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?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Meilah 8
אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה הוּא דְּלֹא מְרַצָּה.
But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה, נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לְהִפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
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.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהּ מְעִילָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. לִיפָּסֵל – אִין, אֲבָל לְטַמּוֹיֵי – לָא.
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.
מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם
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,
תְּחִלָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
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.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה וְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לִטְבוּל יוֹם כָּרִאשׁוֹן,
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.
לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּאוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי. לְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּטְבַל – קְלַשׁ טוּמְאָה, פָּסוּל – מְשַׁוֵּי, טָמֵא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.
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.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳. מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל אִיסּוּרָא – אִיכָּא. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֲנִים הוּא!
§ 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’t 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, דְּלָאו בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.
Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. דְּתָנֵי רַב: ״הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ״.
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.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב. וְתָנֵי רַב: ״מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ״.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הִיא״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה… חַטָּאת הִיא״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, מַאי ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר״?
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: “And 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” (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: “And the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.” 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: “The remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”?
כִּדְתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר. וּמַאי ״חַטָּאת הִיא״? אַרֵישָׁא.
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: “It is a sin offering”? 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מִנְחָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״. הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁאִם נִיתּוֹתַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: “But that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (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,
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 4: Grain-Offerings That Pave the Way for Other Things
01.15.2026 | כ״ו בטבת תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Meilah 8
אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה הוּא דְּלֹא מְרַצָּה.
But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה, נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לְהִפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
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.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהּ מְעִילָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. לִיפָּסֵל – אִין, אֲבָל לְטַמּוֹיֵי – לָא.
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.
מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם
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,
תְּחִלָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
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.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה וְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לִטְבוּל יוֹם כָּרִאשׁוֹן,
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.
לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּאוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי. לְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּטְבַל – קְלַשׁ טוּמְאָה, פָּסוּל – מְשַׁוֵּי, טָמֵא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.
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.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳. מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל אִיסּוּרָא – אִיכָּא. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֲנִים הוּא!
§ 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’t 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, דְּלָאו בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.
Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. דְּתָנֵי רַב: ״הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ״.
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.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב. וְתָנֵי רַב: ״מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ״.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הִיא״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה… חַטָּאת הִיא״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, מַאי ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר״?
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: “And 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” (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: “And the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.” 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: “The remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”?
כִּדְתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר. וּמַאי ״חַטָּאת הִיא״? אַרֵישָׁא.
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: “It is a sin offering”? 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מִנְחָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״. הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁאִם נִיתּוֹתַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: “But that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (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,
Follow
