מעילה 7 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘The disqualifying thought in respect of lost or burnt [portions of an offering] is of effect’. Now, the lost and the burnt no longer exist, yet it was taught that a disqualifying thought [relating to them] is effective. But does R. Assi indeed hold this view? Did not R. Assi ask R. Johanan: ‘What is the case if one purposed [to sprinkle on the] following day blood which has to be poured’? Whereupon R. Zera replied: ‘Did you not teach us [the Mishnah] about allal? Now, this allal, because it has no substantial value, an un lawful thought relating to it is of no effect. The same applies to the blood that is to be poured; because it is destined for destruction an unlawful thought relating to it must be of no effect’. At all events, that which was stated concerning the lost and the burnt offers a difficulty! — Said Raba: Say, [‘The disqualifying thought in respect of portions] that were about to be lost or burnt . . .’. Said R. Papa: R. Akiba held that sprinkling is effective in respect of [offerings that] were taken out only if the flesh was taken out, but if the blood was taken out the sprinkling is of no effect. It was also taught likewise: ‘If the slaughtering was performed undefined, and the blood was taken out, although it was afterwards sprinkled [the sprinkling] is of no effect: Most Holy sacrifices remain subject to the Law of Sacrilege, and sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness remain exempted from the Law of Sacrilege’. SAID R. AKlba: TO WHAT CAN THIS BE COMPARED . . . Said R. Eleazar: R. Akiba held his view only if [both sin-offerings were slaughtered] simultaneously. but if successively R. Akiba did not hold his view. It has been taught: Said R. Simeon, When I went to Kefar Pagi an old man met me and asked me: Does R. Akiba indeed hold that sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out? I said to him: Yes, he does. When I came and quoted these words before my colleagues in Galilee they said unto me: But is it not disqualified? How can [the sprinkling] be of effect with a disqualified offering? When I left and brought up these words before R. Akiba himself, he said unto me: My son, do you not hold the same view? Behold,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 [to be slaughtered], both are still subject to the Law of Sacrilege; if they were slaughtered and their [respective] blood was placed in two [separate] receptacles, the Law of Sacrilege still applies to both.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:During sprinkling. Lit., ‘one can think (with effect)’.
^ᵇnote:To render the flesh piggul.
^ᶜnote:In the same way should, in the case where the whole offering was taken out, the sprinkling be of effect in regard to the Law of Sacrilege.
^ᵈnote:Over the base of the altar, cf. Zeb. 47a.
^ᵉnote:Zeb. 35a.
^ᶠnote:‘Offal of meat’ which is uneatable. Cf. Hul. 121a as to what kind of offal is meant.
^ᵍnote:Thus the version of Tosaf. and MS.M. Cur. edd.: ‘is not susceptible of defilement’. The quotation concerning allal would then be from Hul. 121a, thus also pseudo-Rashi.
^ʰnote:I.e., the statement reported by R. Assi in the name of his colleagues in the Diaspora.
^ⁱnote:Viz., to R. Assi's teaching concerning allal.
^ʲnote:I.e., they had still been in existence at the time of the sprinkling. But if already lost or burnt an unlawful thought would indeed be of no effect.
^ᵏnote:Though brought in again and then sprinkled.
^ˡnote:Cur. edd. and MS.M. do not contain this phrase in the Mishnah.
^ᵐnote:That the sprinkling of the blood of the one exempts the flesh of the other beast from the Law of Sacrilege.
^ⁿnote:E.g., by different people. V. Tosaf.
^ᵒnote:V. infra.
^ᵖnote:Tosef. I.
^ᵠnote:Beth Page, near Jerusalem.
^ʳnote:MS.M.: ‘from among the disciples of R. Akiba’, v. Tosef.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘make acceptable’, cf. Zeb. 28a.

²If the blood of one of them was sprinkled, do you not agree that like as the [sprinkling of the] blood exempts its flesh from the Law of Sacrilege so it exempts also the flesh of the other beast from the Law of Sacrilege? Now, if it can save the flesh of another offering from the Law of Sacrilege, though it is disqualified, how much more must it save its own flesh. Said Resh Lakish in the name of R. Oshaia: Inexact was the reply that R. Akiba gave to that disciple, [as it suggests that his instance holds good] only if they were slaughtered simultaneously but not if successively. Now, since [the other offering is, at all events] disqualified, what is the difference between ‘simultaneously’ and ‘successively’? Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: And you, do you not make this distinction? Suppose one set apart two guilt-offerings for surety [one against the other], and he had them both slaughtered and had the emurim of one of them placed upon the altar before sprinkling. Would you not agree that although [those emurim were] already placed upon the altar they have to be brought down? Now, if your assumption was right that they are considered in such a case as one offering, why have they to be brought down? Did not ‘Ulla rule: ‘If the emurim of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness were laid upon the altar before the sprinkling they must not be brought down, as they have become the food of the altar!? Thereupon he gave no reply. Said R. Johanan: I have cut off the legs of that child. MISHNAH. THE ACT OF [SPRINKLING THE] BLOOD OF MOST HOLY SACRIFICES MAY HAVE EITHER A LENIENT OR A STRINGENT EFFECT, BUT WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT. HOW SO? WITH MOST HOLY SACRIFICES, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES BOTH TO THE EMURlm AND TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES TO THE EMURIM BUT NOT TO THE FLESH; IN RESPECT OF BOTH ONE IS GUILTY OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR. PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. IT IS THUS FOUND THAT WITH MOST HOLY SACRIFICES THE ACT OF SPRINKLING HAS A LENIENT AS WELL AS A STRINGENT EFFECT. WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT’, HOW SO? WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NEITHER TO THE EMURIM NOR TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES TO THE EMURlm BUT NOT TO THE FLESH; IN RESPECT OF BOTH ONE IS GUILTY OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF NOTHAR, PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT. IT IS THUS FOUND THAT WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT. GEMARA. It teaches: ‘THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES . . . NOT TO THE FLESH’ which implies that the penalty of Sacrilege is not inflicted, but the prohibition still remains. But why? Is it not the possession of the priest? — This is no difficulty, since in the opening clause he had to use [the phrase] ‘THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES’ he uses also in the concluding clause [the phrase] ‘THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NOT’. But read then the second section of the Mishnah: ‘WITH SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS IT HAS ONLY A STRINGENT EFFECT’, HOW SO? WITH FLESH OF SACRIFICES OF A MINOR DEGREE OF HOLINESS, BEFORE THE SPRINKLING THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NEITHER TO THE EMURIM NOR TO THE FLESH; AFTER THE SPRINKLING IT APPLIES To THE EMURIM BUT NOT TO THE FLESH. This implies: The penalty of sacrilege is not inflicted but the prohibition still remains. Why? Is it not the possession of the owner? — Said R. Hanina: [It refers] to an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court] and the Mishnah stands in accordance with R. Akiba's view. For R. Akiba held that ‘sprinkling is of effect in the case of an offering that was taken out [of the Temple Court]’ only in regard to its burning, but^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘a stolen reply’.
^ᵘnote:Viz., the phrase. ‘they were slaughtered’, and the repetition of ‘both’ in the text. Pseudo-Rashi ‘reads: ‘they were both slaughtered’.
^ᵛnote:The one whose blood has not been sprinkled..
^ʷnote:As a remnant of a sin-offering. Yet R. Akiba ruled that it is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. He must apparently hold that the two sin-offerings are considered as one offering.
^ˣnote:In case one is lost.
^ʸnote:V. Glos.
^ᶻnote:Then the blood of the other offering was sprinkled
^ᵃᵃnote:The same applies, of course, also to Most Holy sacrifices,
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., I have proved his argument to be wrong. Resh Lakish was younger than R. Johanan, hence the designation ‘of that child’.
^ᵃᶜnote:This is the lenient outcome.
^ᵃᵈnote:After sprinkling.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. supra p. 17. nn. 9-11. This is the stringent outcome.
^ᵃᶠnote:In the first section of the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵍnote:Viz., to the priest.
^ᵃʰnote:Once the blood has been sprinkled.
^ᵃⁱnote:Of the first section of the Mishnah.
^ᵃʲnote:For the sake of symmetry.
^ᵃᵏnote:Viz., to the layman.
^ᵃˡnote:The answer given in the first instance is not applicable here, as there is no clause in this section which demanded the use of the phrase for the sake of symmetry.
^ᵃᵐnote:Infra 8b.
^ᵃⁿnote:Viz., that it may not be burnt at once, like offerings whose disqualifications are essentially in themselves, but only after the flesh has begun to decay.