Parallel
מעילה 11:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
What of the ashes removed [from the altar] which are subject to the Law of Sacrilege although the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith! — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the limbs of the scapegoat constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them. This would be right according to the view that one may make no use of the limbs of the scapegoat, but what would be your argument according to him who holds that one may use them? — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the garments of the High priest constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them. This would be right according to the Rabbis Who hold [that the text]. And he shall place them there teaches that they have to be hidden, but what would be your argument according to R. Dosa who holds that a common priest may wear them? — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the heifer whose neck has been broken constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing [and from such texts no general rule can be derived]. But this [reply] would be right [only] according to him who [indeed] holds that one cannot derive a general rule [from such laws]; but what would be your argument according to the view that one can derive a general rule [from such laws]? — [In this case] there are written two limitations [excluding other instances]: Here it is written. The heifer whose neck has been broken, and there it is written, And he shall place it by the side of the altar, implying that only in these [instances does the Law of Sacrilege apply even after the prescribed ceremony has been performed], but not in others. LIBATlons ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING etc. May we assume that our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok? For ‘it has been taught: ‘R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: There was a small passage between the ascent [of the altar] and the altar, on the west side of the altar. Once every seventy years young priests descended through it and brought up the [accumulated] congealed wine, which resembled a cake of figs. and burnt it in a sacred place, for Scripture says: In holiness shalt thou surely offer the libation to the Lord: just as the libation thereof must be in a sacred place, so the burning thereof must be in a sacred place’. How is this implied? — Thereupon said Rabina: It is derived from [nothar by textual analogy based on the word] ‘holy’ occurring in both texts. It says here ‘in holiness’ and it says there, and thou shalt burn the remnant in fire, it may not be eaten for it is holy. Just as nothar is burnt in a sacred state, so also these [libations] are burnt in a sacred state. — [The Mishnah] may well agree with R. Eleazar, son of R. Zadok, as [it refers only to the case where the wine] was caught [before it reached the bottom of the Shittin]. Some reported [the discussion in the following version]: Shall we say that our Mishnah is in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok? — [Not necessarily] as [it deals with a case where] the wine was caught [before it reached the ground]. I might say: It is not necessary [to limit the Mishnah to this case] for [it is considered holy only] by Rabbinical enactment. But does he not adduce the text? — [The Biblical text is a] mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. MISHNAH. THE ASHES OF THE INNER ALTAR AND [OF THE WICKS OF] THE CANDLESTICK MAY NOT BE USED. AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. IF ONE DEDICATES ASHES THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT REACHED THE RIGHT AGE AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. This is right
—