Meilah 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived—

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

The Gemara cites a beraita that derives that one is liable for eating notar or for eating sacrificial food in a state of bodily impurity even in the case of sacrificial items that have no permitting elements; and the beraita likewise derives that the time at which liability for them begins is from the time the sacrificial items are placed in a service vessel.

As the Sages taught: One might have thought that one is liable for impurity only in the case of an item that has permitting elements,

just as one is liable for eating piggul only in the case of an item that has permitting elements.

And

there would have been room to say so, since

it is a logical inference:

this can be learned by a kal va-chomer from the prohibition of piggul, which is more severe than the prohibition of impurity, and yet does not apply to an item that has no permitting elements. The greater severity of piggul over impurity is expressed in three matters, and these are:

a. Liability for eating sacrificial food in a state of impurity applies only when there were “two acts of awareness”: he became impure and knew that he had become impure, then his awareness of his impurity was removed, and he ate the sacrificial food; afterward, having eaten it, he again became aware of his impurity. But if he did not learn that he had become impure until after eating the sacrificial food, he is exempt. In contrast, one is liable for piggul even if he did not know before eating it that it was piggul, but learned only after eating it that he had inadvertently eaten piggul.

b. One who inadvertently eats sacrificial food in a state of impurity brings for his transgression a variable offering: a wealthy person brings an animal, a poor person brings two turtledoves, and the poorest of the poor brings one-tenth of an ephah. That is, the Torah was lenient with him in his poverty. In contrast, one who inadvertently eats piggul brings as his sin-offering a female sheep or female goat, even when he is poor.

c. The impurity of the body is permitted under certain circumstances, for if the majority of the public was impure, those who were impure were permitted to eat the Paschal offering. In contrast, piggul was never permitted under any circumstances.

And this is what we would derive by a kal va-chomer:

If piggul,

which is more severe,

as it requires only one act of awareness, its offering is fixed, and it was never permitted under any circumstances,

nevertheless the Torah was lenient with regard to it, and

one is not liable

for piggul

unless it is an item that has permitting elements.

Impurity,

which is more lenient,

as it

requires an offering only

after two acts of awareness, its offering is variable, and it is permitted under certain circumstances,

is it not

logical that one should be liable only for an item that has permitting elements?!

The verse states [Leviticus 22]: “

Say to them for all your generations: Any man of all your offspring who approaches the sacred offerings 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 is speaking of all sacrificial offerings,

including even those that have no permitting elements.

One might have thought that they would be liable for them

if they ate them in a state of impurity

immediately

when they were consecrated through verbal designation.

The verse states: “that approaches.”

And apparently, the wording “that approaches” indicates that even an impure person who touches sacrificial items is

liable to karet.

Rabbi Elazar said: Is there anyone who is liable merely for touching!?

Surely he is liable only if he ate, as it is stated [in the following verse there]: “Any man of the offspring of Aaron, when he is afflicted with a skin disease or has a discharge, shall not eat of the sacred offerings.”

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

And this is what the Torah stated: “that approaches”—only when the sacrificial items have become fit to be offered [as though it were written, “Any man of all your offspring who approaches the sacred offerings that approach”] is one liable for eating them in a state of bodily impurity; and, as is explicit in the verse that follows it, “while his impurity is upon him,” he is liable to karet.

How so?

In the case of every item that has permitting elements, one is not liable until the permitting elements have been offered.

And in the case of every item that has no permitting elements, one is not liable until it has been consecrated in a service vessel.

And there, in the Gemara in tractate Zevahim, they derive the law of notar

from the law of impurity.

We have completed the chapter “The Bird Sin-Offering.”

In this chapter, the Mishna discusses offerings possessing intrinsic sanctity that are not subject to meila. Some of them carry no prohibition at all, while others are subject to a rabbinic prohibition against deriving benefit from them: “One may neither derive benefit from them nor commit meila.” Still others are subject by Torah law to a prohibition against deriving benefit, but are not subject to meila.

Later in the chapter, the Mishna discusses offerings designated for the repair of the Temple.

Our Mishna discusses the “five sin offerings that must die.” These are sin offerings that are unfit to be sacrificed, but whose law is not like that of other consecrated offerings that are disqualified, which are left to pasture until they develop a blemish, after which they are redeemed and their value is used for a voluntary offering. Rather, they are deprived of water and food until they die. This is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Since neither they nor their monetary value is sacrificed, their sanctity has departed from them, and one does not commit meila with them. Nevertheless, it is rabbinically prohibited to derive benefit from them.

Likewise, they do not effect temura. That is: if one designates another animal in exchange for one of the sin offerings that must die and says, “This is in place of that,” the second animal does not become consecrated. This is for the same reason: since the first is destined for death.

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

The offspring of a sin offering,

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

and the substitute of a sin offering,

when one designates an unconsecrated animal in exchange for a sin offering,

and a sin offering whose owners died,

must die.

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

and one whose year has passed,

a female sheep or female goat designated as a sin offering is fit for sacrifice only during the year following its birth; if it was consecrated during that year and was not sacrificed during that year,

and one that was lost and 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 must die.

Since they actively rejected it. Likewise, the offspring of a sin offering, the substitute of a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owners died must all die.

And

each of the five sin offerings

does not effect temura, and one may not derive benefit from them

rabbinically,

and one does not commit meila with them,

by Torah law they are not subject to the law of meila, as explained.