Meilah 22

Chapter 22

א הרי תרומת הדשן שנעשה מצותו ויש בו מעילה

1 What of the ashes removed [from the altar] which are subject to the Law of Sacrilege although the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith!1

ב משום דהוה ליה תרומת הדשן ואיברי שעיר המשתלח שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

2 - The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the limbs of the scapegoat2

ג הניחא למ"ד איברי שעיר המשתלח אין נהנין מהן אלא למאן דאמר נהנין מהן מאי איכא למימר

3 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.3

ד משום דהוה ליה תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

4 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 priest4

ה הניחא לרבנן דאמרי (ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שהן טעונין גניזה שפיר

5 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.

ו אלא לרבי דוסא דאמר מותר להשתמש בהן כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר

ז משום דהוה תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד

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

ח הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר

8 And he shall place them there5

ט תרי מיעוטי כתיבי כתיב התם (דברים כא, ו) הערופה

9 teaches that they have to be hidden,6

י וכתיב התם (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח הני אין מידי אחרינא לא

יא נסכים בתחילה מועלין בהן [וכו'] לימא מתני' דלא כר"א בר רבי צדוק

11 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 broken7 constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing [and from such texts no general rule can be derived].

יב דתניא ר"א בר רבי צדוק אומר לול קטן היה בין כבש למזבח במערבו של כבש אחת לשבעים שנה פרחי כהונה יורדין בו ומביאין יין קרוש שהוא דומה לעגולי דבילה ושורפין אותה בקדושה שנאמר (במדבר כח, ז) בקודש הסך נסך שכר לה' כשם שניסוכה בקדושה כך שריפתה בקדושה

12 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,8 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

יג מאי משמע ואמר רבינא אתיא קודש קודש כתיב הכא בקודש וכתיב התם (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש ולא יאכל כי קודש הם

13 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:10 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.

יד מה נותר שריפתו בקדושה אף האי נמי בקדושה

טו אפילו תימא ר' אלעזר בר רבי צדוק דאי קלט

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

טז איכא דאמרי לימא מתני' כר' אלעזר בר ר' צדוק דאי קלט

16 and burnt it in a sacred place, for Scripture says: In holiness shalt thou surely offer the libati to the Lord:11 just as the libation thereof must be in a sacred place, so the burning thereof must be in a sacred place'.

יז אמרי לא ומדרבנן והא קרא קנסיב לה אסמכתא

17 How is this implied? - Thereupon said Rabina: It is derived from [nothar12 by textual analogy based on the word] 'holy' occurring in both texts. It says here 'in holiness'13

יח <big>מתני׳</big> דישון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה לא נהנין ולא מועלין המקדיש דישון בתחלה מועלין בה תורין שלא הגיע זמנן ובני יונה שעבר זמנן לא נהנין ולא מועלין

18 and it says there, and thou shalt burn the remnant in fire, it may not be eaten for it is holy.14 Just as nothar is burnt in a sacred state,15 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

יט <big>גמ׳</big> בשלמ'

19 - [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 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 - [Not necessarily] as [it deals with a case where] the wine was caught [before it reached the ground]. I might say:19 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>MISHNAH: </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 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 THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT REACHED THE RIGHT AGE AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE22 MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. <big>GEMARA: </big>This23 is right

Previous Chapter Next Chapter