Meilah 5

to say that in the case of the sin-offering, since it comes for atonement people do not keep away from it; but other sacrifices, however, since they come for atonement, people will keep away from them and there was, therefore, no [necessity for the Rabbis to enact in regard to them the] Law of Sacrilege.

Therefore ['Ulla has made his view] known to us.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The meaning is obscure and the text seems to be in disorder. Bah reads: It might have entered your mind since a sin-offering comes for atonement people keep away from it and therefore no Law of Sacrilege applies to it, therefore (the Mishnah) has made known to us (that even here the Law of Sacrilege applies) ; consequently no question can be raised against 'Ulla from this Mishnah which by specifying a sin-offering was taken on the view of the questioner to exclude other sacrifices, v. Sh. Mek,.]');">¹</span>

But is it indeed so that the Law of Sacrilege applies to a sin-offering which died?

Has it not been taught: Sin-offerings that are to be left to die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem. 21.');">²</span>

and money that is to be thrown into the Dead Sea<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22b.');">³</span>

must not be enjoyed, yet the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them? - You might reply: In the case of sin-offerings that are to be left to die people keep away from them even while they are still alive;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are not likely to touch them after they have died.');">⁴</span>

which is not so [with ordinary sin-offerings] from which people do not keep away while they are alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the Law of Sacrilege applies to them by Rabbinic enactment.');">⁵</span>

R'Joseph raised an objection to Rabbah [by way of inference] from one [Mishnah] to another and again from this to a third.

[We have learnt]: And all of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those enumerated in the Mishnah Zeb. 66a.');">⁶</span>

do not defile the garments worn by him that swallows them, and the Law of Sacrilege still applies to them all except the sin-offering of a bird, which was offered below [the red line], after the manner of a sin-offering of a bird and under the name of a sin-offering.

And then in connection therewith we have learnt [the general rule]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. ');">⁷</span>

Whenever it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Refers to the sin.offering of a bird the 'wringing' of which (melikah. v. Glos.) was performed in the wrong place.');">⁸</span>

became disqualified in the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through some irregularity in the prescribed method of slaughtering, melikah.');">⁹</span>

it does not defile the garments worn by him that swallows it, and whenever it became disqualified while not in the Sanctuary it defiles the garments worn by him that swallows it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. cause the wringing off of the head, which is prescribed for a valid sin-offering of a bird, renders it in this case nebelah (v. Glos.) ; v. Zeb. 68b.');">¹⁰</span>

And we have furthermore learnt: Whatever became disqualified in the Sanctuary need not be removed, if already laid upon the altar, need not be brought down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 84a.');">¹¹</span> Is this not a refutation of Rabbah's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the first Mishnah we learn that the sin-offerings of a bird whose melikah was performed in the wrong place a case which corresponds to the instances of our Mishnah - do not defile the garments worn by him that swallows them; thus we infer that when the second Mishnah speaks of disqualification that occurred in the Sanctuary, the reference is likewise to a melikah performed in the wrong place, and similarly the third Mishnah which states that whatever becomes disqualified in the Sanctuary need not be brought down when already laid upon the altar includes such a disqualification as melikah performed in the wrong place, and similarly a slaughtering in the wrong place which refutes Rabbah.');">¹²</span> - It is indeed a refutation. Now the point which had been disputed by Rabbah and R'Joseph was a matter of course to R'Eleazar. For R'Eleazar said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 1 19b.');">¹³</span> If a burnt-offering which was dedicated to a private High Place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At a time when these were permitted. In such places the offerings need not necessarily be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Cf. Zeb. 112b.');">¹⁴</span> was brought [to be offered] inside [the Sanctuary]