Meilah 6a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara brings a beraita in order to resolve the matter in accordance with the one who says: the eligibility for eating.

ta shma,

we learned:

Rav

i

Shimon says: There is notar [

flesh of consecrated offerings of the highest sanctity that remained after the time of its eligibility for eating]

for which one is liable for misuse.

And there is notar for which one is not liable for misuse.

How so? If it remained overnight,

the flesh ,

before the sprinkling,

the blood not having been sprinkled until the following day ,

one is liable for misuse .

But if it remained overnight

after the sprinkling,

for he sprinkled it in accordance with its mitzva on the day of its offering,

one is not liable for misuse.

In any event, it teaches,

in any event we learned that although he had eligibility for sprinkling,

one is liable for misuse.

Is it

not

speaking of a case in which he received the blood while

there was time to sprinkle it,

there being sufficient time for him to sprinkle it,

, for if he wished, he could sprinkle,

if he had wanted, he would have sprinkled, but he delayed the sprinkling until after sunset?

And infer from this

that “

the eligibility for eating”

is what we learned.

For according to the one who says “eligibility for sprinkling,” it is difficult: why was it not removed from the status of misuse? After all, it reached eligibility for sprinkling.

And we reject this:

No!

There is no proof from this beraita, for the beraita is speaking of a case in which he

received it,

that he received the blood

close to sunset .

There was no time to sprinkle it,

and he did not have eligibility for sprinkling .

And we raise an objection:

But,

if

there was time, what

would be the status of the notar?

Is it likewise the case that one is not liable for misuse,

because he had eligibility for sprinkling?

If so, it is difficult: if Rabbi Shimon wished to distinguish between notar for which one is liable for misuse and notar for which one is not liable for misuse,

why specifically did he teach,

why did he state that one is liable in the circumstance of

before the sprinkling?

Let him teach,

he could have taught and distinguished between a case in which he received it

before sunset,

and there was time for him to sprinkle it, in which case one is not liable for misuse, and a case in which he received it

close to sunset,

and there was no time for him to sprinkle it, in which case one is liable ?

And we answer: This too is what he teaches,

that is, this is indeed his intention. When he said “before the sprinkling,” his intention was that he received it

before it became fit for sprinkling,

before it became fit for sprinkling,

that is, close to sunset,

and

when he said “after the sprinkling,” his intention was:

after it became fit for sprinkling,

and there was time for him to sprinkle it.

The Gemara brings a beraita similar to the preceding beraita, in order to resolve the matter in accordance with the one who says: eligibility for eating.

ta shma,

we learned:

Rabbi Shimon says: There is pigul for which one is liable for misuse, and there is pigul for which one is not liable for misuse.

How so?

If he rendered it pigul

before the sprinkling, one is liable for misuse,

and if he rendered it pigul

after the sprinkling,

that is, he rendered it pigul through the sprinkling ,

one is not liable for misuse.

In any event, it teaches,

in any event we learned that if he rendered it pigul

before the sprinkling,

and he had eligibility for sprinkling,

one is liable for misuse.

Is it

not

speaking of a case in which he received it in accordance with its mitzva,

there was time to sprinkle it, for if he wished,

if he had wanted,

he would sprinkle,

he would have sprinkled, and he already had eligibility for sprinkling ,

And

nevertheless

it teaches: one is liable for misuse,

since it did not reach valid sprinkling,

and infer from this

that Rabbi Shimon holds: “

the eligibility for eating is what we learned” !

And we reject this:

No!

There is no proof from the beraita, because the beraita is speaking of a case in which he received it close to sunset,

there was no time to sprinkle it,

and consequently it did not reach eligibility for sprinkling, as above.

And we raise an objection:

But,

if

there was time to sprinkle it, what,

would be the status of the offering?

Is it likewise the case that it went out,

that it was removed

from the status of misuse!

If so, it is difficult: if Rabbi Shimon wished to distinguish between pigul for which one is liable for misuse and pigul for which one is not liable for misuse,

why specifically did he teach,

why did he choose to establish the case in which one is not liable for misuse as one in which he rendered it pigul

after the sprinkling?

Let him teach,

he could have taught and established a legal distinction in the case of “before the sprinkling”: if he received it

before sunset,

it was removed from the status of misuse, since he had eligibility for sprinkling,

and

if he received it

close to sunset ,

it was not removed from the status of misuse?

And we answer:

This too is what he says,

this is indeed his intention, and when he said “before the sprinkling,” his intention was

before it became fit for sprinkling,

close to sunset; therefore, one is liable for misuse, since it did not reach eligibility for sprinkling. And when he said “after the sprinkling,” his intention was

after it became fit for sprinkling,

and there was time for him to sprinkle it; therefore, one is not liable for misuse, since he had eligibility for sprinkling.

The Gemara brings another beraita in order to resolve the matter in accordance with the one who says “eligibility for eating.”

ta shma

from what we learned:

For pigul among offerings of the highest sanctity, one is liable for misuse.

What,

is the meaning of the beraita? Is it

not that he had already

sprinkled ,

and it had reached eligibility for eating, and nevertheless one is liable for misuse because he rendered it pigul? And if he had not rendered it pigul, it would have been removed from the status of misuse through the sprinkling,

and infer from this: “

eligibility for eating”

is what we learned.

And we reject this:

No!

There is no proof from the beraita, because the beraita is speaking in a situation

in which he did not sprinkle .

And we raise an objection:

But,

if he had already

sprinkled it, what,

would be the status of the offering?

Is it likewise the case that one is not liable for misuse!

Since it had already been removed from the status of misuse, according to the one who says “eligibility for sprinkling,”

If so, it is difficult: when the tanney wished to distinguish between a situation in which one is liable for misuse and one in which one is not liable for misuse,

why specifically did he teach,

why did he state in the latter clause:

among offerings of lesser sanctity, one is not liable for misuse,

and the pigul did not bring it into the status of misuse?

Let him teach,

he should have taught and distinguished within “offerings of the highest sanctity” themselves, where there is a situation in which one is liable for misuse and a situation in which one is not liable for misuse.

Here,

where he rendered it pigul

before the sprinkling,

and it was not removed from the status of misuse through receiving performed with pigul;

and here,

where he rendered it pigul

after the sprinkling,

and it was removed from the status of misuse from the time that he had eligibility for sprinkling?

And we answer:

This comes to teach us,

the tanney comes to teach us a major novelty:

everything that brings in,

the portions offered on the altar of offerings of lesser sanctity, which the sprinkling brings

to the status of misuse, valid sprinkling,

without pigul,

brings to the status of misuse, whereas sprinkling of pigul does not bring them into the status of misuse. But

whereas sprinkling performed with an intention of pigul does not bring them to the status of misuse. But

everything that takes out,

offerings of the highest sanctity which the sprinkling removes

from the status of misuse, even

sprinkling of pigul, which is

not performed in accordance with its proper manner, also removes,

also removes them

from the status of misuse.

And this is not like Rav Giddel!

And it is not like Rav Giddel!