Meilah

MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS DERIVED A BENEFIT OF HALF A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND HAS IMPAIRED [THE VALUE OF THE USED ARTICLE] BY ANOTHER HALF A PERUTAH, OR IF ONE HAS DERIVED THE BENEFIT OF A PERUTAH'S WORTH FROM ONE THING1 AND HAS DIMINISHED ANOTHER THING BY THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH, HE IS NOT LIABLE TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, [FOR THIS LAW APPLIES] ONLY WHEN HE BENEFITS A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND DIMINISHES THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH OF THE SELFSAME THING. ONE DOES NOT COMMIT SACRILEGE WITH CONSECRATED THINGS WITH WHICH SACRILEGE HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY ANOTHER PERSON,2 EXCEPT WITH ANIMALS3 AND VESSELS OF MINISTRY.4 FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE RODE ON A BEAST AND THEN CAME ANOTHER AND RODE ON IT AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND RODE ON IT, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE; OR IF ONE DRANK FROM A GOLDEN CUP, THEN CAME ANOTHER AND DRANK AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND DRANK, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE; OR IF ONE PLUCKED [OF THE WOOL] OF A SIN-OFFERING, THEN CAME ANOTHER AND PLUCKED AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND PLUCKED, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. RABBI SAID: WHATSOEVER IS UNREDEEMABLE IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE EVEN AFTER SACRILEGE HAS BEEN ALREADY COMMITTED WITH IT. GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? — According to R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught: One does not commit sacrilege with things of which sacrilege had been committed already, except with animals; R. Nehemiah says. Except with animals and vessels of ministry.5 What is the reason of the first Tanna? — He bases his opinion upon the fact that animals are mentioned in connection therewith,6 for it is written: With the ram of the guilt-offering,7 while R. Nehemiah argues a minori: If it8 renders things contained therein holy,9 surely it must be holy itself.10 RABBI SAID WHATSOEVER IS UNREDEEMABLE IS SUBJECT etc. But this is the view of the first Tanna? — They differ with regard to wood. For our Rabbis taught:11 If a man said, I take upon myself to present wood to the Temple, he may not offer less than two logs. Rabbi said: Wood has the status of a sacrifice, it requires salt12 and swinging.13 Whereupon Raba remarked that according to Rabbi an offering of wood requires other wood in addition,14 and R. Papa remarked that according to Rabbi wood requires the taking of a handful.15 R. Papa said, They differ with regard to unblemished offerings consecrated to the altar which received blemishes and were illegitimately slaughtered.16 This indeed is confirmed by what has been taught: If unblemished offerings dedicated to the altar received blemishes and were illegitimately slaughtered. Rabbi says they have to be buried, while the Sages hold they shall be redeemed. MISHNAH. IF A MAN17 TOOK AWAY A STONE OR A BEAM BELONGING TO TEMPLE PROPERTY, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SACRILEGE has been impaired. alienated. made with the ram of the guilt-offering. They are therefore taken to indicate that only to offerings does sacrilege apply under all circumstances, i.e., even though another person has already committed sacrilege with them, but not to vessels of ministry. been used by another person. Gemara belonging thereto. with regard to the question of repeated sacrilege, according to the Sages it would not. appraised. This cannot be done with a slaughtered animal, v. Hul. 30a. The sacrifice is thus unredeemable and is according to Rabbi's rule subject to repeated sacrilege. The Sages. however, hold that the placing before the priest is unnecessary with sacrifices. The slaughtered sacrifice can thus be redeemed and does not come into the same category as unblemished offerings and vessels of ministry.