Meilah 29
מתני׳ <big><strong>קדשי</strong></big> מזבח מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה ולחייב עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make up the requisite legal size of an olive's bulk, or, in reference to sacrilege, the required legal value of a perutah.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> השתא יש לומר דקתני אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית דהאי קדושת הגוף והאי קדושת דמים אפ"ה קתני מצטרפין זה עם זה קדשי מזבח עם קדשי מזבח מיבעיא
AND DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 17.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
דאמר קרא (ויקרא ה, טו) נפש כי תמעול מעל מקדשי ה' קדשים המיוחדין לה' יש בהן מעילה אבל קדשי מזבח אית בהו לכהנים ואית בהו לבעלים
although the one is consecrated as such and the other only for its value, was it then necessary to mention at all that things dedicated for the altar can combine with others of the same nature? - Since he had to state the addition in this connection: 'AND TO RENDER ONE CULPABLE FOR [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT', which is inapplicable to things dedicated for Temple repair.
קדשי מזבח מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה
Said R'Jannai: It is clear that the Law of Sacrilege applies only to thing dedicated for Temple repair and to burnt-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec. omit 'and to burntofferings'. This is the correct reading as is shown by the second version of R. Jannai's statement at the end of this passage.]');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מדרבנן
We have learnt: THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously referring to all sacrifices, in contradiction to R. Jannai.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מדרבנן
We have learnt: 'If one derived a benefit from a sin-offering, while it was alive he has not trespassed the Law of Sacrilege unless he has diminished its substance; if while it was dead he is liable even though his benefit was of the smallest value'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 18a.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
מהאי קרא קדשי בדק הבית שמעין מינה קדשי מזבח לא שמעין מינה
But does he adduce a Biblical text [as proof]? - It is a mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. But does not 'Ulla say in the name of R'Johanan: 'Consecrated animals which died are according to Biblical law exempted from the Law of Sacrilege'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 12a.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Now, to what does this refer? Shall I say to things dedicated for Temple repair; then the Law of Sacrilege should apply to them even after they have died; for suppose a man would dedicate a midden for Temple repair, would the Law of Sacrilege not apply to it? It must then refer to things dedicated for the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From 'Ulla's statement we learn that before they died they were subject to sacrilege by Biblical law.');"><sup>17</sup></span> But then they should not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Jannai's view.');"><sup>18</sup></span> be subject to sacrilege by Biblical law! - Rather what the School of R'Jannai taught was that from that text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Lev. V, 15.');"><sup>19</sup></span> you can only derive things dedicated for Temple repair; but things dedicated for the altar you cannot derive from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But from Lev. III, 16.');"><sup>20</sup></span> [