Meilah 9a — the Talmud in English

And

for it is impossible to say so! For

tanya,

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

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

and it could have said, “from its fine flour and from its oil” , and the fact that the Torah wrote a superfluous letter hei comes to teach us that the burning may be performed only if all the fine flour, all the oil, and all the frankincense remain,

excluding a case in which its fine flour is lacking, and

so too excluding a case in which

its oil is lacking, and

so too excluding a case in which

its frankincense is lacking ,

and then it is disqualified.

And it is difficult: Why do we not expound “and the remainder”—if it remains, they shall eat it, and if it does not, they shall not—just as the school of Rabbi Ishmael expounded “and that which remains”—if it remains?

And we answer:

They said: There

with regard to the meal-offering,

“and the remainder” is written; a superfluous verse is written.

Everything that the Torah wrote, “and the remainder,” is superfluous [and it would have sufficed for it to say, “and Aaron and his sons shall eat it”], because certainly a remainder remains, for it is stated, “and he shall take a kometz from it, his full kometz, and burn it,” and it is clear that he took a kometz only from part of the meal-offering—

therefore, since it is superfluous, it did not come for the exposition “if some remains,” for it is clear that some remains.

But with regard to the bird sin-offering, “and that which remains” is not superfluous, because it is not clear that anything remains. Therefore, it is possible to interpret it: If some remains, he shall press it out, and if not, he shall not.

Abba of Samuel (and Rabbi Avin

to Rav Huna

objected to the view of Rav Huna, who holds that the pressing-out of the blood does not invalidate, from the Mishna in tractate Zevahim [64b].

A bird sin-offering requires the sprinkling of the blood and the pressing-out of the blood against the wall of the altar, whereas a bird burnt-offering requires only pressing-out, meaning that one holds the bird after severing its head and presses out its blood upon the altar; and this service takes the place of throwing the blood in an animal offering. And we learned there:

Whether a bird sin-offering or a bird burnt-offering, if one severed their heads and pressed out their blood

with the thought of

outside their designated place,

it is disqualified,

but there is no karet

for one who eats it; and if one severed their heads and pressed out their blood with the thought of

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

Abba of Samuel analyzes:

In any event, it teaches

“he pressed out their blood.”

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

And we answer:

He,

Abba of Samuel,

raised it

—he raised this objection—

and he

himself

resolved it

—he answered:

It is taught with regard to two cases.

The Mishna is interpreted in two ways. That is, this is its meaning: One is a bird sin-offering whose head one severed and whose blood one sprinkled with a thought of piggul, and the other is a bird burnt-offering whose head one severed and whose blood one pressed out with a thought of piggul. And so forth.

And what it said, “he pressed out their blood,” refers only to the bird burnt-offering. Indeed, in the case of a bird sin-offering, if he had the thought at the time of pressing-out, he did not render it piggul, since the pressing-out is not indispensable.

The essential matter: The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: If some blood remains,

he shall press it out, and if not, he shall not press it out.

And it is proved that Rabbi Ishmael holds that the pressing-out is not indispensable.

And concerning this there is a difficulty:

But did not the school of Rabbi Ishmael teach there,

in tractate Zevahim [52a]:

“The remainder is indispensable”?

And there, at the beginning of the sugya, the Gemara assumed that Rabbi Ishmael said this with regard to inner sin-offerings, for the pouring of the remainder of their blood onto the base of the altar is indispensable for atonement, in contrast to the view of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that it is not indispensable.

And

there

Rav Pappa said:

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

The pressing-out

of the blood of

a bird sin-offering is what they dispute.

This is what they disputed: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is not indispensable, and Rabbi Ishmael holds that it is indispensable. But Rabbi Ishmael’s statements contradict one another.

And we answer:

There are two tannaim according to

Rabbi Ishmael.

Indeed, the beraitot contradict one another, and they are the teachings of two tannaim. One taught that Rabbi Ishmael holds that the pressing-out is indispensable, and the other taught that according to Rabbi Ishmael it is not indispensable.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to explain when there is misuse with regard to the remaining offerings. And the rule is: With regard to all consecrated objects of intrinsic sanctity, there is misuse with regard to them from the time they were consecrated through verbal sanctity until the completion of the performance of their mitzva. And from the time they acquired intrinsic sanctity, they became fit to be disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day and one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay, as explained in the preceding Mishna.

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

Once its head was severed, it became fit to be disqualified through one who immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay.

Once its blood was pressed out

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

one is liable on its account for piggul, notar, and impurity. And there is misuse with regard to it,

even with regard to its flesh, for it is not eaten by the kohanim, but is entirely offered to the Lord upon the altar,

even after it has been burned and become ashes,

until it leaves for the ash heap.

The “ash heap” is a place outside the courtyard, where they brought out the ashes of offerings that had been burned upon the altar. Until the ashes are brought out to that place, its mitzva has not been completed, and it is still “from the holy things of the Lord,” and there is misuse with regard to it. From that point onward, its mitzva has been completed and it has left the status of misuse.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

The bulls that are burned,

which are the bull for the communal inadvertent ruling, the bull of the anointed koen, and the bull of the Day of Atonement,

and the goats that are burned,

which are the goat of the Day of Atonement and the goat for idolatry—all these are called “burned,” since they are burned outside the courtyard, their flesh, hide, and waste, and they have no permission at all for the kohanim. [But their sacrificial parts are burned upon the altar.] According to the rule that every sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary is to be burned outside the courtyard,

there is misuse with regard to them from the time they were consecrated.

Once they were slaughtered, they became fit to be disqualified through one who immersed that day and through one lacking atonement ,

and through overnight stay.

Once their blood was sprinkled,

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

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

And there is misuse with regard to them

even

in the ash heap, until

the flesh

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

The burnt-offering,

an animal burnt-offering,

there is misuse with regard to it from the time it was consecrated.

Once it was slaughtered, it became fit to be disqualified through one who immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay.

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

But there is no misuse with regard to its hide

because the kohanim acquired it, as it is stated [Leviticus 7], “The hide of the burnt-offering that he offered shall belong to the koen,” from the time of the throwing of the blood, which is the time when the altar acquires the flesh,

but there is misuse with regard to the flesh,

since the flesh has no permission for the kohanim, and it is entirely offered to 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 the communal peace-offerings,

which are the lambs of the festival that come with the two loaves,

there is misuse with regard to them from the time they were consecrated.

Once they were slaughtered—

they became fit to be disqualified through one who immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay.

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

And there is no

misuse with regard to the flesh,

because it has permission for eating by the kohanim, and they left the category of “the holy things of the Lord.”

But there is misuse with regard to their sacrificial parts until they leave for the ash heap.

The two loaves

brought on the festival,

there is misuse with regard to them from the time they were consecrated.

Once their faces formed

in front

in the oven,

which is the first stage at the beginning of their baking, making them fit in the manner of slaughter in an offering,

they became fit to be disqualified through one who immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay.

And

they became fit

to slaughter 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 formed in the oven, they are called “bread,” but before this stage the offering is not yet fit to be slaughtered.

Once the blood of the sheep was sprinkled, they are liable on their account,

for the two loaves,

on account of piggul,

that is, if, during the slaughter of the offering, he intended to eat the loaves outside their appointed time, the loaves became piggul,

notar and impure. And there is no misuse of consecrated property in them,

since they are eaten by kohanim.

The shewbread,

Showbread,

which they arrange on the table every Shabbat in its Shabbat,

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,

When it formed a crust in the oven, it became fit to become disqualified through one who had immersed that day and through one lacking atonement,

and to be arranged upon the table,

but before it 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 censers,

the two censers of frankincense that were arranged upon the two arrangements of showbread; and when they remove the bread on Shabbat, they burn the censers on the outer altar. And the burning of the censers permits the bread for eating by the kohanim, like the sprinkling in the case of an animal and like the burning of the handful of the meal-offering,

they are liable on its account on account of piggul,

that is, if, at the time of removing the censers—which is like taking the handful—or at the time of conveying them or at the time of burning them, he intended to eat the showbread outside its appointed time, it is piggul. And likewise they are liable on its account on account of

notar and impurity.

And there is no misuse of consecrated property in it,

because then they are eaten by the kohanim.

The meal-offerings,

individual meal-offerings,

there is misuse of consecrated property in them from the time they were consecrated.

When they were consecrated in a vessel,

he brought it into the Temple courtyard and placed it in a service vessel ,

they became fit to become disqualified through one who had immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through overnight.

When the handful came near

the altar,

they are liable on its account

[on its account ]

on account of piggul

that is, if, at the time of taking the handful, or at the time when he placed the handful into the service vessel, or at the time when he conveyed it to the altar, or at the time when he cast it upon the fires, he intended to eat or burn some of it outside its appointed time. And likewise they are liable on its account on account of

notar and impurity.

And there is no misuse of consecrated property in the remainder,

because they are eaten by the kohanim,

but there is misuse of consecrated property in the handful until

it is entirely burned

and goes out to the place of the ashes.

Gemara:

The ash of the flesh of a burnt-offering and the fats of all the offerings, when they are burned and consumed and become ash, is called “ashes.”

Every day the kohen would remove a portion of the ashes, and this is called “the removal of the ashes.” How? He took the silver coal-pan and ascended to the top of the altar, and cleared the coals that had not been thoroughly consumed to this side and to that side; he took from the coals and the ashes that had been thoroughly consumed into the coal-pan, and brought it down. He heaped it upon the floor of the Temple courtyard, to the east of the ramp, three handbreadths distant from the ramp. And this is called “the place of the ashes,” and there it was absorbed in its place.

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

After the kohen who removed the portion descended, kohanim ascended to the top of the altar, and with rakes they swept the remaining ash to the center of the altar. This place was called “the apple” because of its heaps. At times the heap that had accumulated upon the apple was [an exaggerated measure] about three hundred kor.

And when the ashes increased, they brought them down from the altar and took them outside Jerusalem, to the place called “the ash heap.” And this is called “the removal of the ashes.”

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

We learned in our Mishna: “And there is misuse of consecrated property in it until it goes out to the place of the ashes.”

The amoraim disagreed until when there is misuse of consecrated property in the ashes. According to Rav: until “the removal of the ashes”; and one who benefits from the ash of the apple after the removal of the ashes did not commit misuse. And according to Rabbi Yohanan: there is misuse of consecrated property in the ash until the removal of the ashes outside the camp, for then its mitzva is completed, even though the removal of the ashes has already been performed. It was stated: One who benefits from the ash of the apple that is upon the altar,

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

And Rabbi Yohanan said: There is misuse of consecrated property in 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 in it,

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

the disagreement is

what did they disagree about?

After the removal of the ashes,

when the ashes are heaped upon “the apple.”

And with regard to what reasoning did they disagree?

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

for

its mitzva has already been completed

through “the removal of the ashes.”

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Since it is written

[there], regarding the removal of the ashes, “

And the kohen shall put on his linen garment

etc.,

and he shall put on other garments” ,

which are priestly garments,

and since priestly garments are required

for the removal of the ashes, it follows that

it remains in its sanctity,

that it remains in its sanctity until it is taken outside the camp .

The Gemara cites our Mishna, and its meaning accords with Rabbi Yohanan. We learned: There is misuse of consecrated property in them until “ they go out to the place of the ashes,” meaning: even after the removal of the ashes, until the ashes are taken out to the place of the ashes.

This is difficult for Rav,

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

And we answer:

Rav can say: Say

interpret the Mishna: There is misuse of consecrated property in them

until it is seen at the place of the ashes,

that is, until it becomes fit for removal, which is until the time of the removal of the ashes; from that point onward it is permitted to take it out.

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.