Meilah 23

Chapter 23

א מזבח החיצון דכתיב ביה (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח מזבח הפנימי מנלן
1 as far as the outer altar is concerned, for it is written: And he shall place it by the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אמר ר"א דאמר קרא (ויקרא א, טז) והסיר את מוראתו בנוצתה אם אינו ענין למזבח החיצון תנהו ענין למזבח הפנימי
2 but wherefrom do we know this of the ashes of the inner altar? Said R'Eleazar, Scripture says: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof [and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 16.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אימא אידי ואידי במזבח החיצון ולקבוע לו מקום
3 as this has no bearing on the outer altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is mentioned in Lev. VI, 3.');"><sup>3</sup></span> make it bear on the inner altar.
ד א"כ לימא קרא אצל המזבח מאי (ויקרא ו, ג) הדשן דאפילו מזבח הפנימי
4 But why not say that both passages bear upon the outer altar [and it has been repeated] in order to fix the precise side [for the ashes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the east side.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה מנורה מנלן דשן הדשן:
5 - If so, Scripture should [only] say, 'by the altar'; why [add, 'the place of] the ashes'? [To suggest] that [it was the place of t ashes] also for the inner altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The definite article is regarded as superfluous.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ר"ש אומר תורין שלא הגיע זמנן מועלין בהן בני יונה שעבר זמנן לא נהנין ולא מועלין בהן:
6 Wherefrom do we know [the place for the ashes of] the candlestick? - [The expression] 'the ashes' [is an amplification, for it sufficed to mention] 'ashes'. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In many editions this Mishnah is joined to the previous, of which it is a continuation, thus in Tosaf.');"><sup>6</sup></span> R'SIMEON SAID: TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE RIGHT AGE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they may be offered when they grow older.');"><sup>7</sup></span> WHILE PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR USE, BUT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE.
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא ר' שמעון כדקתני טעמא שהיה ר"ש אומר כל הראוי לאחר זמן והקדישו בתוך זמנו הרי הוא בלא תעשה ואין בו כרת
7 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It is right according to R'Simeon whose reason has been stated [in a Mishnah]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 81a.');"><sup>8</sup></span> 'For R'Simeon used to say: [He who uses] that which will be fit [for offering] after a period and has been dedicated before that period has expired has transgressed a prohibitory law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly, these turtle-doves since they will become fit after a certain period, are considered holy when dedicated even before the period is reached.');"><sup>9</sup></span> though he is not liable to the penalty of kareth'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח אלא רבנן מאי שנא ממחוסר זמן
8 But according to the ruling of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the anonymous view of the previous MISHNAH:');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ט אמרי מחוסר זמן מידי דהוה אבעל מום דבר פדיון הוא אבל הני עופות כיון דאין מום פוסל בעופות אין לעופות פדיון
9 whereby is [our case] distinguished from that of [animal-sacrifices] which have not reached the required age [of eight days]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which it says in Bek. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> - I might reply: [The sacrifice of a beast] that has not reached the required age is to be compared to one with a blemish which can be redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the instance of a sacrifice of cattle there is redemption in the case of disqualification by blemish; i.e., we find a precedent that even a disqualified only is holy, because a substitute can take its place. There is no such precedent in the case of a bird offering as this offering cannot he redeemed.');"><sup>13</sup></span> but these bird-offerings, which a blemish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of such blemishes which disqualify even bird-offerings there is no redemption.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
י אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן קדשים שמתו יצאו מידי מעילה דבר תורה
10 does not disqualify them, cannot be redeemed.' Ulla said in the name of R, Johanan: Dedicated [animals] which have died are according to the Torah exempted from the Law of Sacrilege.
יא יתיב עולא וקאמר להא שמעתא א"ל רב חסדא מאן שמע לך ולר' יוחנן רבך [וכי] קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה
11 When 'Ulla sat and recited this ruling. R'Hisda said to him: Who has ever heard this, your view and the view of R'Johanan. your teacher? Whither has the sanctity thereof gone? - He thereupon replied: Why not ask the same question with relation to our Mishnah, where it says: TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE RIGHT AGE, AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER, NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE.
יב א"ל תיקשי מתניתין תורין שלא הגיע זמנן ובני יונה שעבר זמנן לא נהנין ולא מועלין הכא נמי נימא קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה
12 Here, too. [ask] whither has the sanctity thereof gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is from pigeons which have passed the prescribed age after having been dedicated.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Nevertheless<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. cur. edd.: 'He said to him'. I.e., although Mishnah proves that it is possible for the Law of Sacrilege to cease to operate.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יג א"ל מודינא לך דאיכא מעילה מדרבנן וקשיא לי מי איכא מידי דמעיקרא לא אית ביה מעילה ולבסוף אית ביה מעילה
13 [continued 'Ulla], I admit that by Rabbinical enactment the Law of Sacrilege is applicable [in these instances],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in my case and in that of the MISHNAH: One is liable to compensation, though not to the payment of the additional Fifth.');"><sup>17</sup></span> but I wish to raise the difficulty: Is there anything which has been exempted from the Law of Sacrilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the instance of the turtle-doves according to the first view of the MISHNAH:');"><sup>18</sup></span> from the beginning and is subject to it afterwards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after they reach the prescribed age. although they had been dedicated when they were not yet of age.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יד ולא והא איכא דם דמעיקרא לית בה מעילה ולבסוף אית בה מעילה דתנן דם בתחלה אין מועלין בו יצא לנחל קדרון מועלין בו
14 - Why not? Is there not the instance of blood which was originally exempted from the Law of Sacrilege, but is subject to it at the end [of the offering ceremony]? For we have learnt: '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',' Supra 11a.');"><sup>20</sup></span> - I might reply: In that instance the Law of Sacrilege was applicable at the beginning
טו אמרי התם נמי איכא מעילה מעיקרא
15 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter