Meilah — Daf 9b

מיתיבי וכולן שפקעו מעל גבי המזבח לא יחזיר וכן גחלת שפקעה מעל גבי המזבח לא יחזיר הא על גבי המזבח יחזיר

בשלמא לר' יוחנן ניחא אלא לרב קשיא אמר לך רב שאני גחלת דאית ביה מששא

איכא דאמר לה להך גיסא טעמא משום גחלת דאית ביה מששא הא אפר דלית ביה מששא אפילו לגבי מזבח אין מועלין בו בשלמא לרב ניחא אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא

אמר לך רבי יוחנן הוא הדין דאפילו אפר והיינו טעמא דקתני גחלת קאתי לאשמועינן דאפילו גחלת דאית בה מששא כי פקעה מעל גבי המזבח לא יחזיר

איתמר הנהנה מבשר קדשי קדשים לפני זריקת דמים ואמורי קדשים קלים לאחר זריקת דמים רב אמר מה שנהנה יפלו לנדבה ולוי אמר יביא דבר שכולו למזבח

תניא כוותיה דלוי מעילה זו להיכן הולכת הלמידין לפני חכמים אומרים יביא דבר שכולו למזבח מאי ניהו קטרת

תניא כוותיה דרב הנהנה מדמי חטאת ומדמי אשם עד שלא קרבה חטאתו יוסיף ויביא חטאתו ועד שלא קרבה אשמו יוסיף ויביא אשמו קרב חטאתו ילכו לים המלח כבר קרב אשמו יפלו לנדבה

הנהנה מקדשי קדשים לפני זריקת דמים ואימורי קדשים קלים לאחר זריקת דמים מה שנהנה יפלו לנדבה כל קרבנות המזבח למזבח קרבנות קדשי בדק הבית לבדק הבית קרבנות צבור לנדבת צבור

הא גופה קשיא עד שלא קרבה חטאתו יוסיף ויביא חטאתו משקרבה חטאתו ילכו לים המלח וקתני כל קרבנות המזבח למזבח ול"ש דאיכפור בעלים ול"ש היכא דלא איכפור

רישא ר' שמעון היא דאמר כל חטאת שכיפרו בעליה תמות

The following objection was raised: [We have learnt]: ‘And if any of them1 burst off from the altar, they need not be replaced; similarly, if a coal burst off from the altar it need not be replaced’.2 [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].3 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.4 Some there are who say the objection was raised in the other direction: [It appears that coal only has to be replaced]5 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 ruling6 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 sacrifices7 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 [value8 of that] which he enjoyed must be restored to the nedabah9 fund. Levi says: He shall buy something which is wholly for the altar.10 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 Sages11 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, if12 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;13 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.14 [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,15 ‘Every sin-offering whose owner has already been atoned16 is left to die’, of the altar to the tappuah, i.e., coals with which the ‘separation’ has already been performed; and yet it says that only if it has burst off from the altar it need not be replaced, but if it was shifted to some other place upon the altar it has to be replaced upon the fire, which implies that even after the ‘separation’ it is still considered sacred; the Law of Sacrilege should then still apply. its place but remained upon the altar, it has to be replaced. It is thus still considered sacred. sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness come under the Law of Sacrilege with the sprinkling of the blood, v. Mishnah 7b. Men. 80b.