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

Daf Yomi

September 25, 2019 | 讻状讛 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

Meilah 8

What happens at each stage of the bird sin offering (designation of the animal, its slaughter and sprinkling of its blood) regarding when there is or isn’t potential for meilah, its ability to become disqualified by a tvul yom or mechusar kipurim coming in contact with it or being left overnight, and it’s ability to effect the karet obligation for pigul, notar and impure meat that was eaten? What about the shmearing of the blood – why is that not mentioned in the mishna? Is that a necessary part of a sin offering?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛


But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐



讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞诪诇拽讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讛驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛


MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment that it was consecrated. Once the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed in a ritual bath that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; and through its blood being left overnight, i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset.


讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪注讬诇讛


Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.


讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诇讬驻住诇 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讟诪讜讬讬 诇讗


GEMARA: The mishna teaches: From the time the nape of its neck was pinched, the bird sin offering was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. It can be inferred from here that yes, it is susceptible to disqualification, but it is not fit to render other items ritually impure.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐


In light of the above inference, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day,


转讞诇讛 诇拽讚砖


until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food. In other words, an item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item of food assumes third-degree impurity. If a third item comes into contact with the second item, it assumes fourth-degree impurity, i.e., it may not be eaten but does not impart impurity to other items.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 诪砖拽讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 诪砖拽讛 拽讚砖 讜讗讜讻诇讬 拽讚砖


Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered impure with second-degree impurity, even with regard to sacrificial food, and therefore he renders sacrificial food impure and disqualifies teruma. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma liquids and teruma foods, without them becoming impure to a degree that their impurity is transferred to another item, so too, he only disqualifies sacrificial liquids and sacrificial foods. Apparently, the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻专讗砖讜谉


Rava rejects this analysis and says: The mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir, as they might agree that by Torah law one who immersed that day only disqualifies the food and does not render it impure. But according to Abba Shaul, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to consecrated items, and therefore the Sages equated one who immersed that day to one who is impure with first-degree ritual impurity.


诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诇专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘诇 拽诇砖 讟讜诪讗讛 驻住讜诇 诪砖讜讬 讟诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬


Rava continues: According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages equated the impurity of one who immersed that day to food of second-degree ritual impurity, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no additional impurity by rabbinic law. Their reasoning is that since he has immersed, although he is not completely pure, his level of ritual impurity is relatively weak. Therefore, he renders a sin offering disqualified, but he does not render it ritually impure.


讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讻讜壮 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna teaches with regard to a sin offering: Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for its consumption due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, but there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara infers: There is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, but there is a prohibition against deriving benefit from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. But why is there such a prohibition? Isn鈥檛 the meat of the sin offering the property of the priests after the blood has been sprinkled? Accordingly, they would therefore be permitted to consume this meat.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗


Rabbi 岣nina says in explanation: The mishna is referring to meat that has been taken out from the place where it is permitted to be eaten. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Sprinkling of the blood renders fit those portions that were taken out of the place where they may be eaten, i.e., the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to them, but they are not fit for consumption.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛


The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of a bird sin offering. After the nape of its neck has been pinched and the blood sprinkled, the neck of the bird is pressed onto the side of the altar so that the blood is squeezed out and trickles down to the base of the altar. Rav Huna says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does not invalidate the offering or prevent atonement, as Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was sprinkled.


专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜转谞讬 专讘 诪讬爪讛 讚诪讛


By contrast, Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does invalidate the offering and prevents atonement. And Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was squeezed out. Only after the blood has been squeezed out is the atonement complete and the bird may be eaten.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛诪讝讘讞 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讜讛谞砖讗专


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:9). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who holds that the squeezing out of the blood is essential, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.鈥 This clause indicates that only after the blood has been squeezed out is it considered a valid sin offering. But according to the opinion of Rav Huna, what does the verse mean when it states: 鈥淭he remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering鈥?


讻讚转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诐 谞砖讗专 讜诪讗讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara answers that Rav Huna explains this verse as it is taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse teaches that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood must remain so that it can be squeezed out. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out any blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid. And what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥? This is referring to the first clause of the verse, i.e., it is a valid sin offering only if the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讗诐 谞讬转讜转专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 2:3). Does this also mean that if some of the meal offering remains then it is given to the priests, but there is no need to ensure that some of it remains ab initio? And if you would say this is indeed the case,


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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 8

讗讘诇 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛


But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐



讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞诪诇拽讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讛驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛


MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment that it was consecrated. Once the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed in a ritual bath that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; and through its blood being left overnight, i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset.


讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪注讬诇讛


Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.


讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诇讬驻住诇 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讟诪讜讬讬 诇讗


GEMARA: The mishna teaches: From the time the nape of its neck was pinched, the bird sin offering was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. It can be inferred from here that yes, it is susceptible to disqualification, but it is not fit to render other items ritually impure.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐


In light of the above inference, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day,


转讞诇讛 诇拽讚砖


until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food. In other words, an item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item of food assumes third-degree impurity. If a third item comes into contact with the second item, it assumes fourth-degree impurity, i.e., it may not be eaten but does not impart impurity to other items.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 诪砖拽讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 诪砖拽讛 拽讚砖 讜讗讜讻诇讬 拽讚砖


Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered impure with second-degree impurity, even with regard to sacrificial food, and therefore he renders sacrificial food impure and disqualifies teruma. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma liquids and teruma foods, without them becoming impure to a degree that their impurity is transferred to another item, so too, he only disqualifies sacrificial liquids and sacrificial foods. Apparently, the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪注诇讛 注砖讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻专讗砖讜谉


Rava rejects this analysis and says: The mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir, as they might agree that by Torah law one who immersed that day only disqualifies the food and does not render it impure. But according to Abba Shaul, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to consecrated items, and therefore the Sages equated one who immersed that day to one who is impure with first-degree ritual impurity.


诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诇专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘诇 拽诇砖 讟讜诪讗讛 驻住讜诇 诪砖讜讬 讟诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬


Rava continues: According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages equated the impurity of one who immersed that day to food of second-degree ritual impurity, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no additional impurity by rabbinic law. Their reasoning is that since he has immersed, although he is not completely pure, his level of ritual impurity is relatively weak. Therefore, he renders a sin offering disqualified, but he does not render it ritually impure.


讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讻讜壮 诪注讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna teaches with regard to a sin offering: Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for its consumption due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, but there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara infers: There is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, but there is a prohibition against deriving benefit from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. But why is there such a prohibition? Isn鈥檛 the meat of the sin offering the property of the priests after the blood has been sprinkled? Accordingly, they would therefore be permitted to consume this meat.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗


Rabbi 岣nina says in explanation: The mishna is referring to meat that has been taken out from the place where it is permitted to be eaten. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Sprinkling of the blood renders fit those portions that were taken out of the place where they may be eaten, i.e., the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to them, but they are not fit for consumption.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛讜讝讛 讚诪讛


The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of a bird sin offering. After the nape of its neck has been pinched and the blood sprinkled, the neck of the bird is pressed onto the side of the altar so that the blood is squeezed out and trickles down to the base of the altar. Rav Huna says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does not invalidate the offering or prevent atonement, as Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was sprinkled.


专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜转谞讬 专讘 诪讬爪讛 讚诪讛


By contrast, Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does invalidate the offering and prevents atonement. And Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was squeezed out. Only after the blood has been squeezed out is the atonement complete and the bird may be eaten.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛诪讝讘讞 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讜讛谞砖讗专


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:9). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who holds that the squeezing out of the blood is essential, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.鈥 This clause indicates that only after the blood has been squeezed out is it considered a valid sin offering. But according to the opinion of Rav Huna, what does the verse mean when it states: 鈥淭he remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering鈥?


讻讚转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诐 谞砖讗专 讜诪讗讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara answers that Rav Huna explains this verse as it is taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse teaches that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood must remain so that it can be squeezed out. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out any blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid. And what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥? This is referring to the first clause of the verse, i.e., it is a valid sin offering only if the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讗诐 谞讬转讜转专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 2:3). Does this also mean that if some of the meal offering remains then it is given to the priests, but there is no need to ensure that some of it remains ab initio? And if you would say this is indeed the case,


Scroll To Top