Parallel
מעילה 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
while the latter clause is in accordance with the Sages. Said R. Gebiha of Be Kathil to R. Ashi: [Indeed] thus said Abaye: ‘The former clause reflects R. Simeon's view and the latter that of the Sages’. Said Raba: All agree that if he enjoyed of the flesh of Most Holy sacrifices which was defiled, or of the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness after they had been placed upon the altar, he is free [from the payment of indemnity]. Is this not obvious? For what loss did he cause? — I might have thought that since the flesh of most holy sacrifices became defiled there is still attached to it the duty of being burnt by the priests, and with the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness [placed on the altar fire] the duty of turning it over by the poker. We are therefore informed [that he is free]. Said Raba: The statement,’If the sin-offering has already been offered the money is to be taken to the Dead Sea’, holds good only in the case where he became aware of his transgression [of the Law of Sacrilege] before this atonement, but if after his atonement, it goes to the nedabah fund. Why? Because one may not at the outset set aside [holy things] for destruction. MISHNAH. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING], THE FRANKINCENSE, THE INCENSE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A PRIEST, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST AND THE MEALOFFERING THAT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LIBATION FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE THEY HAVE BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY], THEY BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATSOEVER HAS THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE [FOR THE ALTAR OR FOR THE USE OF THE PRlests] IS NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT UNTIL THAT ACT HAS BEEN PERFORMED. AND WHATSOEVER HAS NOT THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE BECOMES SUBJECT [TO THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT AS SOON AS IT HAS BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY], BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.
—
GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: I might have thought that only for things that have that which renders them permissible is one culpable for [transgressing] the Law of Defilement; for this would be the logical deduction: Since piggul, which requires only one awareness of transgression, whose sacrifice of atonement is fixed and allows of no exception for the congregation, yet it applies to things only that have that which renders them permissible, the much more so must uncleanness, which requires a twofold awareness of transgression, whose sacrifice of atonement can be of a higher or lesser value and allows of an exception for the congregation, apply only to things that have that which renders them permissible. The text therefore states: Say unto them: Whosoever he be of all your seed throughout your generations, that approaches [unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me]. Scripture deals with all kinds of holy things. But I might have thought that [in the case of things that have other things that render them permissible, the Law of Defilement] would apply at once; therefore It states: ‘Who approaches’ [which is to be expounded after the way of] R. Eliezer [who] said: Is it possible that one is liable [to the Law of Defilement] merely by touching [the flesh]? You must then understand it in the following manner: Whatsoever has that which renders it permissible is not subject [to the laws of piggul, nothar and defilement] until that which renders it permissible has been performed; and whatsoever has not that which renders it permissible is liable [to those laws] only when they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of ministry]. MISHNAH. THE YOUNG OF A SIN-OFFERING, THE SUBSTITUTE OF A SIN-OFFERING AND A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE OWNER HAS Dled ARE LEFT TO DIE. THAT WHICH PASSED [THE AGE-LIMIT OF] ONE YEAR OR WAS LOST AND THEN FOUND WITH A BLEMISH, IF AFTER THE OWNER HAS BEEN ATONED, IT IS LEFT TO DIE; IT CANNOT EFFECT A SUBSTITUTE AND THOUGH ONE MAY NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM IT, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE;20
—