Meilah

as far as the outer altar is concerned, for it is written: And he shall place it by the altar,1 but wherefrom do we know this of the ashes of the inner altar? Said R. Eleazar, Scripture says: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof [and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes]:2 as this has no bearing on the outer altar,3 make it bear on the inner altar. But why not say that both passages bear upon the outer altar [and it has been repeated] in order to fix the precise side [for the ashes]?4 — If so, Scripture should [only] say, ‘by the altar’; why [add, ‘the place of] the ashes’? [To suggest] that [it was the place of the ashes] also for the inner altar.5 Wherefrom do we know [the place for the ashes of] the candlestick? — [The expression] ‘the ashes’ [is an amplification, for it sufficed to mention] ‘ashes’. MISHNAH.6 R. SIMEON SAID: TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE RIGHT AGE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE,7 WHILE PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR USE, BUT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. It is right according to R. Simeon whose reason has been stated [in a Mishnah]:8 ‘For R. Simeon used to say: [He who uses] that which will be fit [for offering] after a period and has been dedicated before that period has expired has transgressed a prohibitory law,9 though he is not liable to the penalty of kareth’.10 But according to the ruling of the Rabbis,11 whereby is [our case] distinguished from that of [animal-sacrifices] which have not reached the required age [of eight days]?12 — I might reply: [The sacrifice of a beast] that has not reached the required age is to be compared to one with a blemish which can be redeemed,13 but these bird-offerings, which a blemish14 does not disqualify them, cannot be redeemed. ‘Ulla said in the name of R, Johanan: Dedicated [animals] which have died are according to the Torah exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. When ‘Ulla sat and recited this ruling. R. Hisda said to him: Who has ever heard this, your view and the view of R. Johanan. your teacher? Whither has the sanctity thereof gone? — He thereupon replied: Why not ask the same question with relation to our Mishnah, where it says: TURTLE-DOVES WHICH HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE RIGHT AGE, AND PIGEONS WHICH HAVE EXCEEDED THE RIGHT AGE MAY NOT BE ENJOYED; THEY ARE, HOWEVER, NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. Here, too. [ask] whither has the sanctity thereof gone?15 — Nevertheless16 [continued ‘Ulla], I admit that by Rabbinical enactment the Law of Sacrilege is applicable [in these instances],17 but I wish to raise the difficulty: Is there anything which has been exempted from the Law of Sacrilege18 from the beginning and is subject to it afterwards?19 — Why not? Is there not the instance of blood which was originally exempted from the Law of Sacrilege, but is subject to it at the end [of the offering ceremony]? For we have learnt: ‘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’.20 — I might reply: In that instance the Law of Sacrilege was applicable at the beginning even before the period is reached. precedent that even a disqualified only is holy, because a substitute can take its place. There is no such precedent in the case of a bird offering as this offering cannot he redeemed. cease to operate. additional Fifth.