מעילה 15 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND TO RENDER ONE CULPABLE FOR [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT. THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER. THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. Since things dedicated for the altar can combine with things dedicated for Temple repair. although the one is consecrated as such and the other only for its value, was it then necessary to mention at all that things dedicated for the altar can combine with others of the same nature? — Since he had to state the addition in this connection: ‘AND TO RENDER ONE CULPABLE FOR [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT’, which is inapplicable to things dedicated for Temple repair. therefore he stated this separately. Said R. Jannai: It is clear that the Law of Sacrilege applies only to things dedicated for Temple repair and to burnt-offerings. What is the reason? — Scripture says: If anyone commits a trespass [and sin in error] in the holy things of the Lord. Holy things designated wholly for God are subject to the Law of Sacrilege; but as to [other] things dedicated for the altar, of them the priests have a share and the owners have a share. We have learnt: THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE? — [This applies only] by Rabbinical enactment. We have learnt: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to the Most Holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side’. — [It is] by Rabbinical enactment. We have learnt: ‘If one derived a benefit from a sin-offering, while it was alive he has not trespassed the Law of Sacrilege unless he has diminished its substance; if while it was dead he is liable even though his benefit was of the smallest value’. — By Rabbinical enactment. And by Biblical law are they indeed exempted? Has it not been taught: Rabbi says. The expression all fat is the Lord's is to include the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness with regard to the Law of Sacrilege! — By Rabbinical enactment. But does he adduce a Biblical text [as proof]? — It is a mere exegetical support [of a Rabbinical enactment]. But does not ‘Ulla say in the name of R. Johanan: ‘Consecrated animals which died are according to Biblical law exempted from the Law of Sacrilege’. Now, to what does this refer? Shall I say to things dedicated for Temple repair; then the Law of Sacrilege should apply to them even after they have died; for suppose a man would dedicate a midden for Temple repair, would the Law of Sacrilege not apply to it? It must then refer to things dedicated for the altar. But then they should not be subject to sacrilege by Biblical law! — Rather what the School of R. Jannai taught was that from that text you can only derive things dedicated for Temple repair; but things dedicated for the altar you cannot derive from it. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:To make up the requisite legal size of an olive's bulk, or, in reference to sacrilege, the required legal value of a perutah.
^ᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜnote:V. supra p. 17.
^ᵈnote:I.e., the Temple treasury.
^ᵉnote:With reference to sacrilege only. as the other laws are not applicable to them.
^ᶠnote:[Var. lec. omit ‘and to burntofferings’. This is the correct reading as is shown by the second version of R. Jannai's statement at the end of this passage.]
^ᵍnote:Lev. V, 15.
^ʰnote:Viz., the burnt-offering which is wholly offered on the altar.
^ⁱnote:E.g., the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.
^ʲnote:Obviously referring to all sacrifices, in contradiction to R. Jannai.
^ᵏnote:Supra 2a.
^ˡnote:Infra 18a.
^ᵐnote:Lev. III, 16.
^ⁿnote:V. Glos.
^ᵒnote:Tem. 32b.
^ᵖnote:Supra 12a.
^ᵠnote:From ‘Ulla's statement we learn that before they died they were subject to sacrilege by Biblical law.
^ʳnote:According to R. Jannai's view.
^ˢnote:Viz., Lev. V, 15.
^ᵗnote:But from Lev. III, 16.

²MISHNAH. FIVE THINGS IN A BURNT-OFFERING CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER: THE FLESH, THE FAT, THE FINE FLOUR, THE WINE AND THE OIL; AND SIX IN A THANKOFFERING: THE FLESH, THE FAT, THE FINE FLOUR, THE WINE, THE OIL AND THE BREAD. GEMARA. R. Huna recited to Raba: ‘Five things in the world can combine with one another’. Said the latter: Did you say ‘in the world’? Does not the Mishnah teach of a thank-offering: AND SIX IN A THANK-OFFERING: THE FLESH, THE FAT, THE FINE FLOUR, THE WINE, THE OIL AND THE BREAD? — The other replied: Read ‘in a burnt-offering’. We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis have taught: ‘[The flesh of] a burnt-offering and the sacrificial portions thereof can combine to make up [the requisite size of] an olive [to render one liable] for offering them outside [the Temple Court] and to render one culpable for [transgressing the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement’. It speaks of a burnt-offering and does apparently not apply to a peace-offering. This is right as far as offering outside the Temple Court is concerned, for with a burnt-offering which is wholly offered the emurim can be combined; but with [the flesh of] a peace-offering it can rightly not be combined. But with regard to [the transgression of the laws of] piggul nothar and defilement, why should one not be guilty in the case of a peace-offering? Have we not learnt: ‘All kinds of piggul con combine with one another and all kinds of nothar can combine with one another’? — Read, therefore: The flesh of a burnt-offering and the emurim thereof can combine with one another to make up an olive-size so that the blood can be sprinkled on account of them; and it represents the opinion of R. Joshua. For we have learnt: R. Joshua said, With all other sacrifices of the Torah the blood can be sprinkled only if an olive-size of flesh or an olive-size of fat was left; if half an olive-size of flesh and half an olive-size of fat were left the blood cannot be sprinkled. With a burnt-offering, however, the blood can be sprinkled even if half an olive-size of flesh and half an olive size of fat were left, because it is all offered upon the altar. And with a meal-offering, even if it has wholly been preserved. the blood cannot be sprinkled. How does the meal-offering come in? — Said R. Papa: [It refers to] a meal-offering which accompanies a beast sacrifice. MISHNAH. TERUMAH, TERUMAH OF THE TITHE, TERUMAH OF THE TITHE SEPARATED FROM DEM'AI, HALLAH AND FIRST-FRUITS CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER TO MAKE UP THE SIZE REQUIRED TO RENDER OTHER THINGS FORBIDDEN AND TO BE LIABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF A Fifth. ALL KINDS OF PIGGUL CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ALL KINDS OF NOTHAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER. GEMARA. What is the reason that hallah and first-fruits can combine? — All these are called by the term ‘terumah’. Of hallah it reads, of the first of your dough you shall set apart terumah. The first-fruits are also called terumah, for we have learnt: The expression, and the terumah of thy hand refers to first fruits. While the other instances of the Mishnah need no proof. MISHNAH. ALL KINDS OF NEBELAH CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND ALL KINDS OF REPTILES CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER. GEMARA. Said Rab:^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵘnote:The fat parts which were offered on the altar.
^ᵛnote:The latter three are from the accompanying meal-offering
^ʷnote:Meaning there are in connection with all offerings only five things.
^ˣnote:vkugc instead of okugc ‘in the world’.
^ʸnote:Thus the version of Zeb. 109a and of Rashi. Cur. edd. read: burnt-offerings and emurim, v. Glos.
^ᶻnote:Which are always offered upon the altar.
^ᵃᵃnote:With the other parts of the flesh.
^ᵃᵇnote:The flesh is eaten by the owner and the priests. In this case they can, of course, not combine the emurim when offered outside the Temple.
^ᵃᶜnote:When the legal size was accomplished through a combination of the different parts thereof.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. infra.
^ᵃᵉnote:Thus the version of Tosaf. and Rashi. Cur. edd. add.: And since they can combine with regard to sprinkling, one is guilty . . . and whose view is this? If the flesh of a burnt-offering is lost, the blood can be sprinkled only if an olive-size of the offering is left. Now, this olive-size may be composed of flesh and emurim.
^ᵃᶠnote:Tosef. Zeb. IV, 3.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., how does the sprinkling come in connection with a meal-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘a meal.offering of libation’, because this is the only kind of meal-offering which requires wine for libation. V. Num. XV, 5f. I might have thought that the blood of the offering can be sprinkled if nothing but the accompanying meal-offering is preserved, hence we are told that it is not so.
^ᵃⁱnote:The priest's share of the ingathering of the field. v. Ter. IV, 3. v. Glos.
^ᵃʲnote:The Levite's contribution to the priest.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., produce of the field about which there is a suspicion that they have not been tithed properly, v. Glos.
^ᵃˡnote:The portion of the dough set aside for the priest. V. Num. XV, 20 and Glos.
^ᵃᵐnote:If common food is mixed with them in a proportion which is no less than a hundred to one (the required proportion of each of them), they are wholly forbidden to a non priest.
^ᵃⁿnote:If one has eaten unwittingly the value of at least a perutah, one is liable to the payment of an additional Fifth. V. Ter. I, 1.
^ᵃᵒnote:Num. XV, 20.
^ᵃᵖnote:Deut. XII, 17.
^ᵃᵠnote:Pes. 37b.
^ᵃʳnote:The first three mentioned in our Mishnah.
^ᵃˢnote:v. Glos.
^ᵃᵗnote:To make up the required legal size of an olive.