Meilah 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

And

it is certainly impossible to say this! For

it is taught

we learned in a beraita: The Torah says [there]: “

from its fine flour and its oil, with all its frankincense,”

and it could have said, “from its fine flour and its oil” . The fact that the Torah wrote an additional letter heh teaches us that the burning is performed only if all the fine flour, all the oil, and all the frankincense remain: and this comes to exclude a case in which some of its fine flour is missing,

and

likewise to exclude a case in which some of its oil is missing,

and

likewise to exclude a case in which some of its frankincense is missing,

and then it is invalid.

Then it is invalid.

But it is difficult: Why do we not derive from the phrase “and the remainder,” that if some remains, it is eaten, but if none remains, it is not eaten, just as the school of Rabbi Yishmael derived from “and what remains,” that this applies if some remains?

And we answer:

They said: There

with regard to a meal-offering,

it is written, “and the remainder”; the verse is superfluous.

Everything that the Torah wrote as “and the remainder” is superfluous [and it would have sufficed to say, “and Aaron and his sons shall eat it”], because it is certain that some remainder is left, since it says, “and he shall take a fistful of its full handful and burn it”; it is obvious that he takes only part of the meal-offering—

Therefore, since this expression is superfluous, it was not written to teach “if some remains,” for it is obvious that some remains.

However, with regard to the bird sin-offering, “and what remains” is not superfluous, because it is not certain that any remains. Therefore, it is possible to interpret it as follows: If some blood remains, he shall press it out, but if not, he shall not.

Shmuel’s father (and Rabbi Avin

challenged Rav Huna,

who holds that pressing out the blood does not invalidate the offering, from the Mishna in tractate Zevahim 64b.

The bird sin-offering requires the sprinkling of the blood and the pressing out of the blood against the wall of the altar, whereas the bird burnt-offering requires only pressing out, meaning that after pinching the bird’s head, one holds the bird and presses out its blood onto the altar. This service takes the place of the throwing of the blood in an animal offering. And we learned there:

Both the bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering, if one pinched them and pressed out their blood

with the intention of

outside their designated area,

the offering is invalid,

but there is no karet

for one who eats it; and if one pinched them and pressed out their blood with the intention of

outside their designated time, it is piggul, and one who eats it is liable to karet.

Shmuel’s father analyzes this:

In any event, it teaches

“pressed out their blood.”

And this also refers to the bird sin-offering. Since it is possible to make the offering piggul at the time of pressing out, it is proven that pressing out is indispensable. For if pressing out is not indispensable, why should it be possible to make the offering piggul through it?

We answer:

He,

Avuh of Shmuel,

raised the objection,

And we answer:

It is he,

Shmuel’s father,

who raised the objection,

who posed this difficulty,

and it is he

himself who resolves it:

It is taught with regard to two different cases. The Mishna is interpreted in two ways. That is, this is its meaning: One bird sin-offering, if one pinched it and sprinkled its blood with the intention of piggul; and one bird burnt-offering, if one pinched it and pressed out its blood with the intention of piggul, and so forth.

What it says, “pressed out their blood,” refers only to the bird burnt-offering. Indeed, in the bird sin-offering, if one had an improper intention at the time of pressing out, he did not make it piggul, since pressing out is not indispensable.

The fundamental matter: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If some blood remains,

it shall be pressed out, but if not, it shall not be pressed out.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yishmael holds that pressing out is not indispensable.

And concerning this there is a difficulty:

But did not the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach there,

in tractate Zevahim 52a:

“The remainder is indispensable”?

And

there

Rav Pappa said:

They did not disagree concerning all the pouring of the remainder of the blood of inner sin-offerings, that it is not indispensable. Rather,

the pressing out

of the blood

of the bird sin-offering is what separates them:

This is what they disagreed about: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is not indispensable, whereas Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is indispensable. But Rabbi Yishmael’s statements contradict one another. How can this be?

And we answer:

There are two tannaim according to the opinion

of Rabbi Yishmael.

Indeed, the beraitot contradict one another, and they reflect the opinions of two tannaim. One taught that Rabbi Yishmael holds that pressing out is indispensable, while the other taught that according to Rabbi Yishmael it is not indispensable.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues explaining when there is misuse of the remaining offerings. The general rule is: With regard to all objects possessing inherent sanctity, there is misuse of them from the time they were sanctified through verbal sanctification until the completion of the performance of their mitzva. Once they have been endowed with inherent sanctity, they become susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day or one lacking atonement, and through overnight disqualification, as explained in the previous Mishna.

With regard to a bird burnt-offering, there is misuse of it from the time it was sanctified.

Once it was pinched, it became susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and overnight disqualification.

Once its blood was pressed out,

[The pressing out of the blood of a bird burnt-offering takes the place of throwing the blood of an animal offering, just as sprinkling the blood does in the bird sin-offering, as explained in the preceding sugya]

one is liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and impurity. And there is misuse of it,

even of its flesh, since it is not eaten by the priests; rather, it is burned entirely for the sake of the Lord on the altar.

Even after it has been burned and become ash,

until it leaves for the ash heap. The “ash heap” is a place outside the courtyard, where the ashes of offerings burned on the altar were taken. Until the ashes are removed to that place, the mitzva has not been completed, and it is still “of the sacred offerings of the Lord,” and there is misuse of it. From that point onward, its mitzva has been completed and it is no longer subject to the laws of misuse.

The Gemara will explain this.

Burned bulls,

namely, the bull for an unwitting communal ruling, the bull of the anointed koen, and the bull of Yom Kippur,

and burned goats,

namely, the Yom Kippur goat and the goat for idolatry. All these are called “burned,” since they are burned outside the courtyard—their flesh, skin, and waste—and they are not permitted to the priests at all. [Their sacrificial portions are burned on the altar.] This follows the rule that any sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary is to be burned outside the courtyard.

There is misuse of them from the time they were sanctified.

Once they were slaughtered, they became susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day and one lacking atonement ,

and through overnight disqualification.

and through overnight passage.

Once their blood was sprinkled,

as prescribed, on the curtain and on the golden altar, and in some cases their blood is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies,

one is liable for them on account of piggul, notar, and impurity.

And there is misuse of them

even

in the ash heap, until

the flesh

has burned and become ash, which is the completion of their mitzva .

The burnt-offering,

an animal burnt-offering,

there is misuse of it from the time it was sanctified.

Once it was slaughtered, it became susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and overnight disqualification.

Once its blood was thrown, one is liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and impurity.

But there is no misuse of its skin

because the priests acquired it, as it is stated [Leviticus 7]: “The skin of the burnt-offering that he offered shall belong to the koen”—from the time the blood is thrown, which is the time the altar acquires the flesh.

But there is misuse of the flesh,

since the flesh is not permitted to the priests, and it is burned entirely for the sake of the Lord

until the

burnt-offering

leaves for the ash heap,

which is the completion of its mitzva .

A sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and communal peace-offerings,

namely, the lambs of Atzeret that come with the two loaves,

there is misuse of them from the time they were sanctified.

Once they were slaughtered—

they became susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and overnight disqualification.

Once their blood was thrown, one is liable for them on account of piggul, notar, and impurity.

And there is no

misuse of the flesh,

because it is permitted for consumption by the priests, and it has left the category of “the sacred offerings of the Lord.”

But there is misuse of their sacrificial portions until they leave for the ash heap.

The two loaves,

which are brought on Atzeret,

there is misuse of them from the time they were sanctified.

Once their faces have crusted

in the oven

at the oven,

which is the first stage at the beginning of their baking, making them fit in the same manner as slaughtering does for an offering,

they become susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and overnight disqualification.

And

they become fit

for slaughtering the offering on their account,

as the Torah says [Leviticus 23]: “And you shall offer upon the bread seven lambs,” and so forth. Once their faces have crusted in the oven, they are called “bread,” but before this stage they have not reached the point at which the offering may be slaughtered on their account.

Once the blood of the sheep has been sprinkled, they are liable for them,

with regard to the two loaves,

due to piggul,

that is, if, while slaughtering the sacrifice, he had in mind to eat the loaves beyond their designated time, the loaves become piggul.

[They are subject to the laws of] notar and impurity. And there is no misuse of consecrated property with them,

since they are eaten by the priests.

The shewbread,

which they arrange on the Table every Shabbat,

is subject to misuse of consecrated property from the time it is consecrated .

there is misuse of consecrated property in it from the time it was consecrated .

Once it has formed a crust in the oven, it becomes susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who has immersed that day and through one lacking atonement,

and to being arranged upon the Table,

but before it has formed a crust in the oven, it is not called “bread,” and it is not fit to be arranged upon the Table.

The offering of the bowls,

the two bowls of frankincense that were arranged upon the two stacks of shewbread; and when the bread is removed on Shabbat, the bowls are burned upon the outer altar. The burning of the bowls permits the bread to be eaten by the priests, just as the sprinkling of the blood permits the meat of an animal and the burning of the handful permits the remainder of a meal-offering.

They are liable for it due to piggul,

that is, if, at the time of removing the bowls—which is analogous to taking the handful—or at the time of carrying them, or at the time of burning them, he had in mind to eat the shewbread beyond its designated time, it is piggul. They are likewise liable for it due to

notar and impurity.

And there is no misuse of consecrated property with it,

because at that point the loaves are eaten by the priests.

The meal-offerings,

the meal-offerings of an individual,

are subject to misuse of consecrated property from the time they are consecrated.

Once they have been consecrated in a vessel,

they are brought into the Temple courtyard and placed in a sacred vessel ,

they become susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who has immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight disqualification.

Once the handful has been offered

upon the altar,

one is liable for it [

for it ]

due to piggul:

that is, if, at the time of taking the handful, or when he placed the handful in a sacred vessel, or when he carried it to the altar, or when he cast it into the fire, he had in mind to eat or burn part of it beyond its designated time. They are likewise liable for it due to

notar and impurity.

There is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remainder

because it is eaten by the priests,

but there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to the handful until it

is entirely burned

and leaves for the place of the ashes.

Gemara:

The ash of the flesh of the burnt-offering and the sacrificial portions of all the offerings, when they are burned and consumed and become ash, is called “deshen.”

Every day the priest would remove a portion of the ashes; this is called the removal of the ashes. How was it done? He would take the silver pan and ascend to the top of the altar. He would clear to either side the coals that had not been thoroughly consumed, take some of the thoroughly consumed coals and ashes into the pan, and bring it down. He would heap it upon the floor of the Temple courtyard, to the east of the ramp, three handbreadths away from the ramp. This was called the place of the ashes, and there it was absorbed in its place.

As the Torah states [Leviticus 6]: “This is the law of the burnt-offering: It is the burnt-offering that remains upon its pyre on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn on it. And the priest shall put on his linen garment and linen trousers shall he wear upon his flesh, and he shall lift up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt-offering upon the altar, and place them beside the altar.”

After the priest who removed the ashes had descended, priests would ascend to the top of the altar and rake the remaining ash with rakes toward the center of the altar. This place was called the “apple,” because of the heaps accumulated there. At times, the heap that had accumulated upon the apple was [an exaggerated estimate] approximately three hundred kor.

When the ashes accumulated in large quantities, they would lower them from the altar and take them outside Jerusalem, to a place called “the ash heap.” This was called “the removal of the ashes.”

As the Torah states [there]: “And he shall remove his garments and put on other garments, and take the ashes outside the camp, to a pure place.”

We learned in our Mishna: “And there is misuse of consecrated property with it until it leaves for the place of the ashes.”

The amoraim disputed until when there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to the ashes. According to Rav, it is until the removal of the ashes; one who benefits from the ash of the apple after the removal of the ashes has not committed misuse of consecrated property. According to Rabbi Yohanan, there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to the ashes until the ashes are removed outside the camp, since that is the completion of their mitzva, even though the removal of the ashes has already taken place.

It was stated: One who benefits from ash on the apple upon the altar,

Rav said: There is no misuse of consecrated property with it.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: There is misuse of consecrated property with it.

The Gemara explains: If he benefited from the ash

before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that there is misuse of consecrated property with it,

since its mitzva has not yet been completed, and the ashes still need to be removed.

When they disagree,

what is the point of their disagreement?

After the removal of the ashes,

when the ashes have been heaped upon the “apple.”

And according to what rationale do they disagree?

Rav said: There is no misuse of consecrated property with it,

for

its mitzva has already been completed

through the removal of the ashes.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Since it is written [there], concerning the removal of the ashes, “

And the kohen shall put on his linen garment

And the priest shall put on his linen garment

etc.,

and he shall put on other garments” ,

and these are priestly garments,

and since priestly garments are required

for the removal of the ashes, this proves that

it remains in its sanctity,

remaining in its sanctity until it is removed outside the camp .

The Gemara cites our Mishna, and its implication accords with Rabbi Yohanan.

We learned: There is misuse of consecrated property with them until “

they leave for the place of the ashes,”

which implies that even after the removal of the ashes, there is misuse of consecrated property until the ashes are taken to the place of the ashes.

This is a difficulty for Rav,

who holds that there is no misuse of consecrated property after the removal of the ashes.

We answer:

Rav could say: Read

the Mishna as follows: “There is misuse of consecrated property with them

until it is fit to leave for the place of the ashes,”

that is, until it becomes fit to be removed—which is until the time of the removal of the ashes, from which point onward it is permitted to remove them.