Meilah 9

או היתר זריקה שנינו או היתר אכילה שנינו

or 'permitted for sprinkling',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the receiving of the blood must have been in order.');">¹</span>

חזקיה אמר

or 'permitted for consumption'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., also the sprinkling must have been in order.');">²</span>

היתר שחיטה שנינו ר' יוחנן אמר

Hezekiah said: It means 'permitted at the time of slaughtering'.

היתר אכילה שנינו

R'Johanan said: It means 'permitted for consumption'.

א"ר זירא

Said R'Zera: Our Mishnah cannot be made to correspond either with the view of Hezekiah or that of R'Johanan.

לא דייקא מתני' דלא כחזקיה ודלא כרבי יוחנן

For we have learnt: THAT WHICH REMAINED OVERNIGHT OR BECAME DEFlled OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT].

תנן

Now, does this not mean that the blood remained overnight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the receiving was properly performed.');">³</span>

שלנה ושנטמאת ושיצאת

and yet it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply, [a statement which] proves that 'permitted for sprinkling' is meant? - No, it means that the flesh remained overnight, but the blood had been sprinkled, and for this reason it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply.

לאו דלן דם וקתני אין מועלין בו וש"מ

We have learnt: WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS?

היתר זריקה שנינו

THAT WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED WHILE PURPOSING AN ACT BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR THE BLOOD OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNFIT AND THEY SPRINKLED IT.

לא דלן בשר אבל דם איזדריק מש"ה קתני אין מועלין בו

How is [the last instance] to be understood?

תנן

Shall I say that the blood was received by unfit [priests] and sprinkled by unfit [priests]?

ואיזו היא שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר לכהנים שנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה

Why is it necessary to have this twofold [disqualification]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mere fact that the blood had been received by the unfit prevented the flesh from becoming permissible to the priests.');">⁴</span>

ה"ד

You must then understand it that the blood was received by the unfit and sprinkled by the fit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The receiving was undoubtedly by unfit according to the text.');">⁵</span>

אילימא דזרקוהו פסולין וקבלוהו פסולין ל"ל עד דאיכא תרתי

and it states that [in this case] the Law of Sacrilege applies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not if the receiving was by fit and the sprinkling by unfit, in which case the flesh would have been rendered at a time permissible to the priests.');">⁶</span>

אלא לאו דקבלוהו פסולין וזרקוהו כשרים וקתני מועלין בו ש"מ

This would prove that 'permitted for sprinkling' is meant.

היתר זריקה שנינו

To this R'Joseph demurred: Should you say that a distinction of this character can be made.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף

how [would you explain] that which we have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 92.');">⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד איכא לפלוגי הכי הא דתנן התם חטאת פסולה אין דמה טעון כיבוס בין שהיתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה ובין שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה

'The blood of a disqualified sin-offering need not be washed off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VI, 20.');">⁸</span>

אי זו היא שהיתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה שלנה ושנטמאת או שיצאה

[if splashed upon a cloth], no matter whether the offering had at one time been fit for use and then became disqualified.

איזוהי שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר שנשחטה חוץ למקומה חוץ לזמנה ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה היכי דמי

or had at no time [been fit for use].

אילימא דקבלוהו פסולין וזרקו פסולין הוא דאין דמה טעון כיבוס הא קבלוהו וזרקו כשרים דמה טעון כיבוס קרי כאן (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר יזה מדמה ולא שכבר הוזה

Which is that which had at one time been fit for use, but became disqualified?

אלא לאו דוקא

That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood.');">⁹</span> which remained overnight or became defiled or was brought outside the Temple Court. Which is that which had at no time been fit for use? That which was slaughtered [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, or the blood of which was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it'. Now, how is this to be understood? Shall I say that [the blood] was received by the unfit, and was sprinkled by the unfit [and thus infer that only in this case] need the blood not be washed off; if, however, it was received and sprinkled by the fit, the blood has to be washed off? [But this could not be!] Apply here the verse: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof. ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20. The verb is used in the future tense indicating that the blood has yet to be sprinkled.');">¹⁰</span> but not of that which has already been sprinkled. You must then say [that the text of the Mishnah there] is not meant to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances]