מעילה 5 — parallel

5:1

or ‘permitted for sprinkling’, or ‘permitted for consumption’? Hezekiah said: It means ‘permitted at the time of slaughtering’. R. Johanan said: It means ‘permitted for consumption’. Said R. Zera: Our Mishnah cannot be made to correspond either with the view of Hezekiah or that of R. Johanan. For we have learnt: THAT WHICH REMAINED OVERNIGHT OR BECAME DEFlled OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. Now, does this not mean that the blood remained overnight, and yet it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply, [a statement which] proves that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant? — No, it means that the flesh remained overnight, but the blood had been sprinkled, and for this reason it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply. We have learnt: WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS? THAT WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED WHILE PURPOSING AN ACT BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR THE BLOOD OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNFIT AND THEY SPRINKLED IT. How is [the last instance] to be understood? Shall I say that the blood was received by unfit [priests] and sprinkled by unfit [priests]? Why is it necessary to have this twofold [disqualification]? You must then understand it that the blood was received by the unfit and sprinkled by the fit, and it states that [in this case] the Law of Sacrilege applies. This would prove that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant. To this R. Joseph demurred: Should you say that a distinction of this character can be made. how [would you explain] that which we have learnt elsewhere: ‘The blood of a disqualified sin-offering need not be washed off [if splashed upon a cloth], no matter whether the offering had at one time been fit for use and then became disqualified. or had at no time [been fit for use]. Which is that which had at one time been fit for use, but became disqualified? That which remained overnight or became defiled or was brought outside the Temple Court. Which is that which had at no time been fit for use? That which was slaughtered [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, or the blood of which was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it’. Now, how is this to be understood? Shall I say that [the blood] was received by the unfit, and was sprinkled by the unfit [and thus infer that only in this case] need the blood not be washed off; if, however, it was received and sprinkled by the fit, the blood has to be washed off? [But this could not be!] Apply here the verse: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof . . . , but not of that which has already been sprinkled. You must then say [that the text of the Mishnah there] is not meant to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances]

—

5:2

, 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

—