once every seventy years young priests descended through it and brought up the [accumulated] congealed wine, which resembled a cake of figs.

and burnt it in a sacred place, for Scripture says: In holiness shalt thou surely offer the libati to the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, XXVIII, 7. The verb is repeated in Hebrew as emphasis.');">¹¹</span>

just as the libation thereof must be in a sacred place, so the burning thereof must be in a sacred place'.

How is this implied? - Thereupon said Rabina: It is derived from [nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹²</span>

by textual analogy based on the word] 'holy' occurring in both texts.

It says here 'in holiness'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 7.');">¹³</span>

and it says there, and thou shalt burn the remnant in fire, it may not be eaten for it is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 34.');">¹⁴</span>

Just as nothar is burnt in a sacred state,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. 82b.');">¹⁵</span>

so also these [libations] are burnt in a sacred state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are still considered sacred at the time of burning. The Law of Sacrilege should accordingly apply to the wine libation even after it had been let down to the Shittin, which is contradictory to our MISHNAH:');">¹⁶</span>

- [The Mishnah] may well agree with R'Eleazar, son of R'Zadok, as [it refers only to the case where the wine] was caught [before it reached the bottom of the Shittin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case R. Eleazar too agrees that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply. though once it reaches the bottom of the Shittin the holy ground renders the wine again sacred.');">¹⁷</span> Some reported [the discussion in the following version]: Shall we say that our Mishnah is in accordance with the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Zadok?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to the Sages. Suk. 49a, the pits were not pits where the wine accumulated, but rather canals through which it flowed. The instance of our Mishnah of the use of such wine should then be an impossibility.');">¹⁸</span> - [Not necessarily] as [it deals with a case where] the wine was caught [before it reached the ground]. I might say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text of the last paragraph is rather obscure; cf. Tosaf. Suk. ');">¹⁹</span> It is not necessary [to limi the Mishnah to this case] for [it is considered holy only] by Rabbinical enactment. But does he not adduce the text? - [The Biblical text is a] mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE ASHES OF THE INNER ALTAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the ashes of the outer altar these do not retain their sacred character after the removal from the inner altar, since there is no special text implying that they remain holy. as in the case of the outer altar (v. oupra p. 40, n. 5) .');">²⁰</span> AND [OF THE WICKS OF] THE CANDLESTICK MAY NOT BE USED. AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. IF ONE DEDICATES ASHES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one collects these ashes after their removal from the inner altar to the heap of ashes, and dedicates them afresh to the Temple, they are sacred and therefore subject to the Law of Sacrilege (Tosaf.) . Aliter: If someone had vowed to give their value to the Temple before they had been removed.');">²¹</span> THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT REACHED THE RIGHT AGE AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are not fit for offerings. v. Hul. I, 5.');">²²</span> MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the fact that the ashes of the altar have to be put at the place of the ashes.');">²³</span> is right