Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 1

Mishnayos Meilah Perek 1 Mishnah 2

מעילה פרק א׳ משנה ב׳

2
The mishna presents a dispute with regard to the status of offerings of the most sacred order, which normally are not subject to the halakhot of misuse once their blood has been sprinkled and they have been permitted to the priests. The case of the mishna is the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, whose consumption is permitted from the moment their blood was sprinkled, that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, and then reentered the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of this blood does not permit its consumption by the priests. Consequently, one is liable for misusing it. And he is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, if he partook of it after it was slaughtered with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood beyond its designated time, or of notar, if he partook of the meat after it remained overnight, or of partaking of the meat while ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective despite the fact that the meat left the Temple courtyard and was disqualified, and therefore one is not liable for misusing it. Likewise, other halakhot that apply to offerings whose blood was sprinkled apply to it, and consequently one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibitions of partaking of meat that is piggul, or notar, or remained overnight, or of partaking of the meat while ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva said, in support of his opinion: But there is the case of one who designated an animal as his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and thereafter the first sin offering was found and both of them are standing fit for sacrifice. If he slaughtered both animals at the same time and sprinkled the blood of one of them, which means that the second was disqualified as a leftover sin offering, the question arises as to the status of the meat of the second animal with regard to the halakhot of misuse. Is it not the case that just as the blood of the animal whose blood was sprinkled exempts its meat from liability for its misuse, so too it exempts the meat of the other animal? Since he could have chosen to sprinkle the blood of either animal, they are considered as though they were one offering. If so, one may learn from there by an a fortiori inference with regard to the case of sprinkling the blood of meat that left the courtyard and returned: If the sprinkling of its blood exempted the meat of the other animal from the halakhot of misuse, it is only right that it should exempt its own meat that left the courtyard.
בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת, לֹא כְשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ, כָּךְ הוּא פוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. וְאִם פָּטַר דָּמָהּ אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטֹר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ:
ב׳

בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים (beyond the veils of the courtyard) – and afterwards it (i.e., the meat) came in and afterwards tossed/sprinkled the blood.

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בו – even though he tossed/sprinkled the blood, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] does not take effect/benefit to [meat] that leaves to exclude something from religious sacrilege.

ואין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for since it (i.e., the meat) left [the courtyard]. For tossing/sprinkling is fit for it establishes פיגול/an offering disqualified by proper intention, but it is not disqualified.

רבי עקיבא – Rabbi Akiva holds that we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it. For he holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] takes effect for [the meat] that goes out to exclude it from religious sacrilege.

אבל חייבין כו' – but, the language of “surely!”/”truly!”- like truthfully. But when Rabbi Akiva said that tossing/sprinkling [the blood] take effect for [the meat] that leaves [from the courtyard], as for example, that part of the meat went out but not all of it, that because it is effective for that part that is inside [the courtyard], it is effective also for that part [of the meat] that left [the courtyard] to the outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

אמר ר' עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה – now he brings a proof to that which he sasid that tossing/sprinkling effects that [meat] which left [the Temple courtyard].

והרי שתיהן עומדות (both of them are available)– are both slaughtered and their blood was received in two cups and he tossed/sprinkled the blood from one of them.

לא כשם שדמה – of that one.

פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.

כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה– whose blood was not tossed/sprinkled, since he was able to sprinkle/toss the blood of which of them that he wanted.

ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה – even though it is disqualified, that it is permitted as a sin-offering. Does it not follow that it will exempt its own flesh, even though it was disqualified when it went out [of the courtyard?” But Rabbi Akiva did not say that just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its fellow [sacrifice], but rather, when he slaughtered two sin-offerings as one, because if he wanted, he toss/sprinkles from this one, if he wanted, he sprinkles/tosses from that one, but [in the case of] one after another, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the blood would exempt the flesh of its fellow [animal sacrifice].

בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים. ואחר כך נכנס ואחר כך זרק את הדם:

ר׳ אליעזר אומר מועלים בו. אע״פ שזרק את הדם. דסבירא ליה לרבי אליעזר דזריקה לא מהני ליוצא לאפוקי מידי מעילה:

ואין חייבין עליו משום פגול נותר וטמא. הואיל ויצא. דזריקה כשרה קא קבעה לפגול, ולא פסולה:

רבי עקיבא. סבר אין מועלים בו. דקסבר דזריקה מהניא ליוצא לאפוקי ממעילה:

אבל חייבין כו׳ אבל, לשון ברם, כמו באמת. וכי אמר רבי עקיבא דזריקה מהני ליוצא, כגון שיצא מקצת הבשר ולא כולו, דמגו דמהניא לההוא מקצת שבפנים, מהניא נמי לההוא מקצת שיצא חוץ. והלכה כר׳ עקיבא:

אמר ר׳ עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה. השתא מייתי ראיה למאי דקאמר דזריקה מועלת ליוצא:

והרי שתיהן עומדות. שחוטות ונתקבל דמן בשתי כוסות וזרק דמה של אחת מהן:

לא כשם שדמה. של אותה:

פוטר את בשרה, מן המעילה:

כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה שלא נזרק דמה, מן המעילה, הואיל והיה יכול לזרוק דמה של איזו שירצה:

ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה. אע״ג דפסולה היא, דמותר חטאת היא. אינו דין שיפטר בשרה של עצמה, אע״פ שנפסלה ביוצא. ולא אמר ר׳ עקיבא כשם שדמה פוטר את בשרה כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה, אלא כששחט שתי החטאות כאחת, לפי שאם רצה מזה זורק רצה מזה זורק, אבל בזה אחר זה לא אמר ר׳ עקיבא שיהיה דמה פוטר בשר חברתה: