Meilah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Abba Shaul says: One who has immersed that day

is the first degree with regard to consecrated items,

that is, he has the status of a first-degree impure item with regard to consecrated items. If he touched consecrated flesh, he makes it second degree; flesh that touches that flesh becomes third degree, and third degree becomes fourth degree.

Rabbi Meir says:

One who has immersed that day and touched a consecrated item

renders the consecrated item impure,

and flesh that touches that flesh becomes disqualified.

And he disqualifies teruma;

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 disqualifies teruma liquids and teruma foods

[foodstuffs of

teruma],

but does not render them impure,

so does he disqualify consecrated liquids and consecrated foods.

As explained, one who has immersed that day disqualifies teruma based on the above verse, but nevertheless does not become second degree, as Rabbi Meir holds, in order to render consecrated items impure; he merely disqualifies them. And certainly he does not become first degree, as Abba Shaul holds.

Our Mishna was taught according to the opinion of the Sages.

They reject this:

Rava said:

Indeed, all the tannaim agree with the Sages that by Torah law one who has immersed that day disqualifies but does not render impure. However, Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir hold that the Sages increased his level of impurity with regard to consecrated items, because of the “extra sanctity” of consecrated items—that is, because of the great need to guard their purity.

What level of impurity did the Sages add to him?

According to

the opinion of

Abba Shaul, they instituted an additional level of stringency with regard to consecrated items;

therefore,

the Sages made him,

that is, the Sages treated

one who has immersed that day as a first degree.

, when he said, “This is a hatat.”

According to Rabbi Meir,

they made him

like food

[a food item that is]

second degree.

Once it has undergone melika

But

according to the Sages,

the Sages hold that they did not add anything to his level of impurity,

since

he had already

immersed and his

impurity

was weakened.

Therefore:

he is disqualified but does not render impure;

he disqualifies consecrated items,

but he is impure and does not render impure;

they left him with his Torah-level impurity.

Our Mishna taught his status by Torah law, and was not taught only according to the opinion of the Sages, because the other tannaim agree that by Torah law he disqualifies consecrated flesh but does not render it impure.

We stated in our Mishna:

Once its blood has been sprinkled, one is liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, but misuse does not apply to it.

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

The wording must be analyzed: If one eats it or derives benefit from it,

it is only that misuse does not apply,

and he is not liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse;

but

it becomes fit

there is a prohibition,

and it is nevertheless forbidden to eat it.

And

this is difficult:

why

is it forbidden to eat it?

Is it not the property of the priests?

After its blood has been sprinkled, has it not become permitted for priestly consumption?

Rabbi Hanina said:

The Mishna is speaking

of an item that left its proper place ,

and afterward its blood was sprinkled.

And

the Mishna reflects the opinion of

Rabbi Akiva, who says: “

, meaning prepared,

to become invalid through contact with a tevul yom, one who is impure and immersed but whose sun has not yet set, , and through contact with one who lacks atonement, meaning one who is impure whose purification is completed through bringing purification-offerings, such as a zav, a zava, a leper, or a woman who has given birth, who have not yet brought their offerings; if they touched the bird hatat after melika, it became invalid. And it likewise becomes invalid through linah : If the blood remained overnight until sunset, it became invalid. Likewise, if—after the blood was sprinkled on the day it was offered— its flesh remained overnight for a day and a night from the time of melika, it became invalid. Once its blood has been sprinkled (which takes the place of casting the blood), one is liable for it on account of pigul, notar, and tamei, and there is no me'ila with regard to it , as explained in the previous chapter. Gemara: The Gemara discusses the Mishna’s statement that the flesh of an offering becomes invalid through a “tevul yom,” that is, if someone who had already immersed to purify himself but whose sun had not yet set touched it. The Gemara cites three opinions of tannaim who disagreed regarding the degree of impurity of a tevul yom. The degrees of impurity were divided into primary forms and derivative forms. They were likewise divided into “tamei” and “invalid.” Tamei ” refers to an impure object capable of transmitting impurity further, whereas “invalid” refers to an object that does not transmit impurity further, but is itself merely impure. The primary source of all sources of impurity , is a corpse. A primary source of impurity is a person or vessel that touched a corpse. Likewise, a creeping creature, an animal carcass, a zav, a zava, and the like are considered primary sources of impurity. All these are primary sources of impurity, and “derivatives” branch off from them. A primary source of impurity renders people and vessels, food and liquids impure, whereas a derivative of impurity renders only food and liquids impure, but not people or vessels. One who touches a primary source becomes a first-degree rishon of impurity, and one who touches a first-degree source becomes second-degree. One who touches a second-degree source becomes third-degree, and one who touches a third-degree source becomes fourth-degree. All the degrees of impurity from the first degree downward are called “derivatives of impurity” or “offspring of impurity.” A second-degree impure object that touched food or liquids: if they were hulין, it does not render them third-degree impure. But if they were teruma, the teruma becomes third-degree impure. In any event, the teruma does not become “impure”; therefore, it does not render one who touches it impure. Rather, it becomes merely “invalid,” meaning that priests are forbidden to eat it. A second-degree impure object that touched sacred flesh “renders” the sacred flesh impure and makes it third-degree impure; the sacred flesh then invalidates sacred flesh that touches it, making that flesh fourth-degree in relation to sacred objects. However, the fourth degree in relation to sacred objects does not become “impure”; it merely becomes “invalid.” Our Mishna states that a tevul yom “invalidates” sacred food, and does not state that it “renders sacred food impure.” It is therefore proven that the tanna of the Mishna holds that a tevul yom does not render sacred flesh third-degree impure, and that flesh touched by a tevul yom does not render sacred flesh that touches it impure. The novel point is that although a tevul yom invalidates teruma by Torah law, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:6–7]: “A person who touches it [one of the impure persons mentioned there] shall be impure until evening, and shall not eat of the holy things unless he washes his flesh in water. And the sun sets, and he becomes pure; afterward he may eat of the holy things.” The Sages explained that the verse is speaking of teruma, and teaches that a tevul yom invalidates teruma through contact. Apparently, if a tevul yom invalidates teruma, he must necessarily be at the level of second-degree impurity, and should therefore render sacred food impure, making it third-degree impure, which in turn can make another item fourth-degree impure. Nevertheless, if he touched sacred food, he does not render it impure [as does any other second-degree impure object that touches sacred food]; he merely “invalidates” it. Therefore, sacred flesh that touches flesh touched by a tevul yom should not become invalid as other fourth-degree sacred food does. It follows that according to this opinion, a tevul yom is second-degree with regard to teruma, and third-degree with regard to sacred food. It teaches that we stated in our Mishna: Once the bird had undergone melika, it became fit “ to become invalid through a tevul yom, one lacking atonement, and linah .” And one may infer: “To become invalid”—yes : sacred flesh touched by a tevul yom becomes invalid, “but to render impure”—no : the flesh touched by him does not render other sacred flesh impure. It is proven that whose Mishna is this —whose opinion does it reflect? It is the opinion of the Rabbis, and not that of the other tannaim. Page 8b As it is taught , we learned in a beraita: Abba Shaul says: A tevul yom is a first-degree source with regard to sacred food , meaning that with regard to sacred food he has the status of a first-degree source of impurity. If he touched sacred flesh, he makes it second-degree; flesh that touches that flesh becomes third-degree, and third-degree becomes fourth-degree. Rabbi Meir says: A tevul yom that touched sacred food renders the sacred food impure , and flesh that touched that flesh becomes invalid, and he invalidates the teruma : if a tevul yom touched teruma, he merely invalidated it. That is, his status is that of a second-degree source of impurity. And the Sages say: Just as he invalidates teruma liquids and teruma foods and does not render them impure , so does he invalidate sacred liquids and sacred foods . As explained, a tevul yom invalidates teruma on the basis of the aforementioned verse; nevertheless, he does not become second-degree [as Rabbi Meir holds] and render sacred food impure, but merely invalidates it; and certainly he does not become first-degree [as Abba Shaul holds]. Our Mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sages. And we reject this: Rava said: Indeed, all the tannaim agree with the Sages that by Torah law a tevul yom invalidates but does not render impure. However, Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir hold that the Sages added to his degree of impurity with regard to sacred offerings, because of the “elevated status” of sacred offerings—that is, because of the great need to be careful regarding their purity. What degree of impurity did the Sages add to him? According to the opinion of Abba Shaul, they instituted an added level of stringency with regard to sacred offerings ; therefore, the Sages made him, a tevul yom like a first-degree source . According to Rabbi Meir, they made him like food —a food that is second-degree. But according to the Rabbis, the Sages hold that they did not add anything to his degree of impurity, since he had already immersed, his impurity is weakened , his impurity . Therefore: he invalidates, but does not render impure —he invalidates sacred food; he is impure, but does not render impure —they left him with his Torah-level impurity. Our Mishna taught his status by Torah law, and was not taught only according to the opinion of the Sages, since the other tannaim agree that by Torah law he invalidates sacred flesh but does not render it impure. We learned in our Mishna: Once its blood has been sprinkled, one is liable for it on account of pigul, notar, and tamei, and there is no me'ila with regard to it. And one may infer: If he eats it or derives benefit from it, there is no me'ila , he is not liable to bring an offering for me'ila; but there is a prohibition, he is nevertheless forbidden to eat it, and this is difficult: why , why is it forbidden to eat it? Is it not the property of the priests , since after its blood has been sprinkled it became permitted for priests to eat? Rabbi Hanina said: The Mishna is speaking of an item that has left, and afterward its blood was sprinkled, and the Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: “ The casting of the blood is effective with regard to an item that has left ,” and it therefore left the law of me'ila, and one is liable for it on account of pigul, notar, and tamei. For , in any event, it is not fit to be eaten, and it remains forbidden to eat.

Thus it left the law of misuse, and one is liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity,

because

nevertheless

it is not fit for eating,

and it remains forbidden to eat it.

The Sugya of Extracting the Blood of the Bird-Sin Offering

We learned in our Mishna: Once its blood has been sprinkled, one who derives benefit from it is liable for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, and there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.

The Torah states concerning the bird-sin offering [Leviticus 5]: “And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin offering upon 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.” The explanation is: 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 site of its melika [the neck] around and close to the altar, presses it against the wall, and the blood is extracted and flows down to the base of the altar.

The students of Rav, citing Rav, disagreed as to whether extracting the blood prevents the atonement. Consequently, if it indeed prevents the atonement, it ceases to be subject to misuse of consecrated property, and one is liable for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, only after the extraction.

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

And Rav taught

that

he recited the wording of our Mishna as follows:

“Once its blood has been sprinkled,”

one is liable for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, even though the blood has not yet been extracted. This proves that extraction does not prevent the atonement.

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

And Rav taught

the wording of our Mishna as follows:

“He extracted its blood,”

one is liable for violating the prohibition of piggul, and so forth. One is liable for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, and it ceases to be subject to misuse of consecrated property only after the extraction.

Come and hear

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.”

Since this sugya is brought here, in tractate Meila, it apparently follows that this dispute has a practical consequence for the law of misuse of consecrated property as well. According to the one who says that extraction prevents the atonement, it ceases to be subject to misuse after the extraction, whereas according to the one who says that it does not prevent the atonement, it ceases to be subject to misuse through the sprinkling. But the commentary attributed to Rashi qualified this conclusion [see s.v. “It does not prevent,” and throughout the sugya]. His words seemingly indicate that he maintains that the one who says that extraction prevents the atonement says so only with regard to piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, and with regard to preventing the atonement, but not with regard to “misuse of consecrated property”; he does not mention at all that extraction removes it from the category of misuse of consecrated property. Did he write this intentionally? Does he truly maintain this position? Maimonides indeed maintains this position! For concerning the law of extraction he rules that it prevents the atonement [Laws of the Procedure of the Offerings 7:7], whereas in the Laws of Misuse of Consecrated Property [2:6] he writes: “Similarly, in the case of a bird-sin offering, one is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time it is consecrated until its blood is sprinkled. Once its blood has been sprinkled, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.” The Lehem Mishne already noted [in the Laws of the Procedure of the Offerings] that these statements appear contradictory. The Keren Ora asks: How is this different from the four applications of blood of the internal sin offerings? According to Beit Shammai, who maintain that all four prevent the atonement, would they say that the offering ceases to be subject to misuse of consecrated property after the first application? Apparently, the Keren Ora’s intention is that he maintains that the sprinkling and the extraction constitute a single service; see the following page, note 252. Therefore, he compares the sprinkling and extraction to the four applications, which certainly constitute a single service. However, see there in the name of the later authorities who maintain that they are two services. In any event, the Lehem Mishne’s question remains valid. What is the reasoning for distinguishing between them and saying that, with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, one does not become liable until after the extraction, whereas with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the offering ceases to be subject to misuse immediately after the sprinkling? Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik explains in his novellae, in accordance with his approach [discussed at length above in notes 111, 165, and elsewhere], that there is a fundamental distinction between ceasing to be subject to misuse of consecrated property and becoming liable for piggul, notar, and ritual impurity. The basis of his explanation is the previously stated principle [note 238] that even according to the one who says that extraction prevents the atonement, it nevertheless does not effect atonement. This proves that the atonement of a bird-sin offering is achieved solely through its sprinkling, at which point the owners attain atonement. Rather, there is an additional law requiring that the blood be extracted, and if it is not extracted, the offering is invalid. Extraction is a condition of the atonement, but it is not an act of atonement. It follows that, with regard to the offering itself, its authorization and validation—which are included in the general category of sprinkling—have been completed; but with regard to the atonement of the owners, since extraction does not effect atonement, its atonement was completed through the sprinkling, just as the atonement of every offering is completed through sprinkling alone, even in the case of internal sin offerings according to the one who says that pouring out the remnants prevents the atonement. This thoroughly resolves Maimonides’ statements. With regard to the law of misuse of consecrated property, which does not require an act that authorizes the offering, but depends on the offering’s having fulfilled its purpose for the atonement of the owners, it is sufficient that the blood has been sprinkled; at that point its mitzva has been performed, and automatically its status as “the sacred property of the Lord” is removed from it. Therefore, Maimonides wrote that misuse of consecrated property ceases with the sprinkling alone. But with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and ritual impurity, which depends on the offering’s validation [see the Lehem Mishne there], one is not liable until after the blood has been extracted. And when the Gemara says, “And Rav taught, ‘He extracted its blood,’” this refers only to the law of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity. See there further.

Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava, this is why it is written

“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 he has already sprinkled the blood and the remainder remains, it is still a “sin offering” as long as he has not completed the extraction. The sprinkling of the blood is dependent upon the extraction, which also prevents its atonement.

But according to Rav Huna,

it is difficult:

what

is the meaning of

“whatever remains”?

It would have been sufficient to say, “And the blood he shall extract 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,

as

in

the beraita that taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: If any blood remains,

it shall be extracted, but if it does not, it shall not be extracted, and this does not prevent the atonement.

And if it had been written, “He shall extract,” it would have implied that one has not fulfilled his obligation until he extracts the blood. Therefore, it says, “whatever remains,” to teach us: if any remains.

And what

about what the Torah concludes,

“it is a sin offering”?

It does not come to teach us that extraction is the completion of the sprinkling. Rather, it refers

to the beginning,

the initial part of the verse, namely, the melika and the sprinkling; these are the procedures that prevent the atonement, since it is “a sin offering.”

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If so, concerning a meal offering, for which it is written

[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 remains

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

expound

“if anything remains,”

the priests shall eat it, but if nothing remains, because the remnants diminished after the handful was removed, there is no consequence?!

And if you would say,

if you were to say,

it is indeed so,

that if the remnants diminished, there is no consequence?