Meilah

IF BEFORE THE OWNER HAD BEEN ATONED, IT SHALL GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT [FOR SACRIFICE].1 THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD AND FOR THE EQUIVALENT ANOTHER [SACRIFICE] SHALL BE BOUGHT; IT CAN EFFECT A SUBSTITUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. Why this difference in that no distinction is made2 in the first clause while in the concluding a distinction is made? — In the first clause the ruling is absolute,3 in the concluding it is not. But has not this [Mishnah] been taught already in connection with exchanges?4 — There it has been taught for the sake of its reference to the law of exchanges, here by reason of its reference to the Law of Sacrilege. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE OFFERINGS,5 IT MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT, AS IT MAY ALL6 BE USED FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING.7 IF HE DIED AND LEFT MONEY [FOR HIS NAZlrite OFFERINGS]. IF UNSPECIFIED IT SHALL GO TO THE NEDABAH8 FUND; IF SPECIFIED, THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR THE SIN-OFFERINGS SHALL BE TAKEN TO THE SALT [DEAD] SEA;9 IT MAY NOT BE USED, THOUGH THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT. WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR A BURNT-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A BURNT-OFFERlng;10 THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO IT. WITH THE MONEY DESIGNATED FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING THEY SHALL BRING A PEACE-OFFERING, AND IT HAS TO BE CONSUMED WITHIN A DAY,11 BUT REQUIRES NO BREAD OFFERING.12 GEMARA. Resh Lakish demurred: Why does not [the Mishnah] teach also the following case: If one has set aside monies for bird-offerings,13 they may not be used but the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them because he might buy with them turtledoves which have not reached the prescribed age or pigeons which have passed the prescribed age?14 — Said Raba: [In our case] the Torah rules that for the unspecified money [also] a peace offering shall be purchased; but does the Torah ever rule that turtle-doves which have not reached the right age shall be offered? Are they not indeed unfit for the altar? MISHNAH. R. SIMEON15 SAYS: [THE LAW RELATING TO] BLOOD IS LENIENT AT THE BEGINNING [OF THE OFFERING CEREMONY] AND STRINGENT AT THE END; [THAT RELATING TO] LIBATIONS IS STRINGENT AT THE BEGINNING AND LENIENT AT THE END; BLOOD IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT IS SUBJECT TO IT AFTER IT HAS FLOWED AWAY TO THE BROOK KIDRON;16 LIBATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT ARE EXEMPTED FROM IT AFTER THEY FLOWED DOWN INTO THE SHITTln.17 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:18 ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to blood. These are the words of R. Meir and R. Simeon; but the Sages say. It does not apply’. What is the reason of them Who hold that it does not apply?19 — Said ‘Ulla: Scripture says. And I have given it to you,20 [suggesting] it shall be yours.21 The School of R. Ishmael taught: [It reads there] to make atonement20 [meaning], I have given it for atonement, but not [to make it subject] to the Law of Sacrilege. R. Johanan says: Scripture Says. For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.22 [The blood] before [the act of]23 atonement is to be compared to its status after the act of atonement.24 Just as after the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege, so before the act of atonement it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. But why not infer [in the other direction]: Just as before the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it, so also after the act of atonement the Law of Sacrilege applies to it? — Is there at all a thing to which the Law of Sacrilege applies after the Prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith! — But why not? the other instance the animal is found with a blemish. young and the exchange are themselves not considered offerings, and in the case of the owners’ death the sin for which the offering was brought is already expiated. burnt-offering and a peace-offering. V. Num. VI, 14f. used for the peace. offering, and the other offerings bought with other money. applies to the peace-offering. flesh may be consumed during two days and the night in between. 22b. The argument is: As he might buy with the money something which is not subject to sacrilege. the money. too, should not be subject to the Law of Sacrilege, as in the instance of the Mishnah. agree, however, that by law of the Torah Sacrilege does not apply; wherefrom do we know this? Tosaf. corrects here accordingly.