Parallel
מעילה 11
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IF BEFORE THE OWNER HAD BEEN ATONED, IT SHALL GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT [FOR SACRIFICE]. THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD AND FOR THE EQUIVALENT ANOTHER [SACRIFICE] SHALL BE BOUGHT; IT CAN EFFECT A SUBSTITUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. Why this difference in that no distinction is made in the first clause while in the concluding a distinction is made? — In the first clause the ruling is absolute, in the concluding it is not. But has not this [Mishnah] been taught already in connection with exchanges? — There it has been taught for the sake of its reference to the law of exchanges, here by reason of its reference to the Law of Sacrilege. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE OFFERINGS, IT MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT, AS IT MAY ALL BE USED FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING. IF HE DIED AND LEFT MONEY [FOR HIS NAZlrite OFFERINGS]. IF UNSPECIFIED IT SHALL GO TO THE NEDABAH FUND; IF SPECIFIED, THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR THE SIN-OFFERINGS SHALL BE TAKEN TO THE SALT [DEAD] SEA; IT MAY NOT BE USED, THOUGH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT. WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR A BURNT-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A BURNT-OFFERlng; THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO IT. WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A PEACE-OFFERING, AND IT HAS TO BE CONSUMED WITHIN A DAY, BUT REQUIRES NO BREAD OFFERING. GEMARA. Resh Lakish demurred: Why does not [the Mishnah] teach also the following case: If one has set aside monies for bird-offerings, they may not be used but the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them because he might buy with them turtledoves which have not reached the prescribed age or pigeons which have passed the prescribed age? — Said Raba: [In our case] the Torah rules that for the unspecified money [also] a peace offering shall be purchased; but does the Torah ever rule that turtle-doves which have not reached the right age shall be offered? Are they not indeed unfit for the altar? MISHNAH. R. SIMEON SAYS: [THE LAW RELATING TO] BLOOD IS LENIENT AT THE BEGINNING [OF THE OFFERING CEREMONY] AND STRINGENT AT THE END; [THAT RELATING TO] LIBATIONS IS STRINGENT AT THE BEGINNING AND LENIENT AT THE END; BLOOD IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT IS SUBJECT TO IT AFTER IT HAS FLOWED AWAY TO THE BROOK KIDRON; LIBATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT ARE EXEMPTED FROM IT AFTER THEY FLOWED DOWN INTO THE SHITTln. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to blood. These are the words of R. Meir and R. Simeon; but the Sages say. It does not apply’. What is the reason of them Who hold that it does not apply? — Said ‘Ulla: Scripture says. And I have given it to you, [suggesting] it shall be yours. The School of R. Ishmael taught: [It reads there] to make atonement [meaning], I have given it for atonement, but not [to make it subject] to the Law of Sacrilege. R. Johanan says: Scripture Says. For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. [The blood] before [the act of] atonement is to be compared to its status after the act of atonement. Just as after the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege, so before the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. But why not infer [in the other direction]: Just as before the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it, so also after the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it? — Is there at all a thing to which the Law of Sacrilege applies after the Prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith! — But why not?
—
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
—