Parallel
מעילה 5:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
, and likewise here, [that the text is] not to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances]. Said R. Assi: If so, why has this [loose phrasing] been used twice? You must therefore indeed say that used in connection with the Law of Sacrilege is to be taken precisely [as excluding other instances], [yet your objection that to state this twofold disqualification was unnecessary does not hold good as] it is to let us know that an unfit person [through his sprinkling] renders [the blood] a residue, so that although after the unfit received and sprinkled [the blood] a fit priest received and sprinkled it again, the action of the latter is of no avail. Why? Because the blood is considered a residue. But did not Resh Lakish put this forward as a query to R. Johanan: ‘Does [the act of] an unfit person render the blood a residue’? Whereupon the latter replied: ‘Nothing makes [the blood] a residue save [the sprinkling while purposing an act] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, because such a sprinkling [is in so far of effect as to] render [the sacrifice] ‘acceptable’ in respect of piggul. Now, does this not exclude [the sprinkling by] an unfit person? — No, also the [sprinkling] by] the unfit [is included]. But does it not say: ‘Nothing . . . save’? — This is to be understood in the following manner: There is no [disqualification] such as to render [an offering] nonacceptable in the case of a congregation [sacrifice] and yet to make the blood a residue save that caused by [the thought of executing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place; but a defiled [priest], since he is considered fit in the case of the congregation, makes the blood a residue, whilst other unfit [priests] who are not considered fit in the case of the congregation, do not make the blood a residue. Come and hear: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to piggul always’, Does this not refer to a case where the blood has not been sprinkled, and would then prove that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant? — No, it [refers to a case where the blood] has been sprinkled. And what is the meaning of ‘always’? — It is to confirm the statement of R. Giddal. For R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: ‘The sprinkling of [the blood of a sacrifice rendered] piggul] [with slaughtering] effects neither exemption from nor inclusion in the Law of Sacrilege’.17
—