Meilah

Come and hear: R. Simeon said:1 ‘There is a kind of nothar2 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 sprinkle3 it, so that if he wished, he could have performed the sprinkling?4 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’?5 Let [the distinction] be made between ‘before sunset’ and ‘after sunset’!6 — This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz., ‘Before it was ready7 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’?8 — This indeed is the way in which [the distinction] is to be understood, viz., ‘Before it was ready9 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?10 — 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:11 ‘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 Sacrilege12 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 Sacrilege13 can achieve this also by a sprinkling that was not in accordance with the proper procedure.