Meilah

The following was queried: If they1 were already laid2 [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. Judah3 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.4 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 slaughtered5 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.6 — [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,7 when by enactment of the Rabbis it is not paid.8 But is there a Law of Sacrilege as a Rabbinical enactment? — Yes, there is. For ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan9 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 infer10 that the statement of ‘Ulla in the name of R. Johanan has already been learnt [in our Mishnah]?11 — 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;12 but in the case of sacrifices which died, since people do keep away from them,13 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,14 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.15 — [‘Ulla's statement is still necessary. for] it might otherwise have entered your mind 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. Sacrilege should not apply to them. a par with that of sacrifices which died, the ruling of R. Johanan can be derived from the Mishnah and hence is superfluous. already been taught, wherefore then ‘Ulla's ruling in the name of R. Johanan?