Meilah

MISHNAH. THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER1 WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND TO RENDER ONE CULPABLE FOR [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] PIGGUL,2 NOTHAR2 AND DEFILEMENT.3 THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR4 CAN COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER.5 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.6 What is the reason? — Scripture says: If anyone commits a trespass [and sin in error] in the holy things of the Lord.7 Holy things designated wholly for God8 are subject to the Law of Sacrilege; but as to [other] things9 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?10 — [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’.11 — [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’.12 — 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's13 is to include the emurim14 of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness with regard to the Law of Sacrilege!15 — 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’.16 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.17 But then they should not18 be subject to sacrilege by Biblical law! — Rather what the School of R. Jannai taught was that from that text19 you can only derive things dedicated for Temple repair; but things dedicated for the altar you cannot derive from it. 20 [ perutah. statement at the end of this passage.]