מעילה 3 — parallel

3:1

to say that in the case of the sin-offering, since it comes for atonement people do not keep away from it; but other sacrifices, however, since they come for atonement, people will keep away from them and there was, therefore, no [necessity for the Rabbis to enact in regard to them the] Law of Sacrilege. Therefore [‘Ulla has made his view] known to us. But is it indeed so that the Law of Sacrilege applies to a sin-offering which died? Has it not been taught: Sin-offerings that are to be left to die and money that is to be thrown into the Dead Sea must not be enjoyed, yet the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them? — You might reply: In the case of sin-offerings that are to be left to die people keep away from them even while they are still alive; which is not so [with ordinary sin-offerings] from which people do not keep away while they are alive. R. Joseph raised an objection to Rabbah [by way of inference] from one [Mishnah] to another and again from this to a third. [We have learnt]: And all of them do not defile the garments worn by him that swallows them, and the Law of Sacrilege still applies to them all except the sin-offering of a bird, which was offered below [the red line], after the manner of a sin-offering of a bird and under the name of a sin-offering. And then in connection therewith we have learnt [the general rule]: Whenever it became disqualified in the Sanctuary it does not defile the garments worn by him that swallows it, and whenever it became disqualified while not in the Sanctuary it defiles the garments worn by him that swallows it. And we have furthermore learnt: Whatever became disqualified in the Sanctuary need not be removed, if already laid upon the altar, need not be brought down. Is this not a refutation of Rabbah's view? — It is indeed a refutation. Now the point which had been disputed by Rabbah and R. Joseph was a matter of course to R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: If a burnt-offering which was dedicated to a private High Place was brought [to be offered] inside [the Sanctuary]

—

3:2

the [sacred] precincts exercise on it their retaining power in every respect. R. Eleizar then submitted the following query: ‘If a burnt-offering, which was dedicated to a private High Place and brought inside the Sanctuary. became disqualified, if laid [upon the altar] must it be brought down?’ May we not infer from the fact that R. Eleazar queried only this [special] case. that the other case was a matter of course to him, either confirming to the view of Rabbah or to the view of R. Joseph? — [No, R. Eleazar was doubtful even in regard to instances of our Mishnah and] he queries the one case as a further step of the other. [For I could argue on the one hand]: Rabbah maintained that even when laid upon the altar they must be brought down only [when the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple in conformity with their original provision, [in which case the departure from the prescribed method of offering rightly] disqualified them; but where [the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple against their original provision [a departure from the right method of offering] [he might hold] does not disqualify them! Or I could, perhaps, [argue on the other hand]: R. Joseph maintained that when laid upon the altar they need not be brought down only when the retaining power of the sacred precincts was exercised in conformity with the Original provision [of the sacrifices]; but [if the sacrifices were brought inside] the sacred precincts against their original provision the retaining power of the Temple [he might hold] is not [fully] effective! Let this query remain undecided. Said R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The sprinkling of [the blood of an offering which was rendered] piggul [at the slaughtering] neither effects exemption from the Law of Sacrilege in the case of Most Holy sacrifices, nor inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege in the case of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness. Abaye was sitting and quoting this ruling, when R. Papa raised an objection to him: If the thank-offering was slaughtered inside [the Temple Court] while the bread thereof remained outside the wall, the bread has not become sacred. If it was slaughtered before the loaves in the oven had formed a crust — even if all the loaves but one had formed a crust — the bread has not become sacred. [But] if it was slaughtered [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, the bread has become sacred? Does this not prove that [the performance of the acts of offering of a sacrifice rendered] piggul brings [sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege? — Thereupon he [Abaye] was silent. When he came before R. Abba the latter replied: It is through the sprinkling [that the bread has become sacred]. Said R. Ashi to Raba: But has not ‘Ulla ruled that if the handful of [a meal-offering, which was rendered] piggul, was laid upon the altar the disqualification ceased? Now, the separation of a handful [of a meal-offering] corresponds to the slaughtering [of an animal-offering]. He thereupon replied: [‘Ulla's statement is to be understood in the following manner: The taking of the handful with disqualifying intention] is a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul.26

—