Meilah 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

Introduction The sprinkling of the blood of most holy offerings removes the flesh from the prohibition of meila, whereas with lesser sanctity offerings it brings the sacrificial portions under the prohibition of meila. The Mishna comes to teach us the law of most holy offerings that became disqualified before their blood was sprinkled—for example, if the sacrificial rites were performed for them, but not in accordance with their prescribed requirements, and they thereby became disqualified, so that they consequently never became permitted to the kohanim. Therefore, they do not leave the category of objects subject to meila, and one who derives benefit from them has committed meila. The law of lesser sanctity offerings will be explained in the following Mishna. Mishna:

Most holy offerings,

whose law is that they must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as explained in tractate Zevachim [47a,

if one slaughtered them in the south

although they thereby became disqualified, nevertheless they did not leave their sanctity with regard to the law of meila, and one still

commits meila through them.

The Mishna explains

how:

If one slaughtered them in the south,

not in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

and received their blood in the north,

in accordance with their prescribed requirements; and likewise, if one slaughtered them

in the north

in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

and received their blood in the south,

not in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

And likewise, if he

slaughtered

them

during the day,

in accordance with their prescribed requirements [all the sacrificial rites—slaughter, receiving the blood, conveying it, and sprinkling it—must be performed during the day], and

sprinkled

their blood

at night,

not in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

And likewise if he slaughtered

at night,

before daybreak, not in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

and

sprinkled their blood

during the day,

in accordance with their prescribed requirements,

Or if he slaughtered them

during the day and in the north, but at the time of slaughter he intended to sprinkle their blood, burn their sacrificial portions, or eat their flesh

beyond its appointed time,

and the offering thereby became disqualified and became pigul, and one who eats it, even within its appointed time, is liable to karet, [as we learned in tractate Zevachim 27b],

or

at the time of slaughter he intended to sprinkle their blood, burn their sacrificial portions, or eat their flesh

outside its designated place,

and the offering became disqualified, but did not thereby become pigul, for which one is liable to karet for eating it.

In all these cases,

one commits meila through them,

since the offering is disqualified and never became permitted to the kohanim. Therefore they are still called “offerings of the Lord.”

The Gemara will explain what novel point the Mishna teaches, and it will likewise explain why the Mishna chose these disqualifications and what novel point each one teaches.

Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general rule: Every

consecrated animal

that had a moment when it was permitted to the kohanim,

meaning that the rites were performed validly and the flesh was permitted to the kohanim even for a single moment, although it was subsequently disqualified, as will be explained,

is not subject to meila,

and it is no longer called “an offering of the Lord,” since it had already become permitted to the kohanim —

But any offering that did not have a moment when it was permitted to the kohanim

because it became disqualified before the rites permitting it to be eaten were completed,

is subject to meila,

since it was never permitted for consumption, it is considered among the offerings of the Lord, even though it is disqualified, as explained.

What is an offering that had a moment when it was permitted to the kohanim,

and is therefore not subject to meila?

For example:

one that remained overnight,

after the flesh had become permitted to the kohanim, it “remained” until morning [most holy offerings are eaten on the day they are offered and during the night until morning; if dawn passed over them, they became disqualified [and this is called notar].

And one that became impure,

the animal, after it had become permitted to the kohanim,

and one that left [they took it] outside the Temple courtyard, which is the place where most holy offerings are eaten, and it thereby became disqualified [and this is called yotze],

meaning that they took it outside the Temple courtyard, which is the place where most sacred offerings are eaten, and it thereby became disqualified; this is called yotze, “that which left”],

In all these cases, if one derived benefit from them, he has not committed meila.

And what is an offering that did not become permitted to the kohanim,

and is subject to meila?

For example,

one that was slaughtered

with the intention

beyond its appointed time, or with the intention

or with the intention

outside its designated place,

and became disqualified immediately upon its slaughter, as explained.

And if

kohanim who were

disqualified

received

or

those who were disqualified

sprinkled its blood. Since it never became permitted to the kohanim, one commits meila through it.

Since it never had a time when it was permitted to the priests, one may misuse it.

Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned these disqualifications, and the same law applies to one who slaughtered in the south or slaughtered at night.

Gemara:

It is taught

in our Mishna:

Most holy offerings slaughtered in the south are subject to meila.

And we raise an objection:

Obviously

they are subject to meila!

But

because one slaughtered them

in the south—

did he remove them

from the category

subject to meila?!

After all, the offering is disqualified and never became permitted to the kohanim; by what means did it leave the category of “offerings of the Lord”? And we answer:

It was necessary—

the tanna needed to teach us that

it might have entered your mind

to say:

Since Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: By Torah law, offerings that died have left the category subject to meila,

because once they are destined to be lost, they are no longer called “offerings of the Lord” by Torah law [although rabbinically they still retain the law of meila]—it might have entered your mind to say

here too, with regard to most holy offerings in relation to the south,

which one slaughtered or received their blood in the south, causing them to become disqualified and destined to be lost,

their status is as though

he strangled them,

meaning that their law is as though he had strangled them —

and therefore, apparently, they would leave the status of me'ila,

this teaches us

the Mishna teaches us that this is not so, and they do not leave the status of me'ila!

You might say: Why indeed are they not like offerings that died? The answer is:

Offerings that died are not fit for anything at all.

They have no form of allowance within any offering, and therefore they are not included among “the sacred offerings of the Lord,”

but as for the southern area, although

even though

the

southern area

is not

a place

fit for sacred offerings of the highest degree,

nevertheless, the southern area

is fit for offerings of lesser sanctity,

whose slaughter may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard. Since some service was performed upon them that is valid in another location, their status is not identical to that of offerings that died, and they are still called “the sacred offerings of the Lord.”

And the Gemara explains:

Why do I need the Mishna to teach all of these?

Why did the Mishna need to teach all of these invalid cases [slaughter in the south, receiving the blood in the south, slaughter at night and sprinkling at night, outside its designated time and outside its designated place]? It would have sufficed for the Mishna to teach one case and derive the other invalid cases from it: Although they became disqualified, there is me'ila in them?

They are necessary.

It is necessary to teach all of these, because if it had taught us only one of them, we could not have derived the other invalid cases from it—

If it taught

if it taught only the law of

“They slaughtered them in the south and received their blood in the north,”

one could say:

Here there is me'ila in them because the blood was received in the north ,

and since the receiving—which is the principal service—was performed properly, this is not considered as though they strangled them, and they are still called “the sacred offerings of the Lord”; therefore there is me'ila in them.

But

when

they slaughtered them in the north and received their blood in the south,

since they received their blood in the south,

and their principal service was performed improperly,

I might say

one could say:

they leave

the status

of me'ila,

and this is like one who strangled them. Therefore the Mishna teaches us that they do not leave the status of me'ila, and they are not like one who strangled them, as explained: Since the southern area is fit for offerings of lesser sanctity.

And if it taught these,

slaughter or receiving the blood in the south,

I would have thought

I might say that this is not considered like one who strangled them

because it is daytime,

which is the time for offering,

for at least he performed the services during the day, which is the time of the service. Therefore they are considered “the sacred offerings of the Lord,” and they do not leave the status of me'ila.

But

when

he slaughtered it at night and sprinkled the blood during the day, since night is not the time for offering,

it is not a time fit for offering,

I might say

one could say that it should be considered as though he performed no service upon them at all, but rather as though he strangled them, and

there is no me'ila in them;

therefore the Mishna teaches us that they do not leave the status of me'ila, and this is not like one who strangled them.

And if

it taught: He slaughtered at night and sprinkled during the day, I would have thought

there is me'ila in it

because the sprinkling took place during the day,

and the principal services were performed during the day; therefore they are not like one who strangled them.

But if he slaughtered during the day and sprinkled at night, since the sprinkling took place at night,

and its principal service was performed at night,

it is considered as though he strangled them,

as though he strangled them, and as though no service had been performed upon them, and there is no me'ila in them.

This teaches us

that nevertheless they do not leave the status of me'ila, since this is not like one who strangled them.

We now raise an objection: Regarding all those cases taught by the Mishna—south and night—it is clear why there is me'ila in them and why they are not like one who strangled them: the southern area is fit for offerings of lesser sanctity, and likewise night, as explained.

But if he slaughtered with the intention of eating or burning

outside its designated time, or outside its designated place,

it is difficult: Why is there me'ila in them? Their slaughter rendered them invalid, and

for what are they fit?

For what purpose are they fit?

The sacrificial portions are not fit to be burned upon the altar, nor is the flesh fit for the priests. Why are they not considered like one who strangled them, in which case there should be no me'ila in them?

And we answer:

Since

the sprinkling of their blood

can effect acceptance for pigul.

One who slaughters or performs one of the services of an offering with a thought of outside its designated time—that is, he intends to eat the flesh or burn the sacrificial portions after the time permitted for eating them or the time permitted for burning them—thereby renders the offering invalid; it is called pigul. Likewise, if he performed the services with a thought of outside its designated place, the offering becomes invalid. In addition to the offering’s being invalid, it is forbidden to eat the flesh even within its permitted time, and one who eats it is liable to karet. But if he performed the service with a thought of “outside its designated place,” he is not liable to karet for eating it. "

“Provided that the permitting service was performed properly,” meaning that at the time of sprinkling the blood, he sprinkled it with that same invalid thought, or sprinkled it silently, without a thought of pigul.

But if he sprinkles the blood with a different invalid thought—for example, he slaughtered with a thought of outside its designated time and sprinkled with a thought of outside its designated place, or he slaughtered with a thought of outside its designated time and sprinkled with a thought of not for its sake [in those offerings that become invalid when performed with a thought of not for its sake]—the offering is not pigul. And as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the pigul has not been “established” so as to make him liable to karet for eating it.

This matter is explained at length in tractates Zevakhim and Menakhot, and is derived from what the Torah says [Leviticus 19]: “It is pigul; it shall not be accepted.” And we expound: “Just as the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the acceptance of an invalid offering.” That is, just as the sprinkling of the blood effects atonement [for that for which the offering comes to atone—each offering according to its atonement], and the sprinkling effects acceptance of the offering’s atonement, and the offering is not valid until all its permitting services have been performed—that is, until the blood is sprinkled for the sake of the offering, and this determines the offering’s validity—so too, in the case of pigul, the sprinkling of the blood is the act that “effects acceptance,” and the offering does not yet acquire the established status of the prohibition of pigul until its blood is sprinkled for the sake of that pigul, or silently.

We learn from this that the sprinkling of the blood that follows a thought of pigul is what “establishes” the flesh as pigul, making one liable to karet for eating it; before that, at the time of slaughter, it has not left its sanctity. Until the sprinkling, the offering remains subject to the possibility that he may form another invalid thought during a service and thereby remove its status of pigul. Therefore, slaughter performed with a thought of pigul is not considered like strangling the offering; rather, it is the service of slaughter of a sacred offering, and there is me'ila in it.