Meilah 7a — the Talmud in English

They account for

the thought of piggul

concerning what has been lost and what has been burned.

The meat of a sacrifice whose half was lost or burned, and the priest casts the blood and thinks concerning an olive-sized portion of that meat which was lost or burned that he will eat it outside its time: his [imaginary thought, which is not realistic!] thought establishes the status of piggul for the rest of the meat that remains Likewise, if the sacrificial portions were lost or burned, and he thought at the time of casting that he would burn them outside their time, it is piggul. Shita Mekubetzet and the commentary attributed to Rashi. And we raise an objection But that which has been lost and burned is not here, it is not present in the world, and yet it teaches

[“My colleagues in exile taught me”]

they account

for them.

And

therefore

the difficulty is:

Who said that Rav Asi said this? Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan: He thought

at the time of carrying

that the blood spilled would be [cast] tomorrow, that he would cast tomorrow [“outside its time”] from the blood that had spilled

from the cup [the vessel for receiving the blood]

onto the floor of the Temple courtyard,

what is the law?

Does it become piggul or not? The sides of the doubt are these: since this blood is fit for casting, a thought of piggul concerning it is effective; but, on the other hand, since there is no mitzva to gather it, and it is going to be lost, the thought of casting it is not a thought of piggul. [And from this side it is proven that Rav Asi holds that one does not account for what has been lost.] Rav Zeira said to Rav Asi: You have already taught us “allel”! “Allel” is the neck sinew of the animal, and its law is explained in the Mishna in tractate Hullin [121a]: since it is hard and unfit for eating, it does not combine with the meat to form an olive-sized measure with regard to the ritual impurity of carcasses. And for the same reason the Gemara in tractate Zevahim [35a] said: since it is something that is not ordinarily eaten, therefore, if he thought about it with a thought of piggul, one who slaughters the sacrifice with the intention of eating the “allel” outside its time does not render it piggul. And Rabbi Zeira resolves Thus it is evident, that is, it is proven, this “allel, since it has no substance, is not significant, and it is something going to be lost, a thought is not effective concerning it , and the sacrifice is not piggul. Even though if he wishes to eat it, he eats it as meat,

what is the law?

Is this pigul or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Since this blood is fit for sprinkling, an intention of pigul is effective with regard to it; on the other hand, since there is no mitzva to gather it, and it is headed toward being lost, the intention to sprinkle it is not an intention of pigul. [And from this side it is proven that Rav Asi holds that one does not formulate an intention with regard to what has been lost.]

these that are to be poured likewise, since they are going to be lost,

onto the base of the altar,

a thought is not effective concerning them

of piggul.

us the law of “sinew”! “

And Rav Asi accepted Rabbi Zeira’s proof from “allel,” and his doubt was resolved for him: one does not account for what is to be poured, because it is going to be lost.

Rather,

if so,

for Rav Asi teaches

that one accounts

for what has been lost and what has been burned, this is difficult: does Rav Asi himself not hold that one does not account for something that is going to be lost?

Rava said:

Indeed, one does not account for something that has been lost; and when Rav Asi taught, “one accounts for what has been lost and what has been burned,” he did not mean that it had already been lost and burned. Rather,

say—explain it:

for what is destined to be lost and what is destined to be burned,

and it has not yet been lost or burned. For example: he threw a piece of meat or a piece of sacrificial portions into the mouth of a dog or into the mouth of a furnace , and before it reached the mouth of the dog or the furnace, he cast the blood with a thought of piggul.

an intention is not effective with regard to them

of pigul.

Rav Asi accepted Rav Zeira’s proof from the “sinew,” and his question was resolved: One does not formulate an intention concerning the spilled blood, because it is headed toward being lost.

However,

if so,

as Rav Asi teaches

that one formulates an intention

And since at the time of the thought it was not yet lost, it is a thought of piggul .

And it is not comparable to one who thought concerning what is to be poured.

Rava said:

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Akiva’s words.

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Akiva said, “Casting is effective for what has gone out,” only when meat went out. But if

blood

went out and became disqualified, and he brought it back and cast it,

the casting is not effective for what went out, since the blood itself is disqualified. For there is no “acceptance” at all with regard to disqualified blood, except concerning piggul alone, by a scriptural decree, as it is stated concerning piggul, “it shall not be accepted,” and we expound: “Like the acceptance of what is fit, so is the acceptance of piggul.” A beraita also teaches so, and likewise we learned in a beraita If he slaughtered in silence, without a disqualifying thought, and blood went out outside the Temple courtyard, even though he brought it back and cast it again, he accomplished nothing at all! Therefore: with most-sacred sacrifices, one commits misuse through it; with lesser sanctified sacrifices, one does not commit misuse through it, as before the casting.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Akiva’s words.

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Akiva said, “Sprinkling is effective for what went outside,” only when flesh went outside. But if

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said: But consider one who designates his sin offering, and so on .

The Gemara explains Rabbi Akiva’s words concerning one who designates his sin offering. Rabbi Elazar said [the amora Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat]: Rabbi Akiva said not that, from whichever one he wishes he casts, and from whichever one he wishes he casts, but when he slaughtered both of them, the two sin offerings, at one time . But when he slaughtered them one after the other, for example, he slaughtered one and cast its blood before he slaughtered the second, Rabbi Akiva did not say so, and he agrees that the casting of the first blood does not remove the meat of the second from the status of misuse. And the reason for the difference will be explained later. The Gemara brings a beraita, and in it Rabbi Akiva’s proof is stated at length.

sprinkling is effective for what went outside,

because the blood itself is disqualified. This is because

there is no legal effect of “acceptance” for disqualified blood, except with regard to pigul alone, by a special scriptural decree. Concerning pigul it is stated, “It will not be accepted,” and we expound: “Just as the acceptance of a valid offering [is effective], so is the acceptance of pigul.”

A beraita likewise teaches,

and we likewise learned:

If one slaughtered without intention,

and blood went outside

the courtyard,

even though

he brought it back inside and

sprinkled it again, he accomplished nothing!

Therefore:

With offerings of the most sacred order, one is liable for misuse of consecrated property; with offerings of lesser sanctity, one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property,

as was the case before the sprinkling. We learned in our Mishna: Rabbi Akiva said: But consider one who designates his sin-offering, and so on .

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said: But consider one who designates his sin-offering, and so on .

It was taught

that we learned:

Rabbi Shimon said: When I went to Kfar Pani, an old man encountered me. And he said to me: Rabbi Akiva used to say

“Casting is effective for what went out”!

I said to him: “Yes!”

And when I came

and presented these words

which were the old man’s astonishment,

before Rabbi Akiva, he said to me:

Rabbi Akiva said: when you tell me the old man’s words, it seems that you agree with them and question my words;

and you—do you not say so?!

for example, he slaughtered one and sprinkled its blood before slaughtering the second,

Rabbi Akiva did not say this,

and he agrees that the sprinkling of the blood of the first does not remove the flesh of the second from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.

The reason for the difference will be explained later.

The Gemara cites a beraita, and it presents Rabbi Akiva’s proof at length.

It was taught,

we learned:

Rabbi Shimon said: When I went to Kfar Panei, I met an elderly man. He said to me: Rabbi Akiva used to say, “

‘Sprinkling is effective for what went outside’?!’ I said to him: ‘Yes!’”

And when I came

and presented these matters

which expressed the elderly man’s astonishment

before Rabbi Akiva, he said to me:

Rabbi Akiva said: When you tell me the elderly man’s words, it sounds as though you agree with him and doubt my words;

“and you do not say so?!”

And consider the case of one who separates his sin-offering and it is lost, and separates another in its place, and afterwards the first is found

and both of them are standing: one commits sacrilege with both of them. If he slaughtered them, and their blood is lying in cups, one commits sacrilege with both of them,

as long as the blood has not been sprinkled ,