Meilah 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

The Mishna continues to explain the law of combining items for purposes of meila. In the previous Mishna, we learned only about combining the meat of two offerings. This Mishna comes to teach that the other parts of the offering also combine, including the meal offerings and libations.

Five items of an

offering

of a burnt offering

, combine with one another,

to render one liable for offering them outside

,

and likewise with regard to rendering one liable for eating piggul, notar, or something impure, and likewise to render one liable for meila.

And these are:

the meat and the fat

[the sacrificial portions],

and the fine flour

of the meal offering that accompanies it,

and the wine

of the wine libations,

and the oil

of the meal offering. If he burned outside a half-kezayit of one type and a half-kezayit of another type, he is liable. Similarly, if he ate a half-kezayit of pigul, notar, or something impure of one type together with a half-kezayit of pigul, notar, or something impure of another type, they combine to render him liable to karet for them. And similarly, if he misappropriated the value of half a peruta from one of the five items and half a peruta from the other items, he is liable for meila.

And six

items combine

in an

offering

of a thanksgiving offering,

to render one liable for pigul, notar, and impurity.

And these are:

the meat, the fat, and the fine flour

of the meal offering that accompanies it [the libation meal offering ],

and the wine and the oil

of the libation meal offering,

and the bread,

the forty loaves of the thanksgiving offering that accompany it.

But there is no meila in a thanksgiving offering, because it is kodshei kalim.

GEMARA:

Rav Huna taught this to his son, Rabba ,

Rav Huna taught his son, Rabba:

“Five items in the world”

[with a final mem]

“combine with one another.”

He said to him

Rabba to Rav Huna:

“Did you say ‘in the world’

?!

Are there only five things in the world?! But it is taught,

for we learned in the conclusion of the Mishna:

“In a thanksgiving offering, six items of the thanksgiving offering: the meat, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves of the thanksgiving offering,”

so there are more than five items “in the world”!

He said to him,

retract your statement!

And teach

and recite:

“In a burnt offering.”

The Gemara explains that our Mishna, which states that the meat combines with the sacrificial portions, supports what the beraita said.

We learned

our Mishna as

that which the Sages taught,

this beraita:

“A burnt offering and sacrificial portions

and its sacrificial portions

combine to form a kezayit ,

meat that is less than the requisite measure combines with the sacrificial portions to complete the measure of a kezayit,

“to offer them outside,”

to render one liable if he offers them outside,

“and to render one liable for them on account of pigul, notar, and impurity.”

The Gemara understood that this refers to one who eats an olive-bulk of piggul, notar, or ritually impure food, half from the meat and half from the sacrificial portions.

The Gemara assumed that this refers to eating a kezayit of pigul, notar, or something impure, half from the meat and half from the sacrificial portions.

Therefore, the Gemara infers:

“It teaches”

we learned: “a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions,” which implies:

“In a burnt offering, yes,”

indeed, they combine, whereas

“in a peace offering, no,”

they do not combine.

And this is difficult:

“Granted, with regard to offering them outside,”

the distinction between a burnt offering and a peace offering is understandable, because

“a burnt offering is entirely burned,”

its meat is burned on the altar just as the sacrificial portions are burned, and everything is considered like sacrificial portions ; therefore

“they combine.”

Whereas

“a peace offering,”

whose meat is not burned, and if one offers its meat outside he is exempt because it is not accepted inside [as explained and because one is liable for offering outside only for an item fit to be accepted inside], and since this is so,

“they do not”

combine; and if the sacrificial portions alone do not contain a complete measure, he is not liable.

“Rather,”

it is difficult: with regard

“to render one liable for them on account of pigul, notar, and impurity, why is he not liable?”

Why should a half-kezayit of meat that is pigul, notar, or impure not combine with a half-kezayit of sacrificial portions that are pigul, notar, or impure, so as to render one who eats it liable? For pigul, notar, and impurity apply both to meat and to sacrificial portions [as explained in Zevahim 43a], and pigul, notar, and impurity apply to all offerings, not specifically to a burnt offering.

“But we learned,”

and we learned in the following Mishna:

“All

items of pigul combine with one another, and all items of notar combine with one another,”

even sacrificial portions with meat.

Why, then, did the beraita state the law of combining meat and sacrificial portions of pigul, notar, and impurity only with regard to a burnt offering ? And we answer:

“Rather, say”,

this is how the beraita should be explained:

“A burnt offering and its sacrificial portions combine with one another to form a kezayit, so that the blood may be sprinkled for them,”

for example, if the meat and the sacrificial portions were lost before the sprinkling of the blood, and half a kezayit of meat and half a kezayit of sacrificial portions remained.

“And since they combine so that the blood may be sprinkled, he is liable, etc.”

Now, in the case of a burnt offering, the meat combines with the sacrificial portions to form a kezayit, since it is entirely burned and everything is burned. Therefore, there is here “the eating of the altar,” and the sprinkling of the blood is a valid sprinkling. And since it is a valid sprinkling and the offering is valid, consequently, if it became pigul or notar and he ate a kezayit of it, or if he ate a kezayit of it while subject to bodily impurity, he is liable.

This is not so with regard to a peace offering: half a kezayit of meat and half a kezayit of sacrificial portions do not combine. Therefore, neither a measure of meat [the eating of a person] nor a measure of sacrificial portions [the eating of the altar] remains, and there is no “remainder” for which the blood can be sprinkled, as will be explained. Therefore, even if he sprinkled the blood, the sprinkling is not considered valid, and one is not liable for eating pigul, notar, or something impure. This is as we establish [Menahot 25b]: For anything that is permitted to pure people, one is liable for it on account of impurity, and the same applies with regard to pigul and notar. That is, one is liable for pigul, notar, and impurity only with regard to an offering in which the blood was sprinkled.

It follows that in the case of a burnt offering, the combining of the meat with the sacrificial portions results in a valid sprinkling and consequently in liability for eating pigul, notar, or something impure. In the case of a peace offering, however, they do not combine and the sprinkling is not valid; therefore, there is no liability for eating pigul, notar, or something impure.

The Gemara continues: “And who is the author of this teaching,” that is, according to whose opinion was the beraita taught?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds [Zevahim 104a] that the blood is sprinkled only if either a kezayit of meat for the eating of a person or a kezayit of sacrificial portions for the eating of the altar remains. Therefore, in the case of a peace offering, he does not sprinkle the blood.

But Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the blood is sprinkled and the offering is valid even if a kezayit of meat did not remain, would hold that in the case of a peace offering, too, despite the fact that the meat does not combine with the sacrificial portions, one is liable for pigul, notar, and impurity, because the sprinkling is valid in any event.

As it is taught,

as we learned:

“Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah, if a kezayit of meat and a kezayit

“or a kezayit”

“of fat remained from them, he sprinkles the blood.”

But if

“half a kezayit of meat and half a kezayit of fat remained, he does not sprinkle the blood.”

“And in the case of a burnt offering, even if”

there remained

“half a kezayit of meat and half a kezayit of fat, he sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely burned.”

The beraita continues:

“And with regard to a meal offering, even if all of it remains, he shall not sprinkle”

the blood.

And we ask:

“A meal offering?! What is its relevance?”

That is, what does the sprinkling of blood have to do with a meal offering?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita is speaking

“of a libation meal offering”

that accompanies the sacrifice, where the meat of the sacrifice was lost but the meal offering remained. Concerning this, the beraita says that he shall not sprinkle the blood for the sake of the remaining meal offering, and it is not like a case in which a kezayit of meat or a kezayit of sacrificial portions remains, since the meal offering is not part of the body of the sacrifice.

MISHNA:

The Mishna continues with the laws governing the combining of prohibitions with one another.

Teruma,

the teruma gedola given to a kohen, two of one hundred,

and terumat ma'aser ,

which the Levite gives to the kohen, one tenth of the tithe that he received,

and terumat ma'aser

of demai

[produce purchased from an am ha'aretz suspected of not tithing his produce is called demai. The Sages enacted that the purchaser must tithe it, and that the Levite must separate terumat ma'aser from the tithe]

and hallah and first fruits,

all of these

combine with one another,

because they are all called “teruma” and they are all one prohibition, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And with regard to which law do they combine?

To prohibit:

if produce of these species fell into non-sacred produce, and there is not one hundred times their combined amount in the non-sacred produce, although there is one hundred times the amount of each individual species in the mixture, they all combine to prohibit the non-sacred produce, as is the law with regard to teruma, which is not nullified unless there is one hundred times the amount of the teruma in the non-sacred produce And likewise, if one of them fell into a dish of non-sacred food, and there is not sixty times the combined amount of all the species in the non-sacred food .

And likewise, if leaven from these species fell into dough of non-sacred produce, and together they are sufficient to leaven the dough, although none of them alone is sufficient to leaven it, they all combine to prohibit the dough, as is the law with regard to teruma, which prohibits non-sacred produce [even if there is more than one hundred times the amount of the teruma in the non-sacred produce] when the teruma leavens the non-sacred produce .

And

they likewise combine to reach the measure of an olive-bulk

to render one liable for the additional fifth

as is the law with regard to one who eats teruma unwittingly, who pays the principal and an additional fifth.

The Mishna continues with the law of combining.

All piggul offerings,

from all the offerings,

combine with one another.

For example: one who eats half an olive-bulk of piggul from an ola and half an olive-bulk of piggul from shelamim is liable for karet, as is one who eats an olive-bulk of piggul.

And

likewise,

all the notar offerings ,

combine with one another.

And below, in the Gemara [17b], it will be explained that piggul, notar, and impure sacrificial meat combine with one another.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reason that ḥalla and bikkurim combine with teruma.

What is the reason?

All of them,

all these items,

are called

that is, they are called

“teruma.”

With regard to ḥalla, it is written

[Numbers 15]:

“From the first portion of your kneading troughs you shall give a gift.”

Bikkurim

are also called teruma.

As it is taught

, we learned in a beraita: The Torah states [Deuteronomy 12], “You may not eat within your gates …

and the gift of your hand,”

and the Sages expounded:

This refers to bikkurim,

which one may not eat as “gates” eating, meaning outside Jerusalem. And “your hand” refers to bikkurim, as it is stated in the passage concerning bikkurim [Deuteronomy 26]: “And the kohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

Thus, the Torah called bikkurim “teruma.”

But the others,

the other items listed in the Mishna—teruma, terumat ma'aser, and the terumat ma'aser of demai—

need no explanation,

as there is no need to explain why they combine, since it is obvious that they are called teruma.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with regard to the combining of prohibitions.

One who eats an olive-bulk of an animal carcass is flogged.

There is also another halakha concerning an animal carcass: it is a primary source of impurity, and it renders vessels, food, and liquids impure through contact; and it renders a person impure even through carrying.

The impurity of an animal carcass applies also to the carcass of an impure domesticated animal or wild animal [even if it was slaughtered properly].

All animal carcasses combine with one another

to reach the measure of an olive-bulk. That is, half an olive-bulk of an animal carcass from one animal and half an olive-bulk from another animal combine. And the Gemara will explain whether they combine only with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses, or whether they also combine to create liability for lashes for eating any animal carcass.

One who eats an olive-bulk of a creeping animal is flogged, but it does not render one impure. When does this apply? To the other creeping animals, such as a frog, snake, or scorpion. But the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah [Leviticus 11], such as the mole, mouse, and tortoise, in addition to the prohibition against eating them, also render a person and vessels, food and liquids impure through contact, but not through carrying. Their measure for imparting impurity is the size of a lentil.

And all creeping animals

combine with one another.

That is, the other creeping animals combine to reach the measure of an olive-bulk, rendering one liable for lashes for eating them. And the eight creeping animals combine to reach the measure of a lentil, to impart the impurity of creeping animals. They likewise combine to render one liable for lashes for eating them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All animal carcasses combine with one another.

The Gemara discusses whether they combine only with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses, or whether they also combine with regard to eating.

That is, with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses, the Torah states [there]: “And when an animal dies that is among those that are yours to eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” And the Sages expounded [Ḥullin 70b, 71a] that the carcass of an impure animal also imparts impurity.

Therefore, with regard to the law of the impurity of animal carcasses, there is no difference between the carcass of a pure animal and that of an impure animal; all of them impart impurity. And since all of them impart impurity and the measure for all of them is an olive-bulk, they all combine.

But with regard to the prohibition against eating, it may be said that for eating the carcass of an impure animal one is not flogged on account of the prohibition against eating an animal carcass, but only on account of the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

The reason is that since the animal was already forbidden by the prohibition against eating an “impure animal,” the prohibition against an “animal carcass” did not take effect upon its death, because “one prohibition does not take effect upon another.”

Only pure animals become forbidden upon their death on account of the prohibition against an animal carcass.

It follows that according to this opinion, when the Mishna states that animal carcasses combine, it means that all carcasses—of impure animals and of pure animals—combine to reach an olive-bulk with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses.

But with regard to liability for lashes for the prohibition against eating an animal carcass, the pure animals combine separately. If one ate half an olive-bulk of the carcass of this pure domesticated or wild animal together with half an olive-bulk of the carcass of another pure domesticated or wild animal, he is flogged for violating the prohibition against eating an animal carcass.

And the impure animals combine separately. If one ate half an olive-bulk of one impure domesticated or wild animal together with half an olive-bulk of another impure domesticated or wild animal, he is flogged for violating the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

But if one ate half an olive-bulk of a pure animal together with half an olive-bulk of an impure animal, he is not flogged. The half olive-bulk of the impure animal does not combine, because it is not prohibited at all by the prohibition against animal carcasses.

And it is obvious that the prohibition against eating an animal carcass does not combine with the prohibition against eating an impure animal, because the law of combining applies to two portions of one prohibition [“there”], and not to two different prohibitions.

Gemara:

Rav said: