Meilah 10b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

from where are these words,

from where do we derive what we learned in the Mishna?

And the Gemara brings a beraita, which expounds that one is liable for eating notar or for eating sacred things in a state of bodily impurity even with regard to sacrifices that have nothing permitting them; and likewise the beraita expounds that the time of liability for them is from the time the sacred items are placed into a consecrated vessel.

For the Sages taught: One might [say that] one is liable on account of impurity only for an item that has something permitting it,

just as one is not liable for eating piggul except for an item that has something permitting it.

And

there would be room to say this, for

it is a logical inference:

this may be learned by a kal va-chomer from the law of the prohibition of piggul, which is more stringent than the law of impurity, and nevertheless does not apply to an item that has nothing permitting it. And the greater stringency of piggul than impurity is in three matters, and these are:

a. Liability for eating sacred food in a state of impurity applies only when there were “two awarenesses”: that he became impure and knew that he had become impure, that his impurity escaped him, and he ate the sacred food, and after he ate, it became known to him again that he was impure. But if it did not become known to him that he had become impure until after he ate sacred food, he is exempt. Whereas for piggul he is liable even if it did not become known to him before his eating that it was piggul, but it became known to him after his eating that he had inadvertently eaten piggul.

b. One who inadvertently eats sacred food in a state of impurity brings for his sin a variable offering: the wealthy person brings an animal, the poor person brings two turtledoves, and the poorest of the poor brings a tenth of an ephah. That is to say, the Torah eased his burden in his poverty. Whereas one who inadvertently eats piggul brings as his sin-offering a female sheep or a female goat, even when he is poor.

c. Bodily impurity was permitted in its exceptional case, for if the majority of the public was impure, the impure were permitted to eat the Passover offering. Whereas piggul was not permitted in any exceptional case.

And thus we would learn by a kal va-chomer:

What is the case with piggul,

which is more stringent,

for which there is one awareness, whose offering is fixed, and which was not permitted in its exceptional case,

nevertheless the Torah eased its rule, and

one is not liable

on account of piggul

except for an item that has something permitting it.

Impurity,

which is lenient,

for which

one is liable to bring an offering only

with two awarenesses, whose offering is variable, and which was permitted in its exceptional case,

and

is it not a logical inference that one should be liable only for an item that has something permitting it?!

The verse therefore says [Leviticus 22], “

Say to them throughout your generations: Any man who approaches from all your offspring to the sacred things that the Children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me.”

The verse first states, “And they shall keep themselves separate from the sacred offerings of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me,” and from this they learned that

The verse first says, “And they shall separate themselves from the sacred things of the Children of Israel that they consecrate to Me,” and from here they learned that

the verse is speaking of all the sacred things,

even those that have nothing permitting them.

One might [say that] they will be liable for them

if they eat them in a state of impurity

immediately,

when they were consecrated with the sanctity of the mouth?

The verse therefore says, “that approaches.”

And apparently it follows from the wording “approaches” that even an impure person who touches sacred things is liable to karet.

Rabbi Elazar said: Is there one who touches who is liable!?

Surely he is liable only if he ate, as it is said [there, in the following verse], “Any man, any man of the offspring of Aaron, when he is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat of the sacred things.”

If so, why is it stated, “that approaches”? To tell you that he is not liable until it becomes fit to approach.

And thus the Torah said, “that approaches”: only when the sacred things have become fit to be offered [and as though it were written, “Any man from all your offspring to the sacred things that approach”] are they liable for eating them in a state of bodily impurity, and as is explained in the verse following it, “while his impurity is upon him,” he is liable to karet.

How so?

For every item that has something permitting it, he is not liable until the permitting elements have been offered.

And every item that has nothing permitting it, he is not liable until it becomes consecrated in a vessel .

And there, in the Gemara of tractate Zevachim, they derive notar

from impurity.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Bird Sin-offering.”

In this chapter the Mishna discusses consecrated objects possessing the sanctity of the body, with regard to which there is no me'ila. Some of them have no prohibition at all, while some of them have a rabbinic prohibition against deriving benefit from them: “one may neither benefit nor commit me'ila.” And some of them have a Torah prohibition against deriving benefit from them, but there is no me'ila with regard to them.

Later in the chapter the Mishna discusses consecrated objects designated for the maintenance of the Temple.

Our Mishna discusses the “five sin-offerings that are left to die.” They are sin-offerings that are unfit for sacrifice, and their law is not like that of other disqualified consecrated animals, whose law is that they graze until a blemish occurs in them, after which they are redeemed and their value falls to a free-will offering. Rather, they are deprived of water and food until they die. And this matter is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Since neither they nor their monetary value are sacrificed, their sanctity has departed, and there is no me'ila with regard to them. Nevertheless, rabbinically, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.

Likewise, they do not effect temura. That is: if one designated another animal in exchange for one of the sin-offerings that are left to die and said, “This is in place of that,” the second animal does not become consecrated. For the same reason: since it is going to die.

This Mishna was already taught in tractate Temura [21b–22a], and the Gemara will explain why it was taught again. It is explained here according to Rashi’s commentary and version there.

Offspring of a sin-offering,

when a female sheep or female goat gives birth to offspring,

and an animal substituted for a sin-offering,

when a nonconsecrated animal is designated in exchange for a sin-offering,

and a sin-offering whose owners died,

they shall die.

With these three, there is no distinction between before atonement and after atonement. Their law will be explained later:

and one whose year passed,

a female sheep or female goat designated as a sin-offering is fit for sacrifice only within one year of its birth, and they consecrated it within its year, but it was not sacrificed within its year,

and one that was lost and was found blemished.

With regard to these two sin-offerings, the law is as follows:

If the owners achieved atonement

after the first was found,

it shall die.

Since they rejected it actively. And likewise, the offspring of a sin-offering, an animal substituted for a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners died—all of them shall die.

And

each one of the five sin-offerings

does not effect substitution, and one may not benefit from them

rabbinically,

and there is no me'ila

by Torah law there is no law of me'ila with regard to them, as explained.