Meilah

the [sacred] precincts exercise on it their retaining power in every respect.1 R. Eleizar then submitted the following query:2 ‘If a burnt-offering, which was dedicated to a private High Place and brought inside the Sanctuary. became disqualified,3 if laid [upon the altar] must it be brought down?’ May we not infer from the fact that R. Eleazar queried only this [special] case. that the other case4 was a matter of course to him, either confirming to the view of Rabbah or to the view of R. Joseph? — [No, R. Eleazar was doubtful even in regard to instances of our Mishnah and] he queries the one case as a further step5 of the other. [For I could argue on the one hand]: Rabbah maintained that even when laid upon the altar they must be brought down only [when the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple in conformity with their original provision,6 [in which case the departure from the prescribed method of offering rightly]7 disqualified them; but where [the sacrifices were brought inside] the precincts of the Temple against their original provision8 [a departure from the right method of offering]9 [he might hold] does not disqualify them!10 Or I could, perhaps, [argue on the other hand]: R. Joseph maintained that when laid upon the altar they need not be brought down only when the retaining power of the sacred precincts was exercised in conformity with the Original provision [of the sacrifices]; but [if the sacrifices were brought inside] the sacred precincts against their original provision the retaining power of the Temple [he might hold] is not [fully] effective!11 Let this query12 remain undecided. Said R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The sprinkling of [the blood of an offering which was rendered] piggul13 [at the slaughtering]14 neither effects exemption from the Law of Sacrilege in the case of Most Holy sacrifices,15 nor inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege in the case of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness.16 Abaye was sitting and quoting this ruling, when R. Papa raised an objection to him: If the thank-offering17 was slaughtered inside [the Temple Court] while the bread thereof remained outside the wall, the bread has not become sacred. If it was slaughtered before the loaves in the oven had formed a crust — even if all the loaves but one had formed a crust — the bread has not become sacred. [But] if it was slaughtered18 [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, the bread has become sacred? 19 Does this not prove that [the performance of the acts of offering of a sacrifice rendered] piggul brings [sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege? — Thereupon he [Abaye] was silent. When he came before R. Abba the latter replied: It is through the sprinkling20 [that the bread has become sacred].21 Said R. Ashi to Raba: But has not ‘Ulla ruled22 that if the handful of [a meal-offering, which was rendered] piggul,23 was laid upon the altar the disqualification ceased?24 Now, the separation of a handful [of a meal-offering] corresponds to the slaughtering [of an animal-offering].25 He thereupon replied: [‘Ulla's statement is to be understood in the following manner: The taking of the handful with disqualifying intention] is a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul.26 Sanctuary its performance was unqualified. The explanation that follows is according to the first view. altar in the case of Most Holy sacrifices and in regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it becomes operative only between the moment of the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the portions — and that only as far as the sacrificial portions are concerned.] Sacrilege applies to it. offering piggul, contrary to R. Abba's reply. And still it states that the bread is made sacred which shows that sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness are brought within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege by acts of offering performed subsequently to a slaughtering that rendered them piggul contra R. Giddal. does not render completely piggul. nor the act of slaughtering in itself unless followed by other acts, such as sprinkling with the same disqualifying intention, which is the case to which R. Giddal refers.