Meilah

, and likewise here, [that the text is] not to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances].1 Said R. Assi: If so, why has this [loose phrasing] been used twice?2 You must therefore indeed say that used in connection with the Law of Sacrilege is to be taken precisely [as excluding other instances],3 [yet your objection that to state this twofold disqualification was unnecessary does not hold good as] it is to let us know that an unfit person [through his sprinkling] renders [the blood]4 a residue,5 so that although after the unfit received and sprinkled [the blood] a fit priest received and sprinkled it again, the action of the latter is of no avail. Why? Because the blood 6 is considered a residue. But did not Resh Lakish put this forward as a query to R. Johanan:7 ‘Does [the act of] an unfit person render the blood a residue’? Whereupon the latter replied: ‘Nothing makes [the blood] a residue save [the sprinkling while purposing an act] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, because such a sprinkling [is in so far of effect as to] render [the sacrifice] ‘acceptable’ in respect of piggul.8 Now, does this not exclude [the sprinkling by] an unfit person? — No, also the [sprinkling] by] the unfit [is included]. But does it not say: ‘Nothing . . . save’? — This is to be understood in the following manner: There is no [disqualification] such as to render [an offering] nonacceptable in the case of a congregation [sacrifice]9 and yet to make the blood a residue save that caused by [the thought of executing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place; but a defiled [priest],10 since he is considered fit in the case of the congregation,11 makes the blood a residue, whilst other unfit [priests]12 who are not considered fit in the case of the congregation, do not make the blood a residue. Come and hear: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to piggul13 always’,14 Does this not refer to a case where the blood has not been sprinkled, and would then prove15 that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant? — No, it [refers to a case where the blood] has been sprinkled. And what is the meaning of ‘always’? — It is to confirm the statement of R. Giddal.16 For R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: ‘The sprinkling of [the blood of a sacrifice rendered] piggul] [with slaughtering] effects neither exemption from nor inclusion in the Law of Sacrilege’.17 since the slaughtering has been properly performed. The inference that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant would then be invalid. Zeb. is not to be taken precisely, as proved by the verse Lev. VI. 20; v. n. 1. the unfit, receiving as well as sprinkling could have been executed again by a fit person from the life-blood that remained in the body of the beast. Cf. Zeb. 32a. longer apply.