Meilah

‘The disqualifying thought1 in respect of lost or burnt [portions of an offering] is of effect’.2 Now, the lost and the burnt no longer exist, yet it was taught that a disqualifying thought [relating to them] is effective.3 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’?4 Whereupon R. Zera replied: ‘Did you not teach us5 [the Mishnah] about allal?6 Now, this allal, because it has no substantial value, an un lawful thought relating to it is of no effect.7 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 burnt8 offers a difficulty!9 — Said Raba: Say, [‘The disqualifying thought in respect of portions] that were about to be lost or burnt . . .’.10 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 out11 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 . . .12 Said R. Eleazar: R. Akiba held his view13 only if [both sin-offerings were slaughtered] simultaneously.14 but if successively R. Akiba did not hold his view.15 It has been taught:16 Said R. Simeon, When I went to Kefar Pagi17 an old man18 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 effect19 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. the Law of Sacrilege. would then be from Hul. 121a, thus also pseudo-Rashi. would indeed be of no effect.