Chullin 117a (קיז.) — the Talmud in English

As for the fat,

one commits me'ila through it

if it belongs to a sacrifice, whereas one does not commit me'ila through blood, as the Gemara will derive.

And one is liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity [

if one ate it in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, one on account of forbidden fat and one on account of impurity].

Which is not the case with blood,

as the Gemara explains.

And there is a stringency with regard to blood

over fat:

Blood applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, whether they are kosher or non-kosher.

But fat applies only to kosher domesticated animals,

as it is written: “from the animal that they offer.” And it does not apply to undomesticated animals or birds.

Gemara:

From where are these matters derived,

that fat is subject to me'ila even when it comes from kodashim kalim, as the tanna does not distinguish between kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim?

Rabbi Yannai said: The verse states

with regard to the fats of the bull of the anointed priest: “

As it is raised up from the ox of the peace-offering” -

so too the fats of the bull of the High Priest are raised up to be burned on the altar.

And what have we learned from the ox of the peace-offering?

The burning of the fats is explicitly stated גם with regard to the bull of the anointed priest!

From now, this -

the ox of the peace-offering -

comes to teach, but is thereby taught itself! The verse compares

the

ox of the peace-offering

to the bull of the anointed priest.

It teaches us:

Just as the bull of the anointed priest

is subject to me'ila,

as it is kodshei kodashim,

so too the ox of the peace-offering,

which is kodashim kalim,

is subject to me'ila.

Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Yannai:

Why did you need to derive this from there? Is

this

not

the teaching that Rabbi taught:

With regard to kodashim kalim it is written, “

All fat is for the Lord,”

and from the fact that it is written “for the Lord”

we derive:

to include the fats of kodashim kalim as subject to me'ila!?

Abaye said: Both derivations are necessary.

The two derivations are needed.

For if the Merciful One had written

only “all

fat

for the Lord,”

I would have said that with regard to

the

fat

yes,

there is me'ila, but with regard to the

diaphragm and the two kidneys,

which are not called fat,

no,

there would be no me'ila through them. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

as it is raised up

from the ox of the peace-offering,” to compare all the sacrificial fats of a peace-offering to the fats of the bull of the anointed priest, teaching that one commits me'ila through them just as through the bull.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“as it is raised up,”

I would have said that specifically fat of the type that is also found in an ox is subject to me'ila, but

with regard to

the fat of the tail, which is not found in an ox

but only in a sheep, we would have thought that it is not subject to me'ila; if one brought a sheep as a peace-offering,

no

me'ila would apply to its tail. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote with regard to peace-offerings,

“all

fat,”

which includes the tail, since the tail is called fat, as it is written: “its fat, the whole tail.”

Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If the tail is called fat,

should

the tail of a sheep

be forbidden to eat!?

He said to him,

Rav Zevid:

The verse says with regard to you: “Any fat of ox, sheep, or goat

you shall not eat.” And we derive: only

something that is found equally in an ox, a sheep, and a goat

may you not eat; this is not the case with the fat of the tail, which is not found in an ox or a goat.

Rav Ashi said:

The tail is not forbidden because “

its fat, the tail, is called”

the tail; but

“fat” without qualification

is not called the tail, and the verse forbids only unqualified fat for consumption.

And we challenge this:

If so, one should not commit me'ila through it,

through the tail, since we learned that me'ila with regard to fat is derived from the fact that it is written, “All fat is for the Lord,” which indicates specifically unqualified fat!?

And we conclude: Rather, it is clear -

it is as Rav Zevid said!

Rav Zevid’s explanation is necessary, and Rav Ashi’s explanation is rejected.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Which is not the case with blood.”

From where are these matters derived,

that one does not commit me'ila through blood?

Ulla said: The verse states:

“For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you, etc., to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood, etc.” And from the fact that it is written

“to you,”

it indicates:

“It shall be yours,”

which indicates that it is not the property of the Most High and one does not commit me'ila through it.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

that this is what we learned: From the fact that it is written

“to make atonement,”

it indicates that specifically

“for atonement”

for you

I gave it, and not

that it should be considered Mine

with regard

to

me'ila.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states, “It,”

and “it” indicates that it shall remain as it is. And we derive:

It,

the blood, shall be

before atonement,

that is, before the sprinkling of the blood,

as after atonement,

that is, after he has presented the blood-gifts on the altar, when blood remains in the vessel.

Just as after atonement

there is no me'ila through it,

as will be explained below, for we have an established principle that nothing whose mitzva has been performed is subject to me'ila, since the requirement of the Most High has already been fulfilled through it and it is no longer called the property of the Most High,

so too before atonement

there is no me'ila through it.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

the opposite:

“It” after atonement

is like before atonement.

Just as before atonement

there is me'ila through it, so too after atonement

there is me'ila through it?

And we answer: It is impossible to say that there is me'ila after atonement, for

there is nothing whose mitzva has been performed

through which one can commit me'ila.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But there is the תרומת הדשן,

where each morning the priest would remove a full panful of ashes from the altar and place it beside the altar, where it would be absorbed in its place,

whose

mitzva had

already been performed,

since it had been burned on the altar,

and

nevertheless

one commits me'ila through it.

As it is written: “And he shall place it beside the altar,”

teaching that it requires placement and concealment; we see that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it!?

And we answer:

Because there are the ashes removed from the altar,

through which one commits me'ila after their mitzva has been performed, as we said,

and the priestly garments,

namely, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, whose law is that they require concealment: neither an ordinary priest may use them throughout the year nor may the High Priest use them on another Yom Kippur, as it is written, “And he shall remove the linen garments and leave them there,” from which we learn that they require concealment -

two verses that come as one. And whenever there are two verses that come as one,

they do not teach.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the Rabbis, who say

that this is what they derive:

“And he shall leave them there” -

this teaches that they require concealment. But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says

that from this verse we learn

that he may not use them

the High Priest

on another Yom Kippur,

but an ordinary priest may use them throughout the year, if so, he maintains that their mitzva has not yet been completed, and therefore one does commit me'ila through them.

What can be said?

After all, there are not two verses that come as one.

Rather, because there are the ashes removed from the altar and the heifer whose neck was broken,

which is forbidden to benefit from after its neck has been broken and its mitzva has already been performed, as it is written, “And they shall break its neck there” - there shall be its burial there, meaning that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it -

two verses that come as one. And whenever there are two verses that come as one,

they do not teach.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do not teach.

But according to the one who says that they do teach, what can be said?