Meilah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

All

sacrificial offerings combine with one another with regard to me'ila.

If a person derives benefit from two types of sacrificial offerings, for example, from a sin-offering and from a guilt-offering, in such a manner that he derives benefit equivalent to half a peruta from this one and half a peruta from that one, they combine to the measure of one peruta, which is the measure for me'ila, and he is liable to repay the principal, add a fifth, and bring an offering.

And

they likewise combine

to render one liable on their account for piggul,

if he ate half an olive-bulk of piggul from one offering and half an olive-bulk of piggul from another offering

. And

they likewise combine with regard to

notar and impurity.

And below [17b] it will be explained that piggul, notar, and impurity combine with one another.

Offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance combine with one another with regard to me'ila,

to the measure of one peruta.

Sacrificial offerings and offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance

combine with one another with regard to me'ila.

If one derived benefit equivalent to half a peruta from sacrificial offerings and half a peruta from offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance, he committed me'ila, because they all bear one designation: “consecrated property.”

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the repetition in the wording of the Mishna.

Now one might say,

since the Mishna states in its latter clause:

“Sacrificial offerings and offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance,”

they combine, even though

this one has bodily sanctity and this one has sanctity of monetary value,

and they are not literally one sanctity,

even so, they combine with one another

since both are called “consecrated property.” If so,

with regard to sacrificial offerings together with sacrificial offerings, is it necessary to state it?!

Did the Mishna really need to teach us that they combine!? And we answer: Indeed, the Mishna did not need to teach us that sacrificial offerings combine with sacrificial offerings to reach the measure for me'ila. Rather,

because it taught there,

with regard to sacrificial offerings, that they combine

to render one liable on their account for piggul, notar, and impurity,

the Mishna needed to teach this law, since

offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance

do not

have the categories of piggul, notar, and impurity.

For that reason it divided them

between the first and latter clauses. In the first clause the Mishna teaches the law of combining with regard to piggul, notar, and impurity, and incidentally the Mishna also teaches the law of combining with regard to me'ila. Since it taught the law of sacrificial offerings separately, it taught the law of offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance separately. And finally the Mishna innovated that even sacrificial offerings and offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance combine.

We learned in the Mishna: Sacrificial offerings combine with one another with regard to me'ila.

Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear,

it is an obvious matter that

one is liable for me'ila only for offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance .

for the priests, and the other offerings, there is in them a portion for the owners, and they are not entirely “for the Lord”; therefore there is no meila with them. The Gemara understood Rabbi Yannai’s words literally, that there is no meila at all with sacrificial offerings. Therefore the Gemara brings several Mishnayot, a beraita, and statements of amoraim to refute his words. We learned in our Mishna: Sacrificial offerings combine with one another for meila. And it is proven that one commits meila with sacrificial offerings. And this is difficult for Rabbi Yannai’s words? And we answer: Indeed, there is no meila with them by Torah law, and what the Mishna said, that there is meila with them, means:

What is the reason? For the verse says

Leviticus 5]: “

When a person commits a sacrilege and sins unintentionally

against the sacred property of the Lord.”

And we interpret it:

sacred offerings uniquely belonging to the Lord,

which are offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance, since all of them belong to Him;

there is me'ila with regard to them.

But sacrificial offerings,

such as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

contain

a portion

for the priests,

and the other offerings

contain

a portion

for the owners, and they do not belong entirely to the Lord. Therefore there is no me'ila with regard to them.

Is it the case that one does not commit meila with sacrificial offerings by Torah law?!

The Gemara understood Rabbi Yannai's words literally, that there is no me'ila at all with regard to sacrificial offerings. Therefore, the Gemara brings several Mishnayot, a beraita, and statements of amoraim to refute his words.

We learned

in our Mishna:

“Sacrificial offerings combine with one another with regard to me'ila.”

This proves that one commits me'ila with sacrificial offerings. This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai's statement.

And we answer: Indeed, there is no Torah-level me'ila with regard to them; and what the Mishna says, that there is me'ila with regard to them, means me'ila

by rabbinic ordinance.

We raise an objection from what we learned [at the beginning of the tractate]:

“With regard to most sacred offerings that one slaughtered in the south, one commits me'ila with them.”

This proves that one commits me'ila with sacrificial offerings. This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai's statement.

And we answer:

Here too,

one commits me'ila

by rabbinic ordinance.

But Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Offerings that died have exited from the law of meila by Torah law .

We raise another objection:

We learned,

in the next chapter:

“One who derives benefit from a sin-offering, while it is alive, has not committed me'ila until he causes it to lose value; when it is dead, once he derives any benefit from it, he has committed me'ila” [the matter will be explained there].

This proves that one commits me'ila with a sin-offering, which is a sacrificial offering. This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai's statement. And we answer:

By rabbinic ordinance.

with consecrated property for Temple maintenance, it is impossible to say this, for even when they died, also,

We raise another objection:

But is there no Torah-level [me'ila],

meaning, is there no me'ila with sacrificial offerings by Torah law?!

But it was taught in a beraita,

did we not learn:

Rabbi says:

The Torah states [Leviticus 3]: “

All fat is the Lord's,”

and we interpret it:

to include the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity with regard to me'ila. Thus, there is Torah-level me'ila even with the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity. This is difficult for Rabbi Yannai's statement .

And we answer:

By rabbinic ordinance.

We raise another objection:

But he derives it from a verse!

Rabbi derives this from an exposition of the verse; how can it be said that the law is rabbinic?

And we answer: Indeed, the me'ila is rabbinic, and the exposition of the verse

is merely an asmakhta; the Sages attached their statement to expositions of verses, but nevertheless there is no Torah-level me'ila.

We raise another objection:

But Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Offerings that died have left the realm of me'ila by Torah law” .

This implies that while they are alive there is Torah-level me'ila with regard to them.

The questioner explains Rabbi Yoḥanan's statement:

With regard to what,

which offerings did Rabbi Yoḥanan say have left the realm of me'ila upon their death?

If you say,

if you suggest:

offerings dedicated for Temple maintenance,

this cannot be said, because

even when they died as well,

why should they have left the realm of me'ila?

Let them be no better than one who consecrated a refuse heap;

how does this case differ from one who consecrated a refuse heap?

If one consecrated a refuse heap for Temple maintenance,

would it

not have me'ila with regard to it?!

Why, then, should these offerings leave the realm of me'ila upon their death?

Rather, in fact,

Rabbi Yohanan's statement concerns

sacrificial sancta,

and it was concerning these that he said that when they died, they ceased to be subject to the prohibition of misappropriation; and it follows that as long as they had not died,

they were also subject to misappropriation by Torah law .

And this is difficult, as it clearly contradicts Rabbi Yannai's statement?

We answer:

Rather,

certainly, Rabbi Yannai too agrees that sacrificial sancta are subject to misappropriation by Torah law. This is derived from what is stated, “All fat is for Hashem” ,

And this is what Rabbi Yannai's school said:

This is how they interpreted his statement in the academy of Rabbi Yannai:

From this verse,

from this verse—“the sancta of Hashem”—

we learn sancta designated for Temple maintenance,

whereas

we do not learn sacrificial sancta from it:

The law of misappropriation with regard to sacrificial sancta cannot be learned from “this verse,” because they are not entirely “the sancta of Hashem,” since a portion of them belongs to the priests and a portion to the owners.

But from another verse, “All fat is for Hashem,” we derive the law of misappropriation with regard to sacrificial sancta.