1 Come and hear: R. Simeon said: ‘There is a kind of nothar that is subject to the Law of Sacrilege and there is a kind of nothar that is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. How is this? If [the blood was] left overnight before sprinkling it is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, if after the sprinkling it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege’. Now it states, at all events: ‘Is subject to the Law of Sacrilege’. Does this not refer to a case where there was still time [during the day] to sprinkle it, so that if he wished, he could have performed the sprinkling? This would then prove that ‘permitted for consumption’ is meant? — No, it refers to a case where the blood was received near sunset, so that there was no time for sprinkling. But what would be the case if there was time [during the day to sprinkle it]? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply? Why then was it necessary to instance ‘before the sprinkling’? Let [the distinction] be made between ‘before sunset’ and ‘after sunset’! — This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz., ‘Before it was ready for sprinkling’ and ‘after it was ready for sprinkling’. Come and hear: R. Simeon said, ‘There is piggul that is subject to the Law of Sacrilege. and there is piggul that is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. How is this? If [enjoyed] before the sprinkling it is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, if after it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege’. It states, at all events: ‘If before the sprinkling it is subject to the Law of Sacrilege’. Now does this not refer to a case where there was still time [during the day] to sprinkle it, so that if he wished he could have performed the sprinkling, yet it states that it comes under the Law of Sacrilege, which would prove that ‘permitted for consumption’ is meant? — No, there was no time during the day to sprinkle it. But what would be the case if there was time during the day to sprinkle it? Would it indeed cease to be subject to the Law of Sacrilege? Why then was it necessary to instance ‘after sprinkling’? Let [the distinction] be made between ‘before sunset’ and ‘after sunset’? — This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz., ‘Before it was ready for sprinkling’ and ‘after it was ready for sprinkling’. Come and hear: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to Most Holy sacrifices that were rendered piggul’. Now, does this not refer to a case where the blood has been sprinkled. and would then prove that ‘permitted for consumption’ is meant? — No, it was not sprinkled. But what would be the case if sprinkled? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply to it? Why then was it necessary to state: ‘But if the sacrifices were of a minor degree of holiness they are exempted from the Law of Sacrilege’? Let [the distinction] be made between ‘before sprinkling’ and ‘after sprinkling’? — [The distinction made is to be preferred] to let know the rule: Whatsoever has to be brought within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege can achieve this status only if the sprinkling was according to proper procedure, but whatsoever has to cease to be subject to the Law of Sacrilege can achieve this also by a sprinkling that was not in accordance with the proper procedure.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐ
2 MISHNAH. IF THE FLESH OF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] BEFORE THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED, R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRllege AND ONE DOES NOT BECOME GUILTY IN REGARD TO IT OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. R. AKIBA SAYS: IT ls EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE CAN BECOME GUILTY OF [TRANSGRESSING IN REGARD TO IT THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. SAID R. AKIBA: IF ONE SET ASIDE HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER IN ITS STEAD AND AFTERWARDS THE FIRST WAS FOUND SO THAT BOTH WERE DESIGNATED [FOR SLAUGHTERING]. [DO YOU NOT AGREE] THAT LIKE AS [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD [OF THE ONE BEAST] EXEMPTS ITS OWN FLESH [FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE] SO IT EXEMPTS THE FLESH OF THE OTHER BEAST? NOW, IF THE SPRINKLING OF ITS BLOOD CAN EXEMPT THE FLESH OF OTHER BEASTS FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, HOW MUCH MORE MUST IT EXEMPT ITS OWN FLESH. IF THE EMURIM OF SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS WERE TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] BEFORE THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED, R. ELlezer SAYS: THEY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE DOES NOT BECOME GUILTY IN REGARD TO THEM OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR. PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. R. AKIBA SAYS: THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE AND ONE DOES BECOME GUILTY [OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. GEMARA. Why was it necessary to state both these instances? — It was necessary. for if [the instance of] the Most Holy sacrifices alone was stated, I might have said: In this case ruled R. Eliezer that it is still subject to the Law of Sacrilege, because [he held that] sprinkling executed according to the proper procedure effects exemption from the Law of Sacrilege, but [a sprinkling] not according to the proper procedure does not effect exemption. But as to effecting the inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege, he might concede to R. Akiba that also [sprinkling that was] not performed in accordance with the proper procedure effects the inclusion within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege. And if the instance of a sacrifice of a minor degree of holiness alone was stated, I might have said: In regard to sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness only did R. Akiba rule that the Law of Sacrilege applies. because [he held that] even sprinkling that was not performed in accordance with the proper procedure [has the power of] including [the flesh] within the scope of the Law of Sacrilege; but in regard to Most Holy sacrifices in which case [the sprinkling] is to effect the exemption from the Law of Sacrilege. [I might say that] if not performed in accordance with the proper procedure it does not possess the power of exempting from the Law of Sacrilege. Therefore he informs us [regarding both instances]. It was stated, R. Johanan said: R. Akiba held his view that the sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out, only if it was partly taken out [of the Temple Court], but if it was wholly taken out [R. Akiba did] not [hold this view]. Said R. Assi to R. Johanan: My friends in the Diaspora [Babylon] have already taught me:ⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸ