Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 2, 2019 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืดืค

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Meilah 15

Which items can join together to create a requisite amount that obligates one in meilah, pigul, notar and impure sacrifices? Rabbi Yannai has a unique apporach that meilah is only relevant for items sanctified for temple maintenance and for burnt offerings. Several questions are raised against him until the gemara reinterprets his position. All different parts of the sacrifice including the meal offering can join together to create an amount that obligates one in pigul, notar, impure meat, and meilah. However there is a difference between burnt offerings and the others regarding meat and the parts the parts that get burned on the altar combining to obligate one if one offered them outside the temple or it only a bit was left before the blodd was sprinkled. In a burnt offering, they all get burned together and therefore they can combine but in other offerings, the mweat is eaten and the other parts are buerned and therefore they can’t join together. Teruma can join with bikurim and challa and the teruma the levites need to bring in a combination of forbidden and non forbidden items (to determine whether or not they are cancelled) and to obligated to retunr a fifth to the priests if one ate it.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื”

MISHNA: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืขื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that one says that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the mishna teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืื™ื›ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืชืžืขืœ ืžืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear that one is liable for misuse by Torah law only for items consecrated for Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason? The reason is that the verse states: โ€œIf anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 5:15).

ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื

Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those consecrated items that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to the halakhot of misuse; but with regard to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they have a portion that belongs to the priests and other items such as peace offerings also have a portion that belongs to the owners, they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the halakhot of misuse do not apply.

ืชื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in the mishna: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse, which is deriving benefit worth one peruta. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies by rabbinic law.

ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืžื•ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for misusing them. Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื”ื ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืžืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคื’ื•ื ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ืžืชื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื”ื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืขืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in a mishna (18a): One who derives benefit from a blemished sin offering while it is alive has not violated the prohibition of misuse until he causes one peruta worth of depletion of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But when it is dead it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from a dead sin offering he is liable for misuse. The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

ื•ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœืžืขื™ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And by Torah law is there no liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Leviticus 3:16). The term โ€œallโ€ serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is a source from the Torah for the halakha that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.

ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืงืจื ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืœื” ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื

The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the tanna cites a verse as the source for this halakha, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, but it is not the actual source for the halakha.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืฆืื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื™ ืžืชื• ื ืžื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื“ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืฉืคื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืื• ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืžืขื™ืœื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from the potential of misuse by Torah law? The Gemara clarifies the objection: To what is Rabbi Yoแธฅanan referring? If we say that he is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, then even when they are dead they are also subject to the halakhot of misuse, as even if you say that this can be considered only like a case where one consecrated a garbage heap to the Temple maintenance, isnโ€™t that also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property?

ืืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื”

Rather, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan must be referring to dead animals that had been consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, are animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law?

ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืขื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืฉืžืขื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannaiโ€™s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. As the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse: โ€œIf anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:15), we learn that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. But we do not learn from this verse that animals consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Instead, that halakha is derived from the verse: โ€œAnd if a man eat of the sacred items through errorโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): โ€œAll the fat is the Lordโ€™s.โ€

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืฉืฉื” ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœื—ื

MISHNA: Five items in the burnt offering and the accompanying meal offering and libation join together to constitute the one peruta measure with regard to liability for misuse, and the olive-bulk measure with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and partaking of sacrificial foods while ritually impure. They are: The flesh; the fat of the burnt offering that is sacrificed on the altar; the fine flour of the accompanying meal offering; the wine of the accompanying libation; and the oil of the accompanying meal offering. And there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืงื ืืžืจืช ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that five items in the burnt offering [baโ€™ola] join together. Rav Huna taught Rava the mishna as follows: Five items in the world [baโ€™olam] join together. Rava said to Rav Huna: Did you say: In the world, i.e., that there are only five items in the world of offerings that join together? But isnโ€™t it taught in the mishna with regard to a thanks offering that there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering? Rav Huna said to Rava: One should teach in the mishna: Five items in the burnt offering [baโ€™ola] join together, not: Five items in the world.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืœื”ื ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœื›ื–ื™ืช ืœื”ืขืœื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื

ยง The mishna teaches that the flesh and the fat join together. The Gemara notes that we already learned this, as the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta 1:28): The meat of burnt offerings and their sacrificial portions join together to constitute the amount of an olive-bulk that renders one liable for sacrificing them outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.

ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื”ืขืœื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืœื™ืœ ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืื™ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara notes that the baraita teaches that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, this halakha applies, whereas with regard to a peace offering, it does not apply. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to sacrificing them outside the courtyard, it stands to reason that in the case of a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, everything joins together, whereas with regard to peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions do not join together. But with regard to rendering one liable for piggul, and notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure, in the case of a peace offering as well, why is he not rendered liable?

ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื™ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืชืจื•ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื–ื• ืขื ื–ื•

The Gemara elaborates: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna below: All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all pieces of sacrificial meat that are notar join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability? The mishna indicates that this is the halakha with regard to all types of offerings.

ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœื›ื–ื™ืช ืœื™ื–ืจืง ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื“ื

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the baraita should read as follows: The meat of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk in order to permit one to sprinkle the blood for them. If the meat of the burnt offering was lost after it was slaughtered and only an olive-bulk of the meat and sacrificial portions remain, they combine to permit the sprinkling of the blood.

ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœื™ื–ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara further explains: And since they join together to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to sprinkling the blood, once that blood has been sprinkled they join together to constitute the minimum amount of an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure. By contrast, in the case of a peace offering, the meat and the sacrificial portions do not join together for sprinkling, and as the sprinkling is not valid, they do not subsequently join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.

ื•ืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื

The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who teaches this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten, or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one sprinkles the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, as the fat is burned on the altar while the meat is eaten by the priests, they do not combine to form the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.

ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ื›ืœื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง

But with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because it is all consumed upon the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine. And in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains, one may not sprinkle the blood.

ืžื ื—ื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื

With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What is the relevance of a meal offering to this baraita? A meal offering does not require blood to be sprinkled on the altar. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering under discussion is the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. The baraita is teaching that if none of the meat of the animal remains, even if all of the accompanying meal offering is intact, the blood of the animal may not be sprinkled.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™ ื•ื”ื—ืœื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื™ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืชืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

MISHNA: Teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and แธฅalla, and first fruits all join together with one another to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture with non-sacred produce, and to form the requisite measure of an olive-bulk that serves to render one obligated for their consumption in payment of an additional one-fifth over and above the principal. All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all sacrificial meat that is notar joins together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืื™ืงืจื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืขืจืกืชื›ื ื—ืœื” ืชืจื™ืžื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that all of the foods listed in the mishna join together? The Gemara answers: The reason is that all of them are called teruma in the Torah. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to แธฅalla it is written: โ€œOf the first of your dough you shall set apart แธฅalla for a teruma; like teruma of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apartโ€ (Numbers 15:20).

ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืื™ืงืจื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ื™ื“ืš ืืœื• ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ืš ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

With regard to first fruits, they are also called teruma, as it is taught in a baraita that discusses foods that may not be eaten outside Jerusalem: The verse states: โ€œYou cannot eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vows that you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the offering of your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:17). โ€œAnd the offering of your handโ€; these are first fruits. But with regard to the other items listed in the mishna, i.e., teruma, teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of demai, it is not necessary to explain why they join together or to cite a verse, as it is clear that they are called teruma.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืขื ื–ื• ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืงืฆื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

MISHNA: All animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact with them and through carrying, join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. And all repugnant creatures join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. The eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah join together to constitute the measure of a lentil-bulk, which transmits impurity through contact, and to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that all animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact and through carrying, join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. Rav says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Meilah 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 15

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื”

MISHNA: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืขื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that one says that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the mishna teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืื™ื›ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืœื ืขืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืชืžืขืœ ืžืขืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear that one is liable for misuse by Torah law only for items consecrated for Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason? The reason is that the verse states: โ€œIf anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 5:15).

ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื

Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those consecrated items that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to the halakhot of misuse; but with regard to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they have a portion that belongs to the priests and other items such as peace offerings also have a portion that belongs to the owners, they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the halakhot of misuse do not apply.

ืชื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in the mishna: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse, which is deriving benefit worth one peruta. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies by rabbinic law.

ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืžื•ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for misusing them. Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื”ื ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืžืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคื’ื•ื ื›ืฉื”ื™ื ืžืชื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื”ื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืขืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in a mishna (18a): One who derives benefit from a blemished sin offering while it is alive has not violated the prohibition of misuse until he causes one peruta worth of depletion of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But when it is dead it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from a dead sin offering he is liable for misuse. The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

ื•ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืœืžืขื™ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And by Torah law is there no liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Leviticus 3:16). The term โ€œallโ€ serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is a source from the Torah for the halakha that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.

ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืงืจื ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืœื” ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื

The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the tanna cites a verse as the source for this halakha, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, but it is not the actual source for the halakha.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืžืชื• ื™ืฆืื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื™ ืžืชื• ื ืžื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื“ืืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืฉืคื” ืœื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืื• ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืžืขื™ืœื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from the potential of misuse by Torah law? The Gemara clarifies the objection: To what is Rabbi Yoแธฅanan referring? If we say that he is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, then even when they are dead they are also subject to the halakhot of misuse, as even if you say that this can be considered only like a case where one consecrated a garbage heap to the Temple maintenance, isnโ€™t that also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property?

ืืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื”

Rather, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan must be referring to dead animals that had been consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, are animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law?

ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืขื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืฉืžืขื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannaiโ€™s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. As the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse: โ€œIf anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:15), we learn that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. But we do not learn from this verse that animals consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Instead, that halakha is derived from the verse: โ€œAnd if a man eat of the sacred items through errorโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): โ€œAll the fat is the Lordโ€™s.โ€

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืฉืฉื” ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœื—ื

MISHNA: Five items in the burnt offering and the accompanying meal offering and libation join together to constitute the one peruta measure with regard to liability for misuse, and the olive-bulk measure with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and partaking of sacrificial foods while ritually impure. They are: The flesh; the fat of the burnt offering that is sacrificed on the altar; the fine flour of the accompanying meal offering; the wine of the accompanying libation; and the oil of the accompanying meal offering. And there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืงื ืืžืจืช ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that five items in the burnt offering [baโ€™ola] join together. Rav Huna taught Rava the mishna as follows: Five items in the world [baโ€™olam] join together. Rava said to Rav Huna: Did you say: In the world, i.e., that there are only five items in the world of offerings that join together? But isnโ€™t it taught in the mishna with regard to a thanks offering that there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering? Rav Huna said to Rava: One should teach in the mishna: Five items in the burnt offering [baโ€™ola] join together, not: Five items in the world.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืœื”ื ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœื›ื–ื™ืช ืœื”ืขืœื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื

ยง The mishna teaches that the flesh and the fat join together. The Gemara notes that we already learned this, as the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta 1:28): The meat of burnt offerings and their sacrificial portions join together to constitute the amount of an olive-bulk that renders one liable for sacrificing them outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.

ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื”ืขืœื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืœื™ืœ ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื•ื˜ืžื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืื™ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara notes that the baraita teaches that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, this halakha applies, whereas with regard to a peace offering, it does not apply. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to sacrificing them outside the courtyard, it stands to reason that in the case of a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, everything joins together, whereas with regard to peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions do not join together. But with regard to rendering one liable for piggul, and notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure, in the case of a peace offering as well, why is he not rendered liable?

ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื™ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืชืจื•ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื–ื• ืขื ื–ื•

The Gemara elaborates: But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna below: All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all pieces of sacrificial meat that are notar join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability? The mishna indicates that this is the halakha with regard to all types of offerings.

ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœื›ื–ื™ืช ืœื™ื–ืจืง ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื“ื

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the baraita should read as follows: The meat of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk in order to permit one to sprinkle the blood for them. If the meat of the burnt offering was lost after it was slaughtered and only an olive-bulk of the meat and sacrificial portions remain, they combine to permit the sprinkling of the blood.

ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœื™ื–ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara further explains: And since they join together to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to sprinkling the blood, once that blood has been sprinkled they join together to constitute the minimum amount of an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure. By contrast, in the case of a peace offering, the meat and the sacrificial portions do not join together for sprinkling, and as the sprinkling is not valid, they do not subsequently join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.

ื•ืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื

The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who teaches this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten, or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one sprinkles the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, as the fat is burned on the altar while the meat is eaten by the priests, they do not combine to form the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.

ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ื›ืœื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง

But with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because it is all consumed upon the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine. And in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains, one may not sprinkle the blood.

ืžื ื—ื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื

With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What is the relevance of a meal offering to this baraita? A meal offering does not require blood to be sprinkled on the altar. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering under discussion is the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. The baraita is teaching that if none of the meat of the animal remains, even if all of the accompanying meal offering is intact, the blood of the animal may not be sprinkled.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉืœ ื“ืžืื™ ื•ื”ื—ืœื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื•ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื›ืœ ื”ืคื™ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืชืจื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

MISHNA: Teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and แธฅalla, and first fruits all join together with one another to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture with non-sacred produce, and to form the requisite measure of an olive-bulk that serves to render one obligated for their consumption in payment of an additional one-fifth over and above the principal. All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all sacrificial meat that is notar joins together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืื™ืงืจื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืขืจืกืชื›ื ื—ืœื” ืชืจื™ืžื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that all of the foods listed in the mishna join together? The Gemara answers: The reason is that all of them are called teruma in the Torah. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to แธฅalla it is written: โ€œOf the first of your dough you shall set apart แธฅalla for a teruma; like teruma of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apartโ€ (Numbers 15:20).

ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืื™ืงืจื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ื™ื“ืš ืืœื• ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ืš ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

With regard to first fruits, they are also called teruma, as it is taught in a baraita that discusses foods that may not be eaten outside Jerusalem: The verse states: โ€œYou cannot eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vows that you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the offering of your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:17). โ€œAnd the offering of your handโ€; these are first fruits. But with regard to the other items listed in the mishna, i.e., teruma, teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of demai, it is not necessary to explain why they join together or to cite a verse, as it is clear that they are called teruma.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืขื ื–ื• ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืงืฆื™ื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

MISHNA: All animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact with them and through carrying, join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. And all repugnant creatures join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. The eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah join together to constitute the measure of a lentil-bulk, which transmits impurity through contact, and to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that all animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact and through carrying, join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. Rav says:

Scroll To Top