Meilah

If 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: Inexact1 was the reply that R. Akiba gave to that disciple, [as it2 suggests that his instance holds good] only if they were slaughtered simultaneously but not if successively. Now, since [the other offering3 is, at all events] disqualified,4 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 surety5 [one against the other], and he had them both slaughtered and had the emurim6 of one of them placed upon the altar before sprinkling.7 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 holiness8 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.9 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;10 IN RESPECT OF BOTH ONE IS GUILTY11 OF [TRANSGRESSING THE LAWS OF] NOTHAR. PIGGUL AND DEFILEMENT.12 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:13 ‘THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES . . . NOT TO THE FLESH’ which implies that the penalty of Sacrilege is not inflicted, but the prohibition still remains.14 But why? Is it not the possession of the priest?15 — 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 clause16 [the phrase] ‘THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES NOT’.17 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.18 Why? Is it not the possession of the owner?19 — 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.20 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,21 but both slaughtered’. hold that the two sin-offerings are considered as one offering. that child’. use of the phrase for the sake of symmetry. after the flesh has begun to decay.