Meilah

MISHNAH. IF THE FLESH OF THE MOST HOLY SACRIFICES WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] BEFORE THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED,1 R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRllege2 AND ONE DOES NOT BECOME GUILTY IN REGARD TO IT OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR,3 PIGGUL4 AND DEFILEMENT.5 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].6 [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 BEASTS7 FROM THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, HOW MUCH MORE MUST IT EXEMPT ITS OWN FLESH. IF THE EMURIM8 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.9 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,10 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],11 but if it was wholly taken out [R. Akiba did] not [hold this view]. Said R. Assi to R. Johanan:12 My friends in the Diaspora [Babylon] have already taught me: one of them.