Meilah

while the latter clause1 is in accordance with the Sages.2 Said R. Gebiha of Be Kathil3 to R. Ashi: [Indeed] thus said Abaye: ‘The former clause reflects R. Simeon's view and the latter that of the Sages’.4 Said Raba: All5 agree that if he enjoyed of the flesh of Most Holy sacrifices which was defiled,6 or of the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness after they had been placed upon the altar,7 he is free [from the payment of indemnity]. Is this not obvious? For what loss did he cause?8 — I might have thought that since the flesh of most holy sacrifices became defiled there is still attached to it the duty of being burnt by the priests,9 and with the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness [placed on the altar fire] the duty of turning it over by the poker.10 We are therefore informed [that he is free]. Said Raba: The statement,’If the sin-offering has already been offered the money is to be taken to the Dead Sea’, holds good only in the case where he became aware of his transgression [of the Law of Sacrilege] before this atonement, but if after his atonement, it goes to the nedabah fund.11 Why? Because one may not at the outset set aside [holy things] for destruction. MISHNAH. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING], THE FRANKINCENSE, THE INCENSE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A PRIEST,12 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST13 AND THE MEALOFFERING THAT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LIBATION14 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, AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT, BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATSOEVER HAS THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE [FOR THE ALTAR OR FOR THE USE OF THE PRlests]15 IS NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT UNTIL THAT ACT HAS BEEN PERFORMED. AND WHATSOEVER HAS NOT THAT WHICH RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE16 BECOMES SUBJECT [TO THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT AS SOON AS IT HAS BECOME SACRED BY BEING PUT IN THE VESSEL [OF MINISTRY], BUT [THE LAW OF] PIGGUL DOES NOT APPLY TO IT. burnt by the priests. completed. of something which is no longer within the scope of the service of the Temple. of this sacrifice, we may consider the indemnity he has to pay as forming part of the sum to be used for the sin-offering. Consequently if before the indemnity was paid a sacrifice was bought for the remainder of the amount originally set aside for the offering, the indemnity is to be regarded as money designated for a sin-offering which can no longer be used for this purpose, as its owner has already been atoned for. It has then to be destroyed in accordance with our general rule. But if at the time of the offering he had no knowledge of his trespass against the Law of Sacrilege, his indemnity cannot be considered as set aside for his sin-offering, and when paid it need not be destroyed. peace-offerings where the sprinkling of the blood renders these permissible respectively to the priest or for the altar. make the offering fit for the altar.