מעילה 9 — parallel

9:1

[The verse], and he shall take thereout his handful of the fine flour thereof, and of the oil thereof with all the frankincense thereof, is to exclude the case where there was not the full quantity of fine flour, oil and frankincense? — I will tell you. There it is written [again] ‘and the remainder’ which is superfluous. The father of Samuel raised an objection to R. Huna: Both in the case of the sin-offering of a bird and in that of the burnt offering of a bird if the neck was pinched or the blood drained out while purposing an act outside the proper place, the offering is invalid but one is not liable to the penalty of extinction; if while purposing an act beyond its proper time, it is piggul, and one is liable to extinction. It states at all events, ‘the blood drained out’. — He raised this objection and he himself answered it: It is to be understood in a disjunctive sense. [To revert to] the [above] text: The School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘If there remained of the blood’. But has not the School of R. Ishmael taught elsewhere: ‘The remnant is indispensable’. and R. Papa explained that they differed as to whether the draining out of the blood of a sin-offering of a bird was indispensable? — There are two [contradictory traditions of] Tannaim as to what was the view of R. Ishmael. MISHNAH. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF ITS DEDICATION. WITH THE PINCHING OF ITS NECK IT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM, OR ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. ONCE ITS BLOOD HAS BEEN DRAINED OUT, IT IS SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO IT UNTIL [THE ASHES HAVE BEEN] REMOVED [FROM THE ALTAR] TO THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE BULLOCKS WHICH ARE TO BE BURNT AND THE HEGOATS WHICH ARE TO BE BURNT FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE SLAUGHTERED THEY BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. ONCE THEIR BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THEM EVEN WHILE THEY ARE AT THE PLACE OF THE ASHES SO LONG AS THE FLESH HAS NOT BEEN CHARRED TO CINDERS. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO A BURNT-OFFERING FROM THE MOMENT OF ITS DEDICATION. ONCE SLAUGHTERED IT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. ONCE ITS BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED IT IS SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SKIN, BUT IT APPLIES TO THE FLESH UNTIL [THE ASHES] HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO BURNT- AND SIN-OFFERINGS AND TO PEACE-OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE SLAUGHTERED THEY BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. ONCE THEIR BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE THEN NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE FLESH, BUT APPLIES TO THE EMURIM UNTIL THE ASHES ARE REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE TWO LOAVES OF BREAD FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE THEY HAVE FORMED A CRUST IN THE OVEN THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, AND THE [FESTIVAL] OFFERINGS CAN THEN BE OFFERED. ONCE THE BLOOD OF THE LAMBS HAS BEEN SPRINKLED THEY [THE LOAVES] ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE NO LONGER APPLIES TO THEM. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE SHEWBREAD FROM THE MOMENT OF ITS DEDICATION. ONCE IT HAS FORMED A CRUST IT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, AND MAY BE ARRANGED UPON THE TABLE [OF THE SANCTUARY]. ONCE THE CENSERS OF INCENSE WERE OFFERED IT IS SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE NO LONGER APPLIES TO IT. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEDICATION. ONCE THEY HAVE BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY] THEY BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE FOR UNFITNESS THROUGH CONTACT WITH A TEBUL YOM OR ‘ONE WHO STILL REQUIRES ATONEMENT’, OR BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. ONCE THE HANDFUL HAS BEEN OFFERED THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE REMNANT, BUT IT APPLIES TO THE HANDFUL UNTIL ITS ASHES HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. GEMARA. It was stated: If one has made use of the ashes of the tappuah which was on the altar, Rab says he has not transgressed the Law of Sacrilege, and R. Johanan says he has transgressed. Both agree that before the separation of the ashes the Law of Sacrilege still applies to them, they differ as to what is the case after the separation of the ashes. Rab says the Law of Sacrilege no longer applies to them, since the prescribed ceremony has already been performed with them; but R. Johanan holds, since it is written: And the priest shall put on his linen garments . . . as priestly garments are necessary, it proves that they [the ashes] still maintained their sacredness. We have learnt: THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES UNTIL THE ASHES HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. This presents a difficulty on the view of Rab. — Rab would tell you: [The meaning is]: Until it is fit for removal to the place of the Ashes.26

—

9:2

The following objection was raised: [We have learnt]: ‘And if any of them burst off from the altar, they need not be replaced; similarly, if a coal burst off from the altar it need not be replaced’. [It appears that if] however [the coal] burst off [from the fire but still remained] on the altar, it has to be replaced [upon the fire]. This is right according to the view of R. Johanan, but presents a difficulty on the view of Rab. — Rab would reply: It is different with coal, as it is still substance. Some there are who say the objection was raised in the other direction: [It appears that coal only has to be replaced] because it is of substance, but ashes that are not of substance, though still upon the altar, are not subject to the law of Sacrilege. This would be right according to Rab, but presents a difficulty on the view of R. Johanan! — R. Johanan would reply: This ruling applies to ashes as well, and the reason why coal has been instanced is to let us know even in the case of coal, that is of substance, if it burst off from the altar it must not be replaced. It was stated: If one enjoyed of the flesh of Most Holy sacrifices before the sprinkling of the blood, or of the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness after the sprinkling of the blood, Rab says: The [value of that] which he enjoyed must be restored to the nedabah fund. Levi says: He shall buy something which is wholly for the altar. It was taught in confirmation of Levi's view: To which fund goes this repayment for this sacrilege? Those that were permitted to argue before the Sages say: He shall buy something which is wholly for the altar. Which is it? Incense’. It was taught in confirmation of Rab's view: ‘If one has enjoyed of the money destined for his sin- or guilt-offering, if his sin-offering has not been offered yet, he shall add [a fifth] and offer [for the whole sum] his sin-offering; similarly if his guilt offering has not been offered, the money is to be taken to the Dead Sea; similarly if his guilt-offering has already been offered, it shall be restored to the nedabah fund. If one had enjoyed of Most Holy sacrifices before the sprinkling of the blood, or of the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness after the sprinkling of the blood, [the value of] that which he has enjoyed goes to the nedabah fund. [If one has enjoyed of] any kind of offerings dedicated to the altar, [the money is refunded] for the altar, if of objects dedicated to the Temple Repair Fund [it is employed] for the Temple Repair Fund, if of sacrifices of the congregation, it is employed for freewill-offerings of the congregation’. Now, does this not contain a contradiction in itself? [For it states]: ‘If his sin-offering has not been offered yet, he shall add [a fifth] and offer for the whole sum his sin-offering; and if his sin-offering has been offered already, the money is to be taken to the Dead Sea’. And then it states: ‘If one has enjoyed any kind of offerings dedicated to the altar, it is employed for the altar’, and there is apparently no distinction made as to whether the owner has been atoned or not! — The former clause is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon who holds, ‘Every sin-offering whose owner has already been atoned is left to die’,

—