מנחות 102:1 — Soncino English Talmud

and if one so desired one could have sprinkled it properly, nevertheless [the Baraitha] states that it does not convey food-uncleanness. Now presumably the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling! — No, the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering. Then what would be his ruling where the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling? It would, as suggested, convey food-uncleanness. If so, instead of teaching ‘A meal-offering that had been made piggul conveys food-uncleanness, [the Tanna] should have drawn a distinction in [the case of the animal-offering] itself in these terms: This applies only where the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering, but if the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling it conveys food-uncleanness! It was necessary [for the Tanna] to teach the case of the meal-offering that had been made piggul; for notwithstanding that the piggul-intention was expressed at the time of the taking of the handful, and the taking of the handful in the meal-offering corresponds to the slaughtering [in the animal-offering], nevertheless the meal-offering conveys food-uncleanness, since there was a time when it was permitted in the beginning. R. Ashi said, I stated this argument before R. Nahman [and he said to me,] You may even say that the expression, ‘if it had remained overnight [before the sprinkling]’ shall be taken in the ordinary sense; and, moreover, you may say that the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling, [and there is no difficulty at all], for whilst we accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have redeemed it’, we do not accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have sprinkled it’. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Joshua laid down this general rule: Whatsoever had a period of permissibility to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatsoever had no period of permissibility to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. What is that which had a period of permissibility to the priests? That which remained overnight or became unclean or was taken out [of the Sanctuary]. And what is that which had no period of permissibility to the priests? Offerings that were slaughtered [while the intention was expressed of eating of the flesh thereof] outside the proper time or outside the proper place, or whose blood was received or sprinkled by those that were unfit. It says here in the first part: ‘That which remained overnight or became unclean or was taken out’. Now this means, does it not, that it actually remained overnight, and [yet it is considered as having had a period of permissibility to the priests by virtue of the fact that] here if one so desired one could have sprinkled the blood, and [therefore] it states that it is not subject to the law of sacrilege? — No, it means that it is ready [to become disqualified] if taken out or made unclean. But what would be the position where it had actually remained overnight? It would be subject to the law of sacrilege, would it not? Then instead of saying, ‘Whatsoever had a period of permissibility to the priests’ and ‘Whatsoever had no period of permissibility to the priests’ [the Tanna] should have said, ‘Whatsoever had been permissible to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatsoever had not been permissible to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege! — The fact is, answered R. Ashi, that one cannot point out a contradiction between the ruling concerning the law of sacrilege and that concerning uncleanness. The law of sacrilege applies only to that which is holy and not to that which is not holy; therefore once the holiness has departed how can it revert? On the other hand, food-uncleanness applies only to that which is a foodstuff and not to that which is not a foodstuff; therefore where the blood has been sprinkled [the flesh of the offering] has thereby become a foodstuff and so conveys food-uncleanness, but where the blood has not been sprinkled [the flesh of the offering] has not become a foodstuff and so does not convey food-uncleanness. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a man brought a suspensive guilt-offering and it became known to him that he had not sinned, if the animal was not yet slaughtered it may go forth and pasture among the flock. This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages say^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:Before the sprinkling, however, the offering was still valid, and the blood was then ready to be sprinkled in the proper manner; the flesh therefore should convey food-uncleanness. As the Tanna does not rule so we are forced to the conclusion that whatever is ready for sprinkling is not considered as already sprinkled.
^ᵇnote:So that there was never a time when the offering was in a permitted state.
^ᶜnote:That an offering which had been made piggul does not convey food-uncleanness
^ᵈnote:Cf. supra 13b. And it has been stated that where the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering the flesh does not convey food-uncleanness.
^ᵉnote:Before it was consecrated.
^ᶠnote:Not as suggested above that ‘before the sprinkling’ meant that there was no time during the day for the sprinkling and ‘after the sprinkling’ that there was time in the day for the sprinkling, but the former expression means that the sprinkling had not actually taken place and the latter that it had actually taken place.
^ᵍnote:Nevertheless the flesh of the offering does not convey food-uncleanness.
^ʰnote:In the apparent contradiction between the views of R. Simeon; for with regard to the Red Cow he applies the principle ‘Whatsoever stands to be redeemed is considered as redeemed’, yet with regard to the offering conveying food-uncleanness he does not apply the similar principle ‘Whatsoever stands to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled’.
^ⁱnote:For the redemption can be accomplished by word of mouth, and therefore even though not yet redeemed it is considered as already redeemed.
^ʲnote:For so long as the act of sprinkling has not been performed, the fact that it can be sprinkled if so desired dos not cause it to be regarded as already sprinkled.
^ᵏnote:Me'il. 2a.
^ˡnote:I.e., the misappropriation of the property of the Temple, for which a guilt-offering is prescribed. Cf. Lev. V, 15f. That which had at some time been permitted to the priests, even though it is now no longer permitted, is not regarded as ‘the holy things of the Lord’ (ibid.), and the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.
^ᵐnote:In these three cases the flesh had been permissible at some time, i.e., before it had been kept overnight or before it had become unclean or before it had been taken out.
^ⁿnote:V. Zeb. 15b. In these cases the flesh of the offering had at no time been permissible since the offering was never valid.
^ᵒnote:I.e., both the flesh and the blood of the offering had remained overnight, for the blood had not yet been sprinkled.
^ᵖnote:And whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled; thus contrary to R. Nahman and R. Ashi.
^ᵠnote:I.e., the blood has already been sprinkled, so that the flesh is perfectly valid now but may yet be rendered invalid if taken outside the Sanctuary or made unclean. This is Rashi's first interpretation, according to which the words ihkk vhutru are to be omitted from the text. They are deleted by Sh. Mek. V., however, Rashi's second interpretation and Tosaf. s.v. tk.
^ʳnote:Since we do not accept the principle that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled.
^ˢnote:The expression ‘a period of permissibility’ signifies a potential permissibility; i.e., there was the possibility of the offering becoming permissible if only the blood had been sprinkled, though in fact the blood had not been sprinkled and so the flesh had not become permissible. Since, however, it is now assumed that the blood had actually been sprinkled, so that the flesh had in fact become permissible to the priests, the Tanna should have used the expression, ‘Whatsoever had been permissible’. This last expression does not preclude the fact that the flesh is now no longer permissible to the priests for it has remained overnight; accordingly the difficulty raised by Tosaf. is disposed of. This interpretation follows the suggestion of R. Samuel Strashun, namely, that the question in the Gemara involves merely the omission of the word ,ga from the rule stated by the Tanna.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘is on account of the holiness or non-holiness (of the offering)’.
^ᵘnote:As soon as the blood is ready to be sprinkled the holiness of the flesh of the offering is gone, since the principle is well-established that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled. Cf. B.K. 76b.
^ᵛnote:Even though the blood was ready to be sprinkled.
^ʷnote:The text of this last sentence in cur. edd. is profuse and redundant; the reading adopted is that of MS.M. and Sh. Mek.
^ˣnote:Ker. 23b.
^ʸnote:Heb. huk, oat. The guilt-offering brought by a person who is in doubt whether he has committed an act which must be atoned for by a sin-offering. This sacrifice is therefore merely suspensive until the doubt will be settled and the person will know whether he must bring a sin-offering or not.
^ᶻnote:The animal is deemed to be non-holy and may join the flock.