Meilah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

They deem

a piggul thought

concerning what has been lost or burned.

The flesh of a sacrifice half of which was lost or burned, and the priest performs the blood-throwing and thinks concerning an olive-bulk of that flesh that was lost or burned that he will eat it beyond its allotted time—the thought [an imagined thought that does not correspond to reality!] establishes the status of piggul for the rest of the flesh that remains . And we challenge this

And we raise an objection

But that which is lost or burned is not present

not present

in the world, and nevertheless it teaches

[my teachers in the Diaspora taught me]

They deem

concerning them.

And

therefore it is difficult:

Did Rav Asi really say this? Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan: He thought

at the time of carrying

concerning blood that would be spilled tomorrow

that he would throw it tomorrow [“beyond its allotted time”] from the blood that had spilled from the cup [the vessel used to receive the blood] onto the floor of the Temple courtyard,

what is the law?

Does it constitute piggul or not? The two sides of the uncertainty are: Since this blood is fit for the blood-throwing, a piggul thought concerning it is effective; but, on the other hand, since there is no mitzva to collect it and it is destined to be lost, his thought concerning throwing it does not constitute a piggul thought.

[And from this side it is proven that Rav Asi maintains that one does not have a thought concerning what has been lost.]

Rav Zeira said

to Rav Asi:

You have already taught

us the case of “the neck sinew”!

“The neck sinew” is the neck tendon of an animal. Its law is explained in the Mishna in tractate Hullin [121a]: Since it is tough and unfit for eating, it does not combine with the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass.

For the same reason, the Gemara in tractate Zevahim [35a] said that since it is something that is not normally eaten, if he had a piggul thought concerning it—if one slaughtered the sacrifice with the intention of eating “the neck sinew” beyond its allotted time—the sacrifice is not piggul.

And Rav Zeira resolves the matter:

Thus

it is proven that

this “neck sinew,” since it has no substance

and is insignificant, being something destined to be lost,

a thought is ineffective with regard to it ,

and the sacrifice is not piggul. Even though if one wished to eat it, he could eat it as flesh,

these portions that are to be poured likewise, since they are destined to be lost

onto the base of the altar,

a thought is ineffective with regard to them

as a piggul thought.

Rav Asi accepted Rav Zeira’s proof from the neck sinew, and his uncertainty was resolved: one does not have a thought concerning the portions to be poured, because they are destined to be lost.

However,

if so,

that Rav Asi teaches

“They deem”

concerning what has been lost or burned,” this is difficult: Rav Asi himself maintains that one does not have a thought concerning something destined to be lost?

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

Rava said:

Indeed, one does not have a thought concerning something that has been lost. And when Rav Asi taught: “They deem concerning what has been lost or burned,” he did not mean that it had already been lost or burned. Rather,

say

interpret it as referring to

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

but has not yet been lost or burned. For example, he threw a piece of flesh or a piece of imurin into the mouth of a dog or into a furnace , and before it reached the mouth of the dog or the furnace, he threw the blood with a piggul thought. Since at the time of the thought it was not yet lost, it is therefore a piggul thought . It is not comparable to one who thought concerning blood that would be spilled.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Akiva’s words.

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Akiva said, “The blood-throwing is effective with regard to what went outside,” only when the flesh went outside. But if

blood

went outside and became disqualified, and he brought it back and threw it,

the

blood-throwing is not effective with regard to what went outside,

since the blood itself is disqualified. For there is no “acceptance” with regard to disqualified blood, except with regard to piggul, by a special scriptural decree: concerning piggul it is stated, “It will not be accepted,” and we expound: “Just as the acceptance of a fit offering [is effective], so is the acceptance of piggul.”

It was taught likewise,

and so we learned in a beraita

If he slaughtered silently,

without a disqualifying thought,

and blood went outside

the Temple courtyard,

even though

he brought it back and

then threw it again, he accomplished nothing!

Therefore:

With offerings of the highest sanctity, one commits misuse with it; with offerings of lesser sanctity, one does not commit misuse with it,

as before the blood-throwing.

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 statement concerning one who designates his sin-offering.

Rabbi Elazar

[the amora Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat]

said: Rabbi Akiva did not say

that one may throw the blood from whichever one he wishes,

but

only when he slaughtered both of them, the two sin-offerings,

at the same time .

But

when he slaughtered them

one after the other,

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

Rabbi Akiva did not say this,

and he agrees that the throwing of the first blood 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, which presents Rabbi Akiva’s proof at length.

It was taught,

we learned:

Rabbi Shimon said: When I went to Kefar Panoi, I encountered an elder. And he said to me: Rabbi Akiva used to say

“The blood-throwing is effective with regard to what went outside”? I said to him: “Yes!”

And when I came

and presented these words

which were the elder’s perplexity,

before Rabbi Akiva, he said to me:

Rabbi Akiva said: When you tell me the words of the elder, you sound as though you agree with them and question my words.

But you do not say so?!

And consider one who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and designated another in its place, and afterward the first was found

and both are standing: one commits misuse with both of them. He slaughtered them, and their blood is now placed in bowls: one commits misuse with both of them,

as long as the blood has not been sprinkled,