Menachot

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!1 — No, the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering.2 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: This3 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],4 nevertheless the meal-offering conveys food-uncleanness, since there was a time when it was permitted in the beginning.5 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;6 and, moreover, you may say that the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling,7 [and there is no difficulty at all],8 for whilst we accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have redeemed it’,9 we do not accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have sprinkled it’. 10 An objection was raised [from the following]:11 R. Joshua laid down this general rule: Whatsoever had a period of permissibility to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege,12 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].13 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.14 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,15 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,16 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.17 But what would be the position where it had actually remained overnight?15 It would be subject to the law of sacrilege, would it not?18 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!19 — 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;20 therefore once the holiness has departed21 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 sprinkled22 [the flesh of the offering] has not become a foodstuff and so does not convey food-uncleanness.23 An objection was raised [from the following]:24 If a man brought a suspensive guilt-offering25 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.26 This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages say 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. does not convey food-uncleanness. ‘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. 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’. considered as already redeemed. cause it to be regarded as already sprinkled. 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. had become unclean or before it had been taken out. valid. Ashi. 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. 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. well-established that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled. Cf. B.K. 76b. Mek. 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.