Meilah 15b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to explain the law of combining for meila. In the preceding Mishna we learned only the combining of flesh from two offerings, and the Mishna comes to innovate that the other parts of the offering also combine, and even the meal-offerings and libations .

Five things of an

offering

burnt-offering

, combine with one another,

to become liable on account of one who offers outside [the Temple] 551 ,

and likewise with regard to becoming liable for eating

pigul, notar, and impure, and likewise to become liable for meila .

And these are:

the flesh and the milk-fat

sacrificial portions],

and the fine flour

of the meal-offering that comes with it,

and the wine

the wine of the libations,

and the oil

of the meal-offering. If he offered outside half a kezayit of one kind and half a kezayit of another kind, he is liable. And likewise, if he ate half a kezayit of pigul, notar, and impure of one kind together with half a kezayit of pigul, notar, and impure of another kind, they combine to make him liable to karet on their account. And likewise, if he committed meila with half a peruta from one of the five things and half a peruta from the remaining things, he is liable on account of meila .

And six

things combine

in an

offering

thanksgiving-offering,

to become liable on their account for pigul, notar, and impure.

And these are:

the flesh, the milk-fat, and the fine flour

the meal-offering that comes with it [the meal-offering of libations ],

and the wine and the oil

of the meal-offering of libations,

and the bread,

the forty loaves of the thanksgiving-offering that come with it.

But there is no meila in a thanksgiving-offering, because it is an offering of lesser sanctity.

Gemara:

Rav Huna taught it to Rabba his son ,

Rav Huna taught his son, Rabba:

five things 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” ?!

Is there only five things in the world?!

But it teaches,

for we learned in the conclusion:

In a thanksgiving-offering, six things of the thanksgiving-offering: the flesh, the milk-fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

so there are more than five things “in the world”?

He said to him,

retract!

And teach

and repeat:

in a burnt-offering.

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

We learned,

our Mishna taught

that which the Sages taught,

this beraita:

A burnt-offering and sacrificial portions

and its sacrificial portions ]

combine to form a kezayit ,

flesh less than the measure combines with the sacrificial portions to complete the measure of a kezayit,

to offer them outside,

to become liable on their account if he offered them outside,

and to make one liable on their account for pigul, notar, and impure.

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 thought that this refers to one who eats a kezayit measure of pigul, notar, and impure, half of it from the flesh and half from the sacrificial portions,

therefore the Gemara infers:

It teaches

we learned: “a burnt-offering and its sacrificial portions”; this implies

in a burnt-offering, yes,

indeed they combine, whereas

in a peace-offering, no,

they do not combine,

and it is difficult:

Granted, to offer them outside,

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

a burnt-offering is entirely offered,

its flesh is offered upon the altar fire just as the sacrificial portions are offered, and everything is considered like sacrificial portions , therefore

they combine,

whereas

peace-offerings,

whose flesh is not offered, and if he offered its flesh outside he is exempt, because it is not accepted inside [as explained , that one is liable for offering outside only for something fit to be accepted inside], and since this is so,

they do not

combine, and if there is not a complete measure in the sacrificial portions alone, he is not liable.

Rather,

it is difficult regarding

making one liable on their account for pigul, notar, and impure: why does it not make one liable,

and why should half a kezayit of flesh of pigul, notar, and impure not combine with half a kezayit of sacrificial portions of pigul, notar, and impure, so that one who eats it becomes liable? For pigul, notar, and impure apply both to flesh and to sacrificial portions [as explained in Zevahim 43a], and pigul, notar, and impure apply to all offerings, and not specifically to a burnt-offering,

But we learned,

and yet we learned [in the following Mishna]:

all

the pigulim combine with one another, and all the notarot combine with one another,

even sacrificial portions with flesh,

And why did the beraita state the law of combining flesh and sacrificial portions of pigul, notar, and impure with regard only to a burnt-offering ? And we answer:

Rather, say

that the beraita should be explained as follows:

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

for example, if the flesh and the sacrificial portions were lost before the sprinkling of the blood, and half a kezayit of flesh 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 flesh combines with the sacrificial portions to form a kezayit, since it is entirely offered and everything is offered; therefore there is here “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, therefore, if it became pigul or notar, and he ate a kezayit of it, or if he ate a kezayit of it with bodily impurity, he is liable.

This is not so with peace-offerings: half a kezayit of flesh and half a kezayit of sacrificial portions do not combine; therefore neither a measure of flesh [human eating] nor a measure of sacrificial portions [altar eating] remains, and there is no “remainder” upon which to sprinkle the blood, as will be explained. Therefore, even if he sprinkled it, the sprinkling is not considered [valid], and one is not liable on its account for eating pigul, notar, and impure. As we establish [Menahot 25b]: for everything permitted to the pure, one is liable on its account for impurity, and likewise concerning pigul and notar. That is, one is liable on its account for pigul, notar, and impure only when the sprinkling was performed on the offering.

It follows that in the case of a burnt-offering, the combining of the flesh with the sacrificial portions causes a valid sprinkling, and consequently liability for eating pigul, notar, and impure. But in the case of peace-offerings, they do not combine and the sprinkling is not valid; therefore there is no liability for eating pigul, notar, and impure.

And the Gemara continues: And who taught it, according to whose view was the beraita taught?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds [Zevahim 104a] that one sprinkles the blood only if either a kezayit of flesh for human eating or a kezayit of sacrificial portions for offering, for altar eating, remains; therefore, in the case of peace-offerings, he does not sprinkle the blood,

but Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one sprinkles the blood and the offering is valid even if a kezayit of flesh did not remain, would hold that also in peace-offerings, despite the fact that the flesh does not combine with the sacrificial portions, one is liable for pigul, notar, and impure, because the sprinkling is valid in any event,

as it was taught,

as we learned:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the sacrifices in the Torah from which a kezayit of flesh and a kezayit

or a kezayit

of milk-fat remained, one sprinkles the blood.

But if

half a kezayit of flesh and half a kezayit of milk-fat remained, he does not sprinkle the blood.

And in the case of a burnt-offering, even if

half a kezayit of flesh and half a kezayit of milk-fat

remained, he sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely offered.

And the beraita continues:

And with regard to a meal-offering, even if it is entirely intact, he shall not sprinkle

the blood.

And we wonder:

A meal-offering?! What is its relevance?

That is, what relevance does the sprinkling of blood have to a meal-offering?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita is speaking

of a meal-offering of libations

that comes with the sacrifice, and the flesh of the sacrifice was lost while the meal-offering remained; concerning this the beraita says: He shall not sprinkle the blood for the sake of the meal-offering that remained, and it is not like a kezayit of flesh or a kezayit of sacrificial portions that remained, since the meal-offering is not part of the body of the sacrifice.

Mishna:

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

Teruma,

the great teruma given to a priest, two from one hundred,

and the tithe-teruma ,

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

and the tithe-teruma

of demai

produce purchased from an am ha-aretz suspected of not tithing his produce is called “demai.” And the Sages enacted that the purchaser should tithe it, and the Levite should separate the tithe-teruma from the tithe]

and the hallah and the first fruits,

all these

combine with one another,

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

To which law do they join?

To prohibit,

if fruits of these species fell into non-sacred produce, and there is not in the non-sacred produce one hundred against all of them, despite the fact that there is one hundred of non-sacred produce against each and every species in the mixture, they all join together to prohibit the non-sacred produce, according to the law of teruma, which is not nullified unless there is one hundred in the non-sacred produce against the teruma . And likewise, if it fell into a dish of non-sacred food, and there is not in the non-sacred food sixty against all the species together .

And likewise, if leaven from these species fell into dough of non-sacred food, and all of them together have enough to leaven the dough, despite the fact that none of them alone has enough to leaven it, they all join together to prohibit the dough, according to the law of teruma, which prohibits the non-sacred food [even if there is in the non-sacred food more than one hundred against the teruma] when the teruma leavens the non-sacred food .

And

they likewise join for the measure of an olive-bulk

to make one liable for the fifth,

according to the law of one who eats teruma inadvertently, who pays the principal and a fifth.

The Mishna continues with the law of joining.

All piggul,

from all the offerings,

join one with another.

For example: one who eats half an olive-bulk of piggul from an olah and half an olive-bulk of piggul from shelamim is liable for karet, according to the law of one who eats an olive-bulk of piggul.

And

so

all notar

join one with another.

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

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reason that hallah and bikkurim join with teruma.

What is the reason?

All of them,

all these,

are called,

are called

“teruma.”

Regarding hallah, it is written [Numbers 15],

“

From the first of your kneading-troughs you shall give a contribution.”

Bikkurim

are also called teruma.

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita: The Torah said [Deuteronomy 12], “You will not be able to eat within your gates ...

and the contribution of your hand,”

and the Sages expounded:

These are bikkurim,

which one is forbidden to eat as the eating of the gates—that is, outside Jerusalem. And “your hand,” that is bikkurim, as it is stated in the passage concerning bikkurim [Deuteronomy 26], “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand.”

Thus, the Torah called bikkurim “teruma.”

But the others,

the rest of those distinguished in the Mishna: teruma, the teruma of the tithe, and the teruma of the tithe of demai,

there is no need,

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

Mishna:

The Mishna continues concerning the joining of prohibitions.

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

There is also another law concerning an animal carcass: it is a primary source of impurity, and it imparts impurity to vessels, food, and liquids through contact, and it imparts impurity to a person 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 join one with another,

for 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 join together. And in the Gemara it will be explained whether they join only with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses, or whether they also join for liability to lashes for every eating of an animal carcass.

One who eats an olive-bulk of a creeping creature is flogged, and it does not impart impurity. When does this apply? With regard to the other creeping creatures, such as the frog, the snake, and the scorpion. But the eight creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah [Leviticus 11], such as the mole, the mouse, and the tortoise, in addition to the prohibition against eating, also impart impurity [to people and vessels, food and liquids] through contact but not through carrying. And their measure for imparting impurity is an olive-pit-bulk.

And all creeping creatures

join one with another.

That is, the other creeping creatures join for the measure of an olive-bulk, to make one liable to lashes for eating them. And the eight creeping creatures join for the measure of an olive-pit-bulk, to impart the impurity of creeping creatures. And likewise, to make one who eats them liable to lashes.

Gemara:

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

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

That is, with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses, the Torah said [there], “And when an animal dies, of the animal that is for you to eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” And the Sages expounded [Hullin 70b, 71a] that also the carcass of an impure animal 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 the carcass of an impure animal, and all of them impart impurity. And since all of them impart impurity and the measure of all of them is an olive-bulk, they all join.

But with regard to the prohibition against eating, there is room to say that for the carcass of an impure animal one is not flogged on account of the prohibition against an animal carcass, but on account of the prohibition against eating an impure animal alone.

And 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. For “one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.”

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

It follows that according to this view, what the Mishna said—that the animal carcasses join—means that all animal carcasses, from impure animals and from pure animals, join for the measure of an olive-bulk with regard to the impurity of animal carcasses.

Whereas with regard to liability to lashes for the prohibition against eating an animal carcass, the pure ones join among themselves. And if one ate half an olive-bulk of a carcass from this pure domesticated animal or wild animal together with half an olive-bulk from another pure domesticated animal or wild animal, he is flogged for the prohibition against eating an animal carcass.

And the impure ones join among themselves. And if one ate half an olive-bulk from one impure domesticated animal or wild animal together with half an olive-bulk from another impure domesticated animal or wild animal, he is flogged for the prohibition against an impure animal.

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

And it is obvious that the prohibition against eating an animal carcass does not join with the prohibition against eating an impure animal, because the law of joining applies to two portions of one prohibition, and not to two different prohibitions.

Gemara:

Rav said: