Meilah — Daf 3a

אמינא חטאת הואיל ולכפרה קא אתיא לא בדילין מינה אבל קדשים הואיל ולאו לכפרה קאתי בדילי מנהון ולית בהו מעילה קמ"ל

וחטאת שמתה מי אית בה מעילה והתנן חטאות המתות ומעות ההולכות לים המלח לא נהנין ולא מועלין

אמרי חטאות המתות בחייהן בדילין מנהון לאפוקי היכא דמחיים דלא בדילין מיניה

איתיביה רב יוסף לרבה חדא מגו חדא וחדא מגו חדא

וכולן אין מטמאים בגדים אבית הבליעה ומועלין בהן

חוץ מחטאת העוף שעשה למטה כמעשה חטאת העוף לשם חטאת

וקתני עילויה כל שהיה פסולו בקדש אינו מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה וכל שלא היה פסולו בקדש מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה

וקתני כל שהיה פסולו בקדש אם עלו לא ירדו תיובתא דרבה תיובתא

והא דפליגי בה רבה ורב יוסף פשיטא ליה לר' אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר עולת במת יחיד שהכניסה לפנים

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.1 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 die2 and money that is to be thrown into the Dead Sea3 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;4 which is not so [with ordinary sin-offerings] from which people do not keep away while they are alive.5 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 them6 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]:7 Whenever it8 became disqualified in the Sanctuary9 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.10 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.11 Is this not a refutation of Rabbah's view?12 — 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:13 If a burnt-offering which was dedicated to a private High Place14 was brought [to be offered] inside [the Sanctuary] sin-offering comes for atonement people keep away from it and therefore no Law of Sacrilege applies to it, therefore (the Mishnah) has made known to us (that even here the Law of Sacrilege applies); consequently no question can be raised against ‘Ulla from this Mishnah which by specifying a sin-offering was taken on the view of the questioner to exclude other sacrifices, v. Sh. Mek,.] nebelah (v. Glos.); v. Zeb. 68b. case which corresponds to the instances of our Mishnah — do not defile the garments worn by him that swallows them; thus we infer that when the second Mishnah speaks of disqualification that occurred in the Sanctuary, the reference is likewise to a melikah performed in the wrong place, and similarly the third Mishnah which states that whatever becomes disqualified in the Sanctuary need not be brought down when already laid upon the altar includes such a disqualification as melikah performed in the wrong place, and similarly a slaughtering in the wrong place which refutes Rabbah. side of the altar. Cf. Zeb. 112b.