Meilah 16

Chapter 16

א תחלה לקדש
1 is unclean of the first degree in regard to holy things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This means, the sacred thing touched by a tebul yom is 'unclean' of the second degree. It can thus transmit the uncleanness two stages further. It 'defiles' other holy things and 'renders unfit' terumah.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ר"מ אומר מטמא את הקדש ופוסל את התרומה וחכ"א כשם שהוא פוסל משקה תרומה ואוכלי תרומה כך הוא פוסל משקה קדש ואוכלי קדש
2 R'Meir says: He renders holy things "unclean" and terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priests' share of the produce of the land, v. Num. XVIII, 11f, v. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span> "unfit".<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the tebul yom is considered unclean of the second degree.');"><sup>3</sup></span> The Sages say, Just as he renders "unfit" liquids and edibles of terumah, so he renders "unfit"<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not 'unclean' so as to defile other things, as in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אמר רבא לאבא שאול מעלה עשו בקדשים שוינהו רבנן לטבול יום כראשון
3 sacred liquids and edibles'! - Said Raba, on the view of Abba Saul, A higher standard has been set with holy things in that the Rabbis declared the tebul yom to be [in regard to them unclean in] the first degree. And on the view of R'Meir, [he possesses by Rabbinic enactment the same measure of uncleanness] as food which is unclean in the second degree;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which renders a holy thing unclean in the third degree.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד לר"מ כאוכל שני לרבנן כיון דטבל קלש טומאה פסול משוי טמא לא משוי
4 while on the view of the Sages, since he has immersed, his uncleanness has weakened, and he renders things 'unfit' but not 'unclean'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Raba's explanation our Mishnah may well agree with the views of Abba Saul and R. Meir, for their rulings result from the enactment of the Rabbis, whilst the 'Mishnah refers to the original law of the Torah.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה הוזה דמה חייבין כו' מעילה הוא דליכא אבל איסורא איכא ואמאי הא ממונא דכהנים הוא
5 ONCE ITS BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED. THE LAW OF SACRILEGE NO LONGER APPLIES TO IT. This implies that the Law of Sacrilege no longer applies though the prohibition still remains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its use is still forbidden although the attached penalty does not apply. It is thus considered the property of the Temple. This inference is made from the fact that the term 'permitted' would otherwise have been used in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>7</sup></span> But why?
ו א"ר חנינא ליוצאין ור"ע היא דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא דלאו בת אכילה היא
6 Is it not now the possession of the priests? - Said R'Hanina, [The Mishnah refers to an offering] which was taken out [of the Temple Court] so that [the flesh] is indeed not fit for consumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But has to be burnt.');"><sup>8</sup></span> and is in accordance With the view of R'Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7b.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז אמר רב הונא אמר רב מיצוי חטאת העוף אינו מעכב דתני רב הוזה דמה
7 Who holds that the sprinkling of the blood is of avail<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exempt it from the Law of Sacrilege.');"><sup>10</sup></span> with an offering that was taken out [of the Temple precincts].
ח רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב ותני רב מיצה דמה
8 Said R'Huna in the name of Rab: The draining out of the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ceremony performed after the sprinkling of the blood, v. Lev. V, 9.');"><sup>11</sup></span> of the sin-offering of a bird i not indispensable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If omitted or if there is not sufficient blood in the organs of the animal for this act, the sprinkling remains valid in regard to the laws of Sacrilege, piggul, etc. as ruled in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט תא שמע (ויקרא ה, ט) והנשאר בדם ימצה אל יסוד המזבח [חטאת היא] בשלמא לרב אדא בר אהבה היינו דכתיב והנשאר בדם ימצה חטאת היא אלא לרב הונא מאי והנשאר
9 for Rab learnt [in our Mishnah]: 'When its blood has been sprinkled'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No mention has been made of the draining out an indication that it is not indispensable.');"><sup>13</sup></span> R'Adda son of Ahabah in the name of Rab said: The draining out of the blood of the sin-offering of a bird is indispensable, and Rab, in fact, learnt [in our Mishnah]: 'When its blood has been drained out'.
י כדתניא דבי ר' ישמעאל שאם נשאר ומאי (ויקרא ה, יא) חטאת היא ארישא
10 Come and hear: It is said, and the rest of the blood shall be drained at the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Now on the view of R'Adda son of Ahabah it is right when it is written, 'and the rest of the blood shall be drained. it is a sin-offering',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suggesting there has to be a rest and that the rest which is to be drained is a sin-offering, hence indispensable.');"><sup>15</sup></span> but according to R'Huna, what is the meaning of 'the 'est etc.'? - As it has been taught in the School of R'Ishmael: 'If there remained.'
יא א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אלא מעתה גבי מנחה דכתיב (ויקרא ב, ג) והנותרת הכי נמי שאם ניתותר וכי תימא ה"נ
11 .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then it has to be drained out. But if there is no rest the service is still valid without it.');"><sup>16</sup></span> But then what of the phrase, 'it is a sin-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which might suggest that it is the draining out which makes it a valid sin-offering.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - It refers to the preceding text.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the sprinkling of the blood, without which the offering is indeed invalid.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Said R'Aha son of Raba to R'Ashi: If so, with the meal-offering where it is written 'and the remainder'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 3.');"><sup>19</sup></span> does it also mean 'if there remained'? And should you say: Indeed, so it is, surely it has been taught:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter