Meilah 29

Chapter 29

א מתני׳ <big><strong>קדשי</strong></big> מזבח מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה ולחייב עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה
1 <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> WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND TO RENDER ONE CULPABLE FOR [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span> NOTHAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב <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
2 AND DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 17.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג משום דקתני עלה לחייב עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא דקדשי בדק הבית לא איכא הכי משום הכי קא פליג ליה
3 THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Temple treasury.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד א"ר ינאי מחוורתא אין חייבין משום מעילה אלא על קדשי בדק הבית ועולה בלבד מ"ט דאמר קרא (ויקרא ה, טו) נפש כי תמעול מעל מקדשי ה'
4 CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to sacrilege only. as the other laws are not applicable to them.');"><sup>5</sup></span> THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Since things dedicated for the altar can combine with things dedicated for Temple repair. 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.
ה קדשים המיוחדין לה' יש בהן מעילה אבל קדשי מזבח אית בהו לכהנים ואית בהו לבעלים
5 
ו תנן קדשי מזבח מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה מדרבנן
6 therefore he stated this separately. 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> What is the reason? - Scripture says: If anyone commits a trespass [and sin in error] in the holy things of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ז קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום מועלים בהן מדרבנן
7 Holy things designated wholly for God<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the burnt-offering which is wholly offered on the altar.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח תנן הנהנה מן החטאת כשהיא חיה לא מעל עד שיפגום כשהיא מתה כיון שנהנה כל שהוא מעל מדרבנן
8 are subject to the Law of Sacrilege; but as to [other] things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.');"><sup>9</sup></span> dedicated for the altar, of them the priests have a share and the owners have a share. 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>
ט ומדאורייתא לא והתניא רבי אומר (ויקרא ג, טז) כל חלב לה' לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים למעילה
9 - [This applies only] by Rabbinical enactment. We have learnt: 'The Law of Sacrilege applies to the Most Holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2a.');"><sup>11</sup></span> - [It is] by Rabbinical enactment.
י מדרבנן והא קרא קא נסיב לה אסמכתא בעלמא
10 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> - By Rabbinical enactment. And by Biblical law are they indeed exempted?
יא והא אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן קדשים שמתו יצאו מידי מעילה דבר תורה במאי אילימא בקדשי בדק הבית אפילו כי מתו נמי לא יהא אלא דאקדיש אשפה לבדק הבית לאו אית בה מעילה
11 Has it not been taught: Rabbi says. The expression all fat is the Lord's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 16.');"><sup>13</sup></span> is to include the emurim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יב אלא קדשי מזבח דאורייתא מי אית בהו מעילה
12 of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness with regard to the Law of Sacrilege!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 32b.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יג אלא הכי קא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי מהאי קרא קדשי בדק הבית שמעין מינה קדשי מזבח לא שמעין מינה
13 - By Rabbinical enactment. 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> [
Previous ChapterNext Chapter