Meilah 8

Chapter 8

א ועוד דקתני סיפא לן דמה אע"פ שחזר וזרקו מועלין בו
1 And moreover it says in the concluding clause: 'If the blood remained overnight, although it was still sprinkled, the Law of Sacrilege still applies [to the offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is assumed that the same applies in the case of piggul.');"><sup>1</sup></span> This would be right if it related [for instance] to a sin-offering, but if it referred to a burnt-offering.
ב אי אמרת בשלמא בחטאת שפיר
2 
ג אלא אי אמרת בעולה צריכא למימר
3 
ד סיפא ודאי מסייע ליה רישא מאי הואיל ומסייע ליה סיפא מסייע ליה נמי רישא
4 need it at all be stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that this ruling applies to other disqualifications as well.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - The concluding clause obviously supports [R'Giddal's view], but what about the opening clause?
ה סיפא (לאו) ודאי מסייע ליה מ"ש הלנה דקעביד בידים לא מהני זריקה לאפוקי מידי מעילה
5 As the concluding clause offers a support so will also the opening one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does the opening clause necessarily refer to sin-offerings because the concluding one does?');"><sup>3</sup></span> But even the concluding clause need not necessarily support [R'Giddal's view].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it might apply only to the case where the blood was left overnight but not to other piggul. MS.M.: 'And does the concluding clause indeed offer a support? - He said: What is the difference? - He replied: The disqualification of leaving the bread . .'.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו מחשבה לא קא עביד בידים מהני ליה זריקה לאפוקי מידי מעילה
6 
ז לימא הא מסייע ליה הפיגול בקדשי קדשים מועלין בו לאו אף על גב דזרק ומסייע ליה לא דלא זרק
7 - And what would be the difference? - [The disqualification of] leaving the blood overnight is caused by action<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or rather by omission of action,');"><sup>5</sup></span> and [the transgressor is therefore penalized in that] the sprinkling has not the effect of exempting the offering from the Law of Sacrilege, but the thought [of piggul] is not an action and the sprinkling has the effect of exempting the offering from the Law of Sacrilege. But may we not say that the following supports [R'Giddal]?
ח אבל זרק מאי הכי נמי דאין מועלין בו אמאי קתני סיפא בקדשים קלים אין מועלין בו
8 [It was taught]: 'The Law of Sacrilege applies to Most Holy sacrifices that were rendered piggul'. Now, does this not imply even though the blood was sprinkled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With disqualifying thought.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט ליפלוג ברישא וליתני לפני זריקה מועלין בו לאחר זריקה אין מועלין בו ההוא ודאי מסייע ליה
9 and will then offer a support [of R'Giddal]? - No, [it speaks of a case] where the blood was not sprinkled. But what would be the case if [the blood was] sprinkled? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply to it?
י לימא הואיל ומסייע ליה סיפא מסייע ליה נמי רישא קדשים קלים פסיקא ליה הכא לא פסיקא ליה
10 Why then state in the concluding clause: 'The Law of Sacrilege does not apply to sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness [which were rendered piggul]'? Could the distinction not be made in the opening clause itself [in the following manner]: The Law of Sacrilege applies [to the offering] before the blood has been sprinkled. but is not applicable after it has been sprinkled? - [The concluding clause] undoubtedly supports [R'Giddal's view].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The concluding clause undoubtedly applies also to the case where the blood has been sprinkled, as a disqualified offering can never assume a sacred character. It therefore supports directly the second part of R. Giddal's statement with reference to sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא כלל אמר רבי יהושע כל שהיתה לה שעת היתר לכהנים אין מועלין בה וכל שלא היתה לה שעת היתר לכהנים מועלין בה
11 Shall we say: Since the concluding clause supports [R'Giddal], so will also the opening one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that we assume that the blood has been sprinkled.');"><sup>8</sup></span> - [No, the latter refers indeed to a case where the blood has not been sprinkled, and the reason why the distinction is not made within the opening clause itself is]: The statement [in the concluding clause] on sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness is absolute, the [distinction] in the opening clause would be, in form, conditional.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not cut'. rn,ht');"><sup>9</sup></span> R'JOSHUA LAID DOWN THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER HAS AT SOME TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS DOES NOT COME UNDER THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, AND WHATEVER HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS DOES COME UNDER THE LAW OF SACRILEGE.
יב איזוהי שהיתה לה שעת היתר לכהנים שלנה ושנטמאת ושיצאת
12 WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT SOME TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS?
יג ואיזוהי שלא היתה לה שעת היתר לכהנים שנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה
13 THAT WHICH REMAINED OVERNIGHT OR BECAME DEFILED OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT].
יד אמר ליה בר קפרא לבר פדת בן אחותי ראה מה אתה שואלני למחר בבית המדרש היתר שחיטה שנינו
14 WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS? THAT WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WHILE PURPOSING AN ACT] BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR THE BLOOD OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNFIT AND THEY SPRINKLED IT. Said Bar Kappara to Bar Pada:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. Pedath, but cf. Tosaf. Tem. 10d s.v. .');"><sup>10</sup></span> O, thou son of my sister, keep in mind what to ask me to-morrow at the School House:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To provoke a discussion on this matter. Thus Tosaf. According to pseudorashi the query which follows was put forward by Bar-Pada.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Does PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS mean 'permitted through slaughtering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once it was properly slaughtered it is regarded as having become permissible to the priests and hence the Law of Sacrilege no longer applies to the flesh.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter