Meilah 8b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Abba Shaul says: One who immersed that day ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact folio location")

is the first-degree with regard to consecrated property,

he has the status of “first-degree with regard to impurity” concerning consecrated property. And if he touched flesh of consecrated property, he makes it second-degree, and the flesh that touched that flesh becomes third-degree, and the third-degree becomes fourth-degree.

Rabbi Meir says:

One who immersed that day who touched consecrated property

renders the consecrated property impure,

and flesh that touched flesh becomes invalid,

and invalidates the teruma; if one who immersed that day touched teruma, he merely invalidated it. That is, his status is that of “second-degree with regard to impurity.”

if one who immersed that day touched teruma, he merely disqualified it. That is, his status is that of a second-degree impure item.

And the Sages say: Just as he invalidates the liquid of teruma and the foods of

food products of

teruma,

and does not render them impure,

so does he invalidate the liquid of consecrated property and the foods of consecrated property.

As explained, one who immersed that day invalidates teruma based on the aforementioned verse, and nevertheless he does not become second-degree [as Rabbi Meir holds] to render consecrated property impure, but only to invalidate it; and all the more so he does not become first-degree [as Abba Shaul holds].

And our Mishna was taught according to the opinion of the Sages.

And we reject this:

Rava said:

Indeed, all the tannaim agree with the Sages that by Torah law one who immersed that day invalidates but does not render impure; rather, Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir hold that the Rabbis increased his degree of impurity, with regard to consecrated offerings, because of the “elevated status” of consecrated offerings, meaning because of the great need to be careful about their purity.

What degree of impurity did the Rabbis add to him?

According to

the opinion of

Abba Shaul, they made an elevation with regard to consecrated offerings,

therefore

the Rabbis made him,

the Sages made him,

like a first-degree object.

, when he said, “This is a hatat.”

According to Rabbi Meir,

they made him

like a food

food product

of second-degree.

Once it has undergone melika

Whereas

according to the Rabbis,

the Sages hold that they made no addition at all to his degree of impurity,

since

he has already

immersed, it has weakened

it has weakened

his impurity.

Therefore:

it is an invalidating object, it carries

it invalidates consecrated property,

it is an impure object, it does not carry

and they left it with its impurity according to Torah law.

And our Mishna taught its law according to Torah law, and was not taught only according to the opinion of the Sages, because the other tannaim agree that by Torah law it invalidates the flesh of consecrated property and does not render it impure.

We learned in our Mishna:

Once its blood was cast, one is liable on its account for piggul, notar, and impurity, and there is no meila with regard to it.

(in a bird, melika takes the place of slaughtering an animal),

And one should be precise: If he eats it or benefits from it,

it is meila that there is not,

he is not liable for a guilt-offering for meila,

but

it becomes fit

there is a prohibition,

but it is forbidden to eat it.

And

it is difficult:

why

why is it forbidden to eat it?

Is it not the property of the priests,

for after its blood was cast, it became permitted for the eating of priests?

Rabbi Hanina said:

The Mishna is speaking

of what was taken outside

and afterward its blood was cast,

and

the Mishna is

that of Rabbi Akiva, who says, “

, meaning prepared,

the casting is effective for what was taken outside,”

and it thereby left the law of meila, and one is liable on its account for piggul, notar, and impurity,

for

nevertheless

it is not fit for eating, and it is still forbidden to eat it.

and it remains forbidden to eat it.

The discussion of the extracting of the blood of the bird sin-offering

We learned in our Mishna: Once its blood has been sprinkled, one is liable for violating the prohibitions of sacrificial piggul, notar, and ritual impurity through it, but there is no misuse of consecrated property in connection with it.

The Torah states in the passage concerning the bird sin-offering [Leviticus 5]: “And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar, and whatever remains of the blood he shall extract onto the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.” This means: First, he sprinkles its blood. He holds the bird by the nape of its neck and sprays some of the blood, and the blood is sprayed toward the altar.

After the sprinkling, he extracts the bird’s blood onto the altar. That is, he brings the place of its pinching [the neck] close to the altar, presses it against the wall, and the blood is extracted and runs down to the base of the altar.

The students of Rav disagreed in the name of Rav as to whether extracting the blood prevents atonement. Consequently, if it indeed prevents atonement, the offering loses its status as subject to misuse of consecrated property, and one is likewise liable for sacrificial piggul, notar, and ritual impurity through it only after the extraction.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The extraction of the blood of the bird sin-offering does not prevent atonement.

And Rav taught

as follows:

He transmitted a version of our Mishna

“Once its blood has been sprinkled,”

stating that one is liable for sacrificial piggul, notar, and ritual impurity through it even though its blood has not yet been extracted. This proves that the extraction does not prevent atonement.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: The extraction of the blood of the bird sin-offering prevents atonement.

And Rav taught,

a version of our Mishna

“Once its blood has been extracted,”

stating that one is liable for sacrificial piggul, and so forth. One is liable for sacrificial piggul, notar, and ritual impurity through it, and it loses its status as subject to misuse of consecrated property only after the extraction.

Come and hear a proof

from that which is written:

“And whatever remains of the blood he shall extract onto the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.”

Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava, this is what is meant by the verse

“whatever remains of the blood he shall extract,”

and it comes to teach us that although the blood remains

“it is a sin-offering,”

meaning, although its blood has already been sprinkled and the remainder of the blood remains, it is still a sin-offering until he completes the extraction. The sprinkling of the blood depends on the extraction, which also prevents its atonement.

But according to Rav Huna,

this is difficult:

What

is the meaning of

“whatever remains”?

It would have been sufficient to say, “And he shall extract the blood onto the base of the altar.”

And we answer: On the contrary! That which is written, “whatever remains,” comes to teach us that extraction does not prevent the atonement,

Rather,

we answer: On the contrary! What is written, “whatever remains,” teaches us that the extraction does not prevent atonement,

as

it was taught in a beraita in the teaching of Rabbi Yishmael: If some blood remains, he shall extract it; but if not, he need not extract it, and this does not prevent atonement.

If the verse had said, “And he shall extract it,” this would imply that he has not fulfilled his obligation until he extracts it. Therefore, it says, “whatever remains,” teaching that the extraction applies only if some blood remains.

And what

about the Torah’s concluding phrase,

“it is a sin-offering”?

It does not come to teach us that the extraction completes the sprinkling; rather, it refers

to the beginning,

the opening part of the verse, namely, the pinching and sprinkling. Those are what prevent atonement, since it is “a sin-offering.”

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If so, with regard to a meal-offering, for which it is written [Leviticus 2:2]: “And he shall remove from it a full handful of its fine flour and its oil, together with all its frankincense, and the priest shall burn its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

[Leviticus 2:2]: “And he shall take from it his full handful, from its fine flour and from its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall burn its memorial portion upon the altar, a fire offering, a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

And whatever is left

of the meal-offering shall belong to Aaron and his sons; it is most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord”—shall

we likewise

interpret this

to mean that if some remains,

the priests may eat it, but if nothing remains because the remnants became deficient after the handful was removed, there is no problem?!

And if you would say,

that one might argue,

the same is true:

Indeed, if the remnants became deficient, there is no problem?