מעילה 2 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. IF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WERE SLAUGHTERED ON THE SOUTH SIDE [OF THE ALTAR]. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE [STILL] APPLIES TO THEM. IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEIR BLOOD RECEIVED ON THE NORTH OR [SLAUGHTERED] ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THEIR BLOOD RECEIVED ON THE SOUTH, OR IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED BY DAY AND [THEIR BLOOD] SPRINKLED DURING THE NIGHT OR [SLAUGHTERED] DURING THE NIGHT AND [THEIR BLOOD] SPRINKLED BY DAY, OR IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING THE FLESH] BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE STILL APPLIES TO THEM. R. JOSHUA LAID DOWN THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER HAS AT SOME TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS DOES NOT COME UNDER THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, AND WHATEVER HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS DOES COME UNDER THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT SOME TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS? [SACRIFICES] WHICH REMAINED OVERNIGHT OR BECAME DEFILED OR WERE TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS? [SACRIFICES] THAT WERE SLAUGHTERED [WHILE PURPOSING AN ACT] BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR THE BLOOD OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNFIT AND THEY SPRINKLED IT. GEMARA. It is stated: IF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WERE SLAUGHTERED ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE [STILL] APPLIES TO THEM. Is this not obvious? Should the Law of Sacrilege cease to apply to them merely because they were slaughtered on the south side? — It need be stated, for it might otherwise have entered your mind to say: Since ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan that ‘sacrifices which died were, as far as the law of the Torah rules, excluded from the Law of Sacrilege’, so were also Most Holy sacrifices when slaughtered on the south side considered as if they were strangled. It is therefore made known to us [that the instance of the Mishnah is different, for] sacrifices which died are in no case of any avail, while the south side, though it is not the proper place for Most Holy sacrifices, is, however, the proper place for sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness. Why was it necessary to enumerate [in the Mishnah all those cases]? — It was necessary, for if only SLAUGHTERED ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEIR BLOOD RECEIVED ON THE NORTH were stated, [I would argue:] The law of Sacrilege still applies to [the sacrifices in] this case, because the receiving [of the blood] was after all on the north side, but in the case where they were SLAUGHTERED ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THEIR BLOOD RECEIVED ON THE SOUTH, since [the blood] was received on the south side, [I Would say that] the Law of Sacrilege no longer applies to them. And if only these [first two instances] were stated, I would argue: [The law of Sacrilege still applies to them, because in these cases the sacrifices were at least offered during the day and] the day is the proper time for offering; in the case, however, where they were SLAUGHTERED BY NIGHT AND [THEIR BLOOD] SPRINKLED DURING THE DAY, since night is not the proper time for offering and the sacrifices were slaughtered by night, I might have thought that the Law of Sacrilege would no longer apply to them. And if SLAUGHTERED BY NIGHT [AND THEIR BLOOD SPRINKLED DURING THE DAY] were stated I would argue: The Law of Sacrilege still applies to them, because the blood was received during the day. In the case, however, where they were SLAUGHTERED DURING THE DAY AND THEIR BLOOD SPRINKLED BY NIGHT, since it is not the proper time for offering, the sacrifices are to be considered as if strangled, and the Law of Sacrilege would accordingly not apply to them; therefore [also this instance] has been made known to us. IF SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING THE FLESH] BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE. Of what avail are such sacrifices? — [The Law of Sacrilege still applies to them] because [the performance of] the other acts of offering [is yet necessary] for rendering the sacrifices piggul.24^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Viz., burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings and communal peace offerings. They are considered wholly the ‘possession of God’ until their blood is sprinkled (Tosaf.).
^ᵇnote:And not on the north side as required, v. Zeb. 47a.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘trespass’, or malappropriation of the property of the Temple.
^ᵈnote:Night is not the time for sacrificial rites.
^ᵉnote:Tosaf. reverse the order of the last two instances, which is more in accord with the discussion in the Gemara below.
^ᶠnote:Zeb. V. 3 and 5.
^ᵍnote:Because it has, so to speak, become the private possession of the priests.
^ʰnote:V. Lev. VII, 17.
^ⁱnote:After the sprinkling of the blood, so that the flesh was for a time permissible to the priests.
^ʲnote:Priests who have a blemish, or who are unclean (in case of private sacrifices), v. Rashi. In these three latter cases the offerings were never valid and as such never became permissible to the priests.
^ᵏnote:V. Gemara.
^ˡnote:Surely they are still sacred!
^ᵐnote:Infra 12a.
^ⁿnote:Not, however, by rabbinical enactment.
^ᵒnote:The prescribed manner of slaughtering allows no exception. It is & more rigid rule than that which prescribes the south side, and its non-fulfillment deprives the sacrifice of its sacred character.
^ᵖnote:Zeb. 55a.
^ᵠnote:Which is a holier act of offering than slaughtering, as it must be performed by a priest.
^ʳnote:But not the following instance.
^ˢnote:This argumentation proves that the version of Tosaf. in the Mishnah is correct, cf. p. 1. n. 5.
^ᵗnote:Viz., sprinkling.
^ᵘnote:Are they not irrevocably disqualified from the moment of slaughtering alike for the priests and the altar? Why then should the Law of Sacrilege apply to them?
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘(rites) that make acceptable’, Sc. receiving the blood, carrying it to the altar and the sprinkling thereof.
^ʷnote:With regard to the penalty of kareth (v. Glos) cf. Lev. XIX, 7.
^ˣnote:kudhp lit., ‘abomination’; sacrificial flesh which has lost its sacred character in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest. v. Zeb. 28b.

²The following was queried: If they were already laid [upon the altar], must they be brought down? Rabbah said, even if laid [upon the altar] they must be brought down. R. Joseph said, If laid [upon the altar] they need not be brought down. According to the view of R. Judah there can be no question that all agree that even if laid [upon the altar], they must be brought down. The dispute arises according to the view of R. Simeon. R. Joseph conforms [also here] to the view of R. Simeon; while Rabbah argues: R. Simeon maintained his view only in regard to offerings [the blood of which] should be applied below [the red line] and was applied above, or should be applied above [the red line] and was applied below; [since] they were at any rate slaughtered and their blood was received on the north side. In our case, however, since they were slaughtered on the south side they are to be considered as if they were strangled. We have learnt: IF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WERE SLAUGHTERED ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THEM. This is in order on the view of R. Joseph; but on the view of Rabbah it presents, however, difficulties. — [Rabbah would reply]: THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES . . . is [to be understood as enacted] by the Rabbis only. What is the actual difference between [its application] by law of the Torah and that by [enactment of] the Rabbis? — When by law of the Torah a fifth [of the value misappropriated] must be paid, when by enactment of the Rabbis it is not paid. But is there a Law of Sacrilege as a Rabbinical enactment? — Yes, there is. For ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan that ‘sacrifices which died were, as far as the law of the Torah rules, excluded from the Law of Sacrilege’, from which we may infer that by rule of the Torah only they are excluded from the Law of Sacrilege, by [enactment of] the Rabbis, however, the Law of Sacrilege still applies to them. In the same way [in our Mishnah it is to be interpreted as applying] by enactment of the Rabbis. May we then infer that the statement of ‘Ulla in the name of R. Johanan has already been learnt [in our Mishnah]? — Although it has been learnt, ‘Ulla's statement is still necessary, for it might otherwise have entered your mind to say: [In the instance of our Mishnah the Rabbis have enacted the application of the Law of Sacrilege, because] people do not keep away from those sacrifices; but in the case of sacrifices which died, since people do keep away from them, I might have thought that even as a Rabbinical enactment Sacrilege does not apply to them. Therefore [‘Ulla has made his view] known to us. But has not also [the case of sacrifices which] died been learnt already? [For we have learnt]: If one enjoyed of a sin-offering, if it was still alive he is not guilty of Sacrilege until he has diminished its substance, but if it was dead he is guilty of Sacrilege. as soon as he had benefitted from it. — [‘Ulla's statement is still necessary. for] it might otherwise have entered your mind^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ʸnote:Viz., the disqualified sacrifices as instanced in the Mishnah.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘gone up’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Zeb. 84a.
^ᵃᵇnote:With reference to sacrifices the blood of which was sprinkled irregularly either above or below the red line surrounding the altar. In such a case R. Judah holds that if they had gone up they must come down again, whereas R. simeon holds they need not, v. ibid.
^ᵃᶜnote:Similarly in regard to other acts of offering.
^ᵃᵈnote:Since he holds that they must come down again these sacrifices have lost their sacred character, and the Law of Sacrilege should not apply to them.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. V, 16.
^ᵃᶠnote:Just as the trespass guilt-offering is not brought.
^ᵃᵍnote:Supra.
^ᵃʰnote:According to Rabbah's interpretation of the Mishnah.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since on the view of Rabbah sacrifices slaughtered on the south are treated as if they were strangled, their case is on a par with that of sacrifices which died, the ruling of R. Johanan can be derived from the Mishnah and hence is superfluous.
^ᵃʲnote:And are, therefore, likely to make unlawful use of them.
^ᵃᵏnote:As they are repulsive.
^ᵃˡnote:E.g., by plucking of its wool.
^ᵃᵐnote:This is interpreted to the extent of the value of a Perutah, v. infra 18a. Thus the case of animals which died has already been taught, wherefore then ‘Ulla's ruling in the name of R. Johanan?