Meilah

is unclean of the first degree in regard to holy things.1 R. Meir says: He renders holy things "unclean" and terumah2 "unfit".3 The Sages say, Just as he renders "unfit" liquids and edibles of terumah, so he renders "unfit"4 sacred liquids and edibles’! — Said Raba, on the view of Abba Saul, A higher standard has been set with holy things in that the Rabbis declared the tebul yom to be [in regard to them unclean in] the first degree. And on the view of R. Meir, [he possesses by Rabbinic enactment the same measure of uncleanness] as food which is unclean in the second degree;5 while on the view of the Sages, since he has immersed, his uncleanness has weakened, and he renders things ‘unfit’ but not ‘unclean’.6 ONCE ITS BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED . . . THE LAW OF SACRILEGE NO LONGER APPLIES TO IT. This implies that the Law of Sacrilege no longer applies though the prohibition still remains.7 But why? Is it not now the possession of the priests? — Said R. Hanina, [The Mishnah refers to an offering] which was taken out [of the Temple Court] so that [the flesh] is indeed not fit for consumption8 and is in accordance With the view of R. Akiba9 Who holds that the sprinkling of the blood is of avail10 with an offering that was taken out [of the Temple precincts]. Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: The draining out of the blood11 of the sin-offering of a bird is not indispensable,12 for Rab learnt [in our Mishnah]: ‘When its blood has been sprinkled’.13 R. Adda son of Ahabah in the name of Rab said: The draining out of the blood of the sin-offering of a bird is indispensable, and Rab, in fact, learnt [in our Mishnah]: ‘When its blood has been drained out’. Come and hear: It is said, and the rest of the blood shall be drained at the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.14 Now on the view of R. Adda son of Ahabah it is right when it is written, ‘and the rest of the blood shall be drained . . . it is a sin-offering’,15 but according to R. Huna, what is the meaning of ‘the ‘est etc.’? — As it has been taught in the School of R. Ishmael: ‘If there remained . . .’.16 But then what of the phrase, ‘it is a sin-offering’?17 — It refers to the preceding text.18 Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: If so, with the meal-offering where it is written ‘and the remainder’19 does it also mean ‘if there remained’? And should you say: Indeed, so it is, surely it has been taught: uncleanness two stages further. It ‘defiles’ other holy things and ‘renders unfit’ terumah. rulings result from the enactment of the Rabbis, whilst the ‘Mishnah refers to the original law of the Torah. Temple. This inference is made from the fact that the term ‘permitted’ would otherwise have been used in our Mishnah. regard to the laws of Sacrilege, piggul, etc. as ruled in our Mishnah.