Meilah 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

And this is difficult: is

the first clause according to Rabbi Shimon

and the latter clause according to the Rabbis!?

Rav Geviha of Bei

Katil said to Rav Ashi: No!

Indeed,

this is what Abaye said: The first clause is according to Rabbi Shimon, and the latter clause according to the Rabbis.

The discussion concerning the flesh of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity that became impure and the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity

Tzon Kodashim, but not according to Hok Natan] that the case is one in which the flesh became impure before the sprinkling and one derived benefit from it after the sprinkling. The novelty of the ruling is according to Rabbi Akiva: although the flesh must be burned, and one might have thought that its mitzva was therefore not yet completed, nevertheless, the sprinkling was effective in removing it from the category of misuse of consecrated property. In summary: If the flesh became impure after the sprinkling, one does not misuse it. If it became impure before the sprinkling and one derived benefit from it after the sprinkling, then, according to Rava’s conclusion, one does not misuse it, whether only part of the flesh became impure or even all of it became impure. If it became impure before the sprinkling and one derived benefit from it before the sprinkling, one misuses it. The Tosafot asked: Even this contains no novelty, because Rabbi Akiva already taught us this law with regard to an offering taken outside its permitted area. Such an offering must also be burned, and nevertheless Rabbi Akiva did not say that the completion of its mitzva takes place through its burning. Rather, it takes place with the completion of the sprinkling, at the moment when it would have become permitted [had it been pure] for consumption by the priests. They answered that Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling only when part of the offering was taken outside, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yohanan [there]. It follows that the entire flesh is not subject to the mitzva of burning, and the sprinkling was effective at least with regard to the part that remained inside. By contrast, in the case of flesh that became impure, the case is one in which all the flesh became impure. Therefore, one might have thought that the sprinkling is ineffective, and that until the burning is completed, it remains within the category of “offerings of the Lord,” since it is still subject to a Temple service. Rava teaches us that this is not so. Even when all the flesh became impure [and the same applies when all of it was taken outside; see below in the name of Sefat Emet], it leaves the category of misuse of consecrated property immediately after the sprinkling. It is preferable for Rava to teach this novelty with regard to an offering that became impure because the primary biblical decree requiring the burning of disqualified offerings was stated with regard to an offering that became impure, as explained in the Gemara. Hok Natan, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and the Rashash asked: How could the Tosafot say that when all of the offering was taken outside, or when all of it became impure, the sprinkling is effective according to Rabbi Akiva in removing it from the category of misuse of consecrated property? Rabbi Yohanan explicitly said that Rabbi Akiva concedes that when all of it was taken outside, the sprinkling is ineffective. The Rashash was not concerned by this question, since it is possible that Rava disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan. See the Shita Mekubetzet, which has the reading, “Ulla said.” [This requires further examination, since Rava or Ulla is now speaking according to the view of Rabbi Yohanan, as the Tosafot explained the phrase “everyone agrees” to mean that Rabbi Yohanan concedes to Rav.] Alternatively, Rabbi Yohanan may have made that statement only with regard to an offering that became disqualified through improper intention, was left over beyond its permitted time, or became impure, distinguishing there between the entire offering and part of it, but not with regard to misuse of consecrated property. In the responsa of Ahiezer, the words of the Tosafot are explained as follows: Rava’s statement does not contradict Rabbi Yohanan’s statement. Rabbi Yohanan is discussing a case in which all the flesh was taken outside while the sacrificial parts remained inside [see note 172]. The question there is whether the sprinkling is effective for the flesh, just as the sprinkling certainly is effective for the sacrificial parts. Rabbi Yohanan therefore teaches that if the sacrificial parts also went outside, so that the sprinkling is as though it had no effect, since it permits nothing, the sprinkling does not remove the flesh from the category of misuse of consecrated property even according to Rabbi Akiva. By contrast, in our passage Rava is discussing a case in which the sacrificial parts remained inside and did not become impure [as is also indicated by the straightforward wording of the Gemara: “the flesh of most sacred offerings that became impure”]. In that case, the sprinkling certainly was effective. The Tosafot wrote further: It is understandable that if part of the flesh did not become impure, and there is no mitzva to burn the flesh that did not become impure, so that it leaves the category of misuse of consecrated property, one does not misuse the offering, since the sprinkling was effective and the mitzva of part of the flesh had already been completed. But if all the flesh became impure before the sprinkling, and immediately after the sprinkling all the flesh became subject to the mitzva of burning, one might have thought that this flesh never entered the state of being permitted

We learned above of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yohanan concerning one who benefited from the ash heap, whether he committed misuse or not.

Rava explains that they disagreed only concerning the ash after it had been removed from the altar, since its removal constitutes “Temple service” and is performed in priestly garments. Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan maintains that its mitzva is not yet complete until after its removal, unlike other services, as will be explained. Rava said: Everyone agrees that if one benefited from flesh of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity “ that became impure,” and if he likewise benefited from the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity after they had been placed

on the altar fire,

he is exempt.

Since the burning of the flesh of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity that became impure is not a “service,” the continuation of the burning of the sacrificial portions by means of “turning them with the fork” [turning them and bringing them closer to the fire with the implement designated for this purpose, so that they will be consumed properly] is likewise not a service, since it is done only to hasten their consumption by the fire; without turning them, they would also be consumed. This is unlike the removal of the ash, according to Rabbi Yohanan, for the removal itself is a “service.” And we object: Is this obvious! Why was it necessary to teach us this? What does he deprive the Temple treasury of? After all, one who benefits from them deprives the Temple treasury of nothing, since flesh of a sacred offering that became impure is fit neither for the priests nor for the altar , and its mitzva has already been performed. Similarly, with regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, their mitzva has already been performed once they have been placed upon the fire. And we answer: Rava had to teach both laws, because each contains a novelty: One might have said that flesh of an offering of the highest degree of sanctity that became impure has a mitzva of burning for priests in the Temple, as the Torah says [Leviticus 7]: “And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.” Therefore, one might have thought that it retains a degree of sanctity until after it is burned, and that one commits misuse with it.

The burning of the flesh of most sacred offerings that became impure is not a “Temple service.” Likewise, the continued burning of the sacrificial parts through “turning them with the fork” [turning them and bringing them closer to the fire with the utensil designated for this purpose, so that they will be consumed properly] is not a Temple service, since it is done only to hasten their consumption by the fire; without turning them, they would also be consumed. This is unlike the removal of the ashes, according to Rabbi Yohanan, for whom the removal itself is a “Temple service.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

And why was it necessary to teach us this?

What does he cause to be lost?

After all, one who derives benefit from them causes no loss to the sacred property, since flesh of a sacred offering that became impure is fit neither for the priests nor for the altar , and its mitzva has already been performed. Likewise, with regard to the sacrificial parts of offerings of lesser sanctity, their mitzva has already been performed once they have been placed on the altar fire.

And we answer: Rava needed to teach both laws, because each contains a novelty: One might have said that the flesh of most sacred offerings that became impure has a mitzva of burning for the priests in the Temple , as the Torah states [Leviticus 7]: “And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.” Therefore, one might have thought that it retains a degree of sanctity until after it is burned, and that one misuses it .

he is exempt.

Because the burning of the flesh of most-sacred offerings that became impure is not an “act of Temple service.” Likewise, the continuation of the burning of the fats, through “turning with the fork” [turning them and bringing them near the fire, with the utensil designated for this, so that they will be consumed well], is not an act of Temple service, since it is done only to hasten their consumption in the fire; without the turning, they would also be consumed. This is unlike the removal of the ash, according to Rabbi Yohanan, where the removal itself is an “act of Temple service.”

And we object:

Is it obvious!

And why was it necessary to teach us this?

What does he cause to be lost?

After all, one who benefits from them causes nothing to be lost to the Temple treasury, since sacred flesh that became impure is fit neither for the priests nor for the altar , and their mitzva has already been performed. Likewise, as for the fats of lesser-sacred offerings, their mitzva has already been performed after they were placed upon the fire.

And we answer: Rava needed to teach both laws, because each one contains a novelty:

Lest you say: with regard to flesh of most-sacred offerings that became impure, there is a mitzva of burning for the priests

in the Temple, as the Torah said [Leviticus 7]: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.” Therefore, one might have said that some sanctity remains in it until after its burning, and one commits misuse with it .

And likewise,

with regard to the sacrificial portions of kodashim kalim, there is a mitzva to turn them over with the tzinora

so that they will burn completely. Therefore, it might have been thought that their mitzva has not been fulfilled until they have been entirely consumed by the fire.

This teaches us

that Rava says that there is no misuse of consecrated property involving them, for the reason explained above . The Gemara returns to the beraita that we learned above.

Rava said: When I said,

referring to what we learned in the beraita:

“The sin-offering has already been sacrificed; let them go

the money for the misuse

to the Dead Sea,” this applies

only in a case

where it became known to him

that he had committed misuse

before atonement,

before his sin-offering was sacrificed, so that he had the possibility of combining the money with the money for the sin-offering.

But

if he became aware of his misuse

after atonement, let it fall

the money for his misuse

to the voluntary-offering fund.

What is the reason? One does not initially set aside money

in the first instance

for destruction,

so that the money should go to the Dead Sea.

This is not so when he became aware of it before atonement: He set aside the money in order to combine it with the money for the sin-offering, and it thereby became “sin-offering money.” If ultimately he did not combine it, for whatever reason, and now he cannot combine it because he has already sacrificed the sin-offering, it goes to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the law governing a sin-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another offering.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues the preceding mishnayot.

a. All consecrated offerings are subject to the law of misuse from the time they were consecrated through verbal consecration.

b. From the time they were consecrated with bodily sanctity, they become susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who has immersed that day, one who lacks atonement, and overnight stay.

c. From the time the permitting elements have been offered, one becomes liable on their account if he eats them in violation of the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or impurity.

The Mishna before us teaches the law of offerings that differ from other offerings in that they have no “permitting elements.”

For whereas all the offerings taught in the preceding mishnayot have a service that “permits” something—for example, a sin-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offering have the sprinkling of the blood that permits the sacrificial portions to be burned, and they have the burning of the sacrificial portions that permits the flesh to be eaten. Before the sprinkling of the blood it is prohibited to burn the sacrificial portions, and before the burning it is prohibited to eat the flesh. Similarly, with a bird olah, an animal olah, and burned bulls and goats, the sprinkling of their blood permits the sacrificial portions to be burned. With the two loaves, the sprinkling of the blood of the sheep permits them to be eaten. With the showbread, the removal of the frankincense bowls permits it to be eaten. And with meal-offerings, the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the meal-offering to be eaten by the kohanim.

But those taught in our Mishna are themselves burned, and they have no other “permitting element” that permits them.

Therefore, these offerings differ in two laws.

The first is that one is liable on their account for notar and impurity immediately upon their being consecrated with bodily sanctity. In the beraita in the Gemara, this is derived through an exposition of the verse.

The second is that there is no liability for piggul whatsoever with regard to them. The reason will be explained below.

This Mishna and the Gemara concerning it, until the end of the chapter, are cited in several places in the Talmud and will be explained according to Rashi’s commentary [Shevuot 11; Zevahim 45].

The handful,

of an individual’s meal-offering,

and the frankincense

of an individual’s meal-offering [which accompanies most meal-offerings],

and the incense, and a kohen’s meal-offering,

which is burned entirely upon the altar and is not divided by taking a handful,

and the meal-offering of the anointed kohen,

the griddle-offering that the High Priest brings every day, half in the morning and half in the evening,

and the libation meal-offering,

which accompanies the animal, three-tenths of an eifa for a bull, two-tenths for a ram, and one-tenth for a lamb , none of these three meal-offerings is divided by taking a handful; rather, they are burned entirely upon the altar fires,

there is misuse of consecrated property involving them from

the time

they were consecrated

with verbal consecration, like all consecrated offerings that are subject to misuse immediately upon being consecrated.

And when

they were consecrated

in a vessel,

when they brought them into the Temple courtyard and placed them in a service vessel,

they became fit,

their sanctification was completed,

to become disqualified through

contact with

one who has immersed that day, and through

contact with

one who lacks atonement, and

they become disqualified

through overnight stay.

And one is liable on their account for notar and for impurity,

from the time they were consecrated with bodily sanctity, since they have no permitting elements.

The handful and the frankincense have no permitting elements; rather, they themselves permit the meal-offering. The incense and the three meal-offerings have no permitting elements because they have no remainder, and they themselves are burned entirely.

But there is no piggul in them.

The law of piggul is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 7] with regard to a peace-offering, and the other offerings are derived from it. We expound [Zevahim 45a]: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that they have permitting elements—the sprinkling of the blood permits the sacrificial portions to be burned, and the sacrificial portions permit the flesh to be eaten—so too, with regard to anything that has permitting elements, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul. From here we derive that one is not liable for piggul with regard to something that has no permitting elements.

This is the general rule: With regard to anything that has permitting elements, one is not liable on its account for piggul, notar, or impurity until the

permitting elements have been offered.

And anything that has no permitting elements,

such as those listed in our Mishna,

once he consecrated

them

with

the sanctity of a

vessel

of service,

one is liable on its account for notar and impurity.

But there is no piggul in it

at all, as explained above.