Meilah 6

Chapter 6

א קלטוה מחיצות לכל דבר
1 the [sacred] precincts exercise on it their retaining power in every respect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices must then be offered in accordance with all the prescriptions relating to those originally dedicated to the Sanctuary');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב בעי ר"א [עולת במת יחיד שהכניסה שנפסלה] עלו מהו שירדו
2 R'Eleizar then submitted the following query:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> 'If a burnt-offering, which was dedicated to a private High Place and brought inside the Sanctuary.
ג מדקמיבעיא ליה לחדא מכלל דאידך פשיטא ליה אי כרבה אי כדרב יוסף
3 became disqualified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By an error which causes no disqualification on a private High Place, e.g., he slaughtered it on the south side, cf. n. 2.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה
4 if laid [upon the altar] must it be brought down? ' May we not infer from the fact that R'Eleazar queried only this [special] case.
ה עד כאן לא קאמר רבה התם אם עלו ירדו מחיצה כתיקנה
5 that the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to the instances of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו פסלה שלא כתיקנה לא פסלה
6 
ז או דילמא אפילו לרב יוסף דאמר אם עלתה לא תרד מחיצה כתיקנה קלטה שלא כתיקנה לא קלטה תיקו
7 was a matter of course to him, either confirming to the view of Rabbah or to the view of R'Joseph? - [No, R'Eleazar was doubtful even in regard to instances of our Mishnah and] he queries the one case as a further step<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'out of the other'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> of the other.
ח אמר רב גידל אמר רב זריקת פיגול אינו מוציא מידי מעילה בקדשי קדשים ואינו מביא לידי מעילה בקדשים קלים
8 [For I could argue on the one hand]: Rabbah maintained that even when laid upon the altar they must be brought down only [when the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple in conformity with their original provision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when originally dedicated to the Temple.');"><sup>6</sup></span> [in which case the departure from the prescribed method of offering rightly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because originally attached to them.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט יתיב אביי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רב פפא לאביי השוחט את התודה לפנים ולחמה חוץ לחומה לא קדש את הלחם
9 disqualified them; but where [the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple against their original provision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was to offer them on a private High Place.');"><sup>8</sup></span> [a departure from the right method of offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prescribed primarily for offerings dedicated to the Temple.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י שחטה עד שלא קרמו פניה בתנור ואפילו קרמו כולן חוץ מאחת מהן לא קדש הלחם שחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה קדש הלחם
10 [he might hold] does not disqualify them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they need not be removed when laid upon the altar.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא אלמא פיגול מייתי לה לידי מעילה אישתיק
11 Or I could, perhaps, [argue on the other hand]: R'Joseph maintained that when laid upon the altar they need not be brought down only when the retaining power of the sacred precincts was exercised in conformity with the Original provision [of the sacrifices]; but [if the sacrifices were brought inside] the sacred precincts against their original provision the retaining power of the Temple [he might hold] is not [fully] effective!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sacrifices must be brought down from the altar.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב כי אתא לקמיה דרבי אבא אמר ליה בזריקה
12 Let this query<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Eleazar.');"><sup>12</sup></span> remain undecided.
יג אמר ליה רב אשי לרבא והא אמר עולא קומץ פיגול שהעלו לגבי מזבח פקע פיגולו ממנו
13 Said R'Giddal in the name of Rab: The sprinkling of [the blood of an offering which was rendered] piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>13</sup></span> [at the slaughtering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to pseudo-Rashi the sprinkling, too, was performed with disqualifying intention, while Tosaf. hold that its performance was unqualified. The explanation that follows is according to the first view.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יד וקמיצה היינו שחיטה
14 
טו אמר ליה איסורא דמייתי לידי פיגול
15 neither effects exemption from the Law of Sacrilege in the case of Most Holy sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 7b.');"><sup>15</sup></span> nor inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege in the case of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The principle is that the application of the Law of Sacrilege ceases from the moment the blood is sprinkled on the altar in the case of Most Holy sacrifices and in regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it becomes operative only between the moment of the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the portions - and that only as far as the sacrificial portions are concerned.]');"><sup>16</sup></span> Abaye was sitting and quoting this ruling, when R'Papa raised an objection to him: If the thank-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a sacrifice of a minor degree of holiness.');"><sup>17</sup></span> was slaughtered inside [the Temple Court] while the bread thereof remained outside the wall, the bread has not become sacred. If it was slaughtered before the loaves in the oven had formed a crust - even if all the loaves but one had formed a crust - the bread has not become sacred. [But] if it was slaughtered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa assumed that the other acts of offering, too. were performed with this disqualifying intention,');"><sup>18</sup></span> [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, the bread has become sacred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Law of Sacrilege applies to it, v. Men. 78b.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Does this not prove that [the performance of the acts of offering of a sacrifice rendered] piggul brings [sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege? - Thereupon he [Abaye] was silent. When he came before R'Abba the latter replied: It is through the sprinkling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, we should assume, was performed unqualified.');"><sup>20</sup></span> [that the bread has become sacred].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While R. Giddal's ruling refers to a case where all the acts were performed with disqualifying intention.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Said R'Ashi to Raba: But has not 'Ulla ruled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 43a.');"><sup>22</sup></span> that if the handful of [a meal-offering, which was rendered] piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the handful having been taken with disqualifying intention.');"><sup>23</sup></span> was laid upon the altar the disqualification ceased?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to the extent that it must be placed upon the altar if it happened to spring off, and consequently the Law of Sacrilege applies to it.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Now, the separation of a handful [of a meal-offering] corresponds to the slaughtering [of an animal-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are respectively the first acts of offering. 'Ulla's statement proves then that the first act alone can render an offering piggul, contrary to R. Abba's reply. And still it states that the bread is made sacred which shows that sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness are brought within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege by acts of offering performed subsequently to a slaughtering that rendered them piggul contra R. Giddal.');"><sup>25</sup></span> He thereupon replied: ['Ulla's statement is to be understood in the following manner: The taking of the handful with disqualifying intention] is a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., when the other acts, too, will be performed with disqualifying intention, but the taking of the handful itself does not render completely piggul. nor the act of slaughtering in itself unless followed by other acts, such as sprinkling with the same disqualifying intention, which is the case to which R. Giddal refers.');"><sup>26</sup></span>