Meilah 7

Chapter 7

א והא קתני אם אחרים מביא לידי פיגול הוא עצמו לא כ"ש

1 But does it not say:1 since it [[the handful] renders others piggul, how much more so should it itself [become piggul]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 43G where this is explained thus: If the disqualification rendered by the taking of the handful with the unlawful intention is not irrevocable in that if it is subsequently laid upon the altar it need not be brought down, now should it render the rest of the handful liable to the Law of Sacrilege. This proves that on the view of 'Ulla unlawful intention at the taking of the handful only renders the piggul complete and irrevocable.');">2

ב הא נמי איסורא דמייתי לידי פיגול

2 - Here, too, [you must understand it as meaning] a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul.

ג אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי והאמר אילפא מחלוקת בשתי עבודות

3 Said Rabina to R'Ashi: But did not Ilfa say:3 The dispute4

ד כגון דאמר הריני שוחט סימן ראשון חוץ לזמנו וסימן שני חוץ למקומו אבל בעבודה אחת דכולי עלמא עירובי מחשבות הואי

ה ה"נ לכי זריק תיגלי מילתא אי בעבודה אחת אי בשתי עבודות

5 is only in regard to two acts of offering,5

ו אי הכי גבי תודה נמי עד דזריק

6 namely when he [that officiated] said: I am cutting the first organ6

ז מאי קדש ליפסל דבעי שריפה

7 [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time, and the second [while purposing an act] outside the proper place;7

ח לימא מסייע ליה הפיגול לעולם מועלין בו לאו אע"ג דאיזריק דם ומסייע ליה

8 but in regard to one act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., one organ. e.g., if the first half of the organ is cut with the thought of executing an act beyond the proper time and the second with the thought of executing an act outside the proper place.');">8 they all agree that there is here an admixture of unlawful intentions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he that eats of the flesh is not liable to the penalty of kareih. This statement at any rate indicates that the disqualification is assumed to be effective and complete with the mere act of unlawful slaughtering, and yet in the case of the thank-offering we learnt that the bread has become sacred, which refutes R. Giddal.');">9

ט לא דלא זרק הדם אי דלא זרק הדם מאי למימרא

9 - Here, too, [you must understand that] when the sprinkling takes place it will [retrospectively] prove whether [there was unlawful intention] in one act or in two acts of offering. If this be so,10

י אלא לעולם דזריק וכי תניא ההיא בעולה אי בעולה פשיטא דגבוה היא כולה

10 why not say with the thankoffering, too, [that its disqualification becomes effective] with the sprinkling?11 - '[The bread has become] sacred' means indeed only in so far as it has to be burnt by reason of its disqualification.12 May not the following be cited in support [of R'Giddal]:13 'The Law of Sacrilege applies to piggul always'. [Does this not imply] even though the blood has been sprinkled. and will then offer a support [of R'Giddal]? - [No, [that is] where the blood has not been sprinkled.14 But if the blood has not been sprinkled need it be stated? - It deals, in fact, with case where the blood has been sprinkled, but when this has been taught, it was in reference to a burnt-offering.15 If it refers to a burnt-offering, is it not obvious, since this offering is wholly dedicated t Lord?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter