Meilah

What of the ashes removed [from the altar] which are subject to the Law of Sacrilege although the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith!1 — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the limbs of the scapegoat2 constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them.3 This would be right according to the view that one may make no use of the limbs of the scapegoat, but what would be your argument according to him who holds that one may use them? — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the garments of the High priest4 constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing, and wherever two texts teach the same thing no general rule can be derived from them. This would be right according to the Rabbis Who hold [that the text]. And he shall place them there5 teaches that they have to be hidden,6 but what would be your argument according to R. Dosa who holds that a common priest may wear them? — The [law concerning the] removed ashes and that concerning the heifer whose neck has been broken7 constitute two texts of Scripture which teach the same thing [and from such texts no general rule can be derived]. But this [reply] would be right [only] according to him who [indeed] holds that one cannot derive a general rule [from such laws]; but what would be your argument according to the view that one can derive a general rule [from such laws]? — [In this case] there are written two limitations [excluding other instances]: Here it is written. The heifer whose neck has been broken,8 and there it is written, And he shall place it by the side of the altar,9 implying that only in these [instances does the Law of Sacrilege apply even after the prescribed ceremony has been performed], but not in others. LIBATlons ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AT THE BEGINNING etc. May we assume that our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok? For ‘it has been taught:10 ‘R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: There was a small passage between the ascent [of the altar] and the altar, on the west side of the altar. Once every seventy years young priests descended through it and brought up the [accumulated] congealed wine, which resembled a cake of figs. and burnt it in a sacred place, for Scripture says: In holiness shalt thou surely offer the libation to the Lord:11 just as the libation thereof must be in a sacred place, so the burning thereof must be in a sacred place’. How is this implied? — Thereupon said Rabina: It is derived from [nothar12 by textual analogy based on the word] ‘holy’ occurring in both texts. It says here ‘in holiness’13 and it says there, and thou shalt burn the remnant in fire, it may not be eaten for it is holy.14 Just as nothar is burnt in a sacred state,15 so also these [libations] are burnt in a sacred state.16 — [The Mishnah] may well agree with R. Eleazar, son of R. Zadok, as [it refers only to the case where the wine] was caught [before it reached the bottom of the Shittin].17 Some reported [the discussion in the following version]: Shall we say that our Mishnah is in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok?18 — [Not necessarily] as [it deals with a case where] the wine was caught [before it reached the ground]. I might say:19 It is not necessary [to limit the Mishnah to this case] for [it is considered holy only] by Rabbinical enactment. But does he not adduce the text? — [The Biblical text is a] mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. MISHNAH. THE ASHES OF THE INNER ALTAR20 AND [OF THE WICKS OF] THE CANDLESTICK MAY NOT BE USED. AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. IF ONE DEDICATES ASHES21 THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT REACHED THE RIGHT AGE AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE22 MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. This23 is right ceremony has been performed therewith. commanded to place it ‘by the side of the altar’. In the text commanding this, Lev. VI, 3, the word ‘it’ is regarded as unnecessary and is taken to indicate that only the ashes are sacred even after the prescribed ceremony had been performed therewith, and not other things. libation even after it had been let down to the Shittin, which is contradictory to our Mishnah. the Shittin the holy ground renders the wine again sacred. which it flowed. The instance of our Mishnah of the use of such wine should then be an impossibility. Suk. correct, where this paragraph is wholly omitted. It can make sense as a continuation of the discussion according to the former tradition. There the Mishnah is restricted, according to R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok, to wine caught in the air, for if taken after it has reached the bottom of the Shittin, it is considered holy and should therefore be subject to the Law of Sacrilege. Now it is argued, perhaps this reservation is not necessary, for the sacred character attributed to the wine by R. Eleazar is only a Rabbinical enactment and the Law of Sacrilege need not therefore apply to it. since there is no special text implying that they remain holy. as in the case of the outer altar (v. oupra p. 40, n. 5). afresh to the Temple, they are sacred and therefore subject to the Law of Sacrilege (Tosaf.). Aliter: If someone had vowed to give their value to the Temple before they had been removed.