## Meilah Daf 10b

###### Meilah 10b:1
[Meilah 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that one is liable for the prohibition of *notar* and the prohibition of eating an item while ritually impure, both with regard to items that have permitting factors and items that do not have permitting factors. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers that this is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that one is **liable due to** partaking of sacrificial food in a state of **ritual impurity only with regard to an item that has permitting factors.**


###### Meilah 10b:2
[Meilah 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:2)

וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה פִּיגּוּל שֶׁהוּא בִּידִיעָה אַחַת, וְקׇרְבָּנוֹ קָבוּעַ, וְלֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ – אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** this **is a logical inference: If** with regard to ***piggul*, which** renders one who eats it unwittingly liable **through one awareness,** i.e., for one to be liable to bring a sin offering it is enough for him to become aware after the fact that he had sinned unwittingly, **and its offering** for one who eats it unwittingly **is fixed, and** there are **no** circumstances in which **its general prohibition was permitted,** i.e., it is never permitted to eat *piggul*, and yet **one is liable due to** the prohibition of partaking of *piggul* **only for an item that has permitting factors,** the same should certainly apply to ritual impurity.


###### Meilah 10b:3
[Meilah 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:3)

טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁתֵּי יְדִיעוֹת, וְקׇרְבָּנוֹ עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Then with regard to **ritual impurity, where** one is liable only in a case **of two awarenesses,** i.e., one is liable only if he was aware of his impurity before eating the meat, and then forgot and ate, and afterward again became aware of his impurity; **and its offering** to atone for this transgression is **a sliding-scale** offering, which varies according to the offender’s financial status; **and** there are circumstances in which **its general prohibition was permitted** to the community, as communal offerings are sacrificed in the Temple in a state of impurity, under certain circumstances; **is it not right that one should be liable** for violating the prohibition of partaking of the meat while ritually impure **only for an item that has permitting factors?**


###### Meilah 10b:4
[Meilah 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:4)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כׇּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרַב מִכׇּל זַרְעֲכֶם וְגוֹ׳״ – בְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיָּד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִקְרַב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “Say to them: Anyone of all your seed throughout your generations, that approaches** the sacred items, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, while his impurity is on him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:3). **The verse,** which deals with eating while ritually impure, **is speaking of all the sacred items,** whether or not they have a permitting factor. One **might** have thought that **they should be liable for** eating **them immediately,** as soon as they have been verbally consecrated, even before they have been placed into a service vessel. **The verse states: “That approaches** the sacred items.” This clause is puzzling, as it apparently leads to the unlikely conclusion that liability applies after one has touched the item.


###### Meilah 10b:5
[Meilah 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְכִי יֵשׁ נוֹגֵעַ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב?! הָא כֵּיצַד? כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ מַתִּירִין, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקְדַּשׁ בִּכְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains that **Rabbi Elazar said: But is there** a case of one who **touches** an item **who is liable?** Rather, **how** is **this** possible? The answer is that the phrase “approaches [*yikrav*] the sacred items” can also be understood as: The sacred items that are fit to be sacrificed [*yikarev*], and therefore with regard to **any item that has permitting factors,** one is **not liable until the permitting factors** have been **sacrificed. And** in the case of **any item that does not have permitting factors,** one is **not liable until it is sanctified in** a service **vessel.**


###### Meilah 10b:6
[Meilah 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:6)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף**

.


###### Meilah 10b:7
[Meilah 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:7)

**וְלַד חַטָּאת**, וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – יָמוּתוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** This mishna, which also appears in tractate *Temura*, deals with the five sin offerings left to die. It is cited here because of its relevance to the *halakhot* of misuse. The mishna first mentions three of those offerings: **The offspring of a sin offering, and** an animal that is **the substitute for a sin offering,** whether or not the owners achieved atonement by means of another offering, **and a sin offering whose owners have died** before the offering was sacrificed, **shall die.**


###### Meilah 10b:8
[Meilah 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/10b:8)

וְשֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם מִשֶּׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים – תָּמוּת. וְאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְלֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the other two sin offerings left to die are the sin offering **whose year** since birth **passed** and is therefore unfit for sacrifice, **and** a sin offering **that was lost and** when it was **found** it was **blemished,** with regard to which the *halakhot* are as follows: **If** the sin offering was found **after the owner achieved atonement** through the sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, then the blemished animal **shall die, and it does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute,** as it is has neither inherent sanctity, which would make it fit for sacrifice on the altar, nor sanctity that inheres in its value. **And** one **may not derive benefit** from the found animal *ab initio*, **but** if he derived benefit from the animal he is **not** liable for its **misuse.**