## Meilah Daf 2a

###### Meilah 2a:1
[Meilah 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:1)

**קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים** שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. שְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, בַּצָּפוֹן וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּדָּרוֹם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Offerings of the most sacred order that** were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if **one slaughtered them in the south** of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as required, are subject to the following *halakha*: One is liable for **misusing them,** i.e., one who derives benefit from them must bring a guilt offering and pay the principal and an additional one-fifth of their value. If he improperly **slaughtered them in the south** of the courtyard **and** properly **collected their blood in the north, or** even if he properly slaughtered them **in the north** of the courtyard **but** improperly **collected their blood in the south,** although the more significant rite was performed improperly, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals.


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

שָׁחַט בַּיּוֹם וְזָרַק בַּלַּיְלָה, בַּלַּיְלָה וְזָרַק בַּיּוֹם, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The same *halakha* that applies if the location of the sacrificial rites was altered likewise applies if the time of those rites was altered. Accordingly, if **one** properly **slaughtered** them **during the day and** improperly **sprinkled** their blood **at night,** or if he improperly slaughtered them **at night and** properly **sprinkled** their blood **during the day,** one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. **Or** in a case **where one slaughtered them** with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood **beyond its** designated **time,** rendering it *piggul*, **or outside its** designated **area,** disqualifying the offering, he is liable for **misusing them** if he derives benefit from the animals.


###### Meilah 2a:3
[Meilah 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:3)

כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כׇּל שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle** with regard to misuse of disqualified sacrificial animals: With regard to **any** sacrificial animal **that had a period of fitness to the priests** before it was disqualified, one is **not** liable for **misusing it.** Misuse applies specifically to items consecrated to God, which are not permitted for human consumption at all. Once the offering was permitted for consumption by the priests, it is no longer in that category. **And** with regard to **any** sacrificial animal **that did not have a period of fitness for the priests** before it was disqualified, one is liable for **misusing it** if he derives benefit from it, as it remained consecrated to God throughout.


###### Meilah 2a:4
[Meilah 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:4)

אֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמְאָה, וְשֶׁיָּצְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Which is** the sacrificial animal **that had a period of fitness for the priests?** This category includes a sacrificial animal **whose** meat **remained overnight** after its blood was presented on the altar and therefore came to have the status of *notar* and was therefore disqualified, **and** one **that** was disqualified when it **became ritually impure, and** one **that left** the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. All of these disqualifications transpired after consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted, and therefore one who derives benefit from these offerings is not liable for misuse.


###### Meilah 2a:5
[Meilah 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:5)

וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, וְשֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And which is** the sacrificial animal **that did not have a period of fitness for the priests?** It is a sacrificial animal **that was slaughtered** with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood **beyond its** designated **time,** or **outside its** designated **area, or** one **that** those **unfit** for Temple service **collected and sprinkled its blood.** All of these disqualifications took effect before consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted. The offerings therefore remain consecrated to God, and one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from them.


###### Meilah 2a:6
[Meilah 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** קָתָנֵי: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁחִיטָתָן בַּדָּרוֹם אַפֵּיקִינּוּן מִידֵי מְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna **teaches:** With regard to **offerings of the most sacred order** that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if **one slaughtered them in the south** of the Temple courtyard, one who derives benefit from them is liable for **misusing them.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious?** Just **because their slaughter was performed in the south, should we revoke their** status **as subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse?**


###### Meilah 2a:7
[Meilah 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:7)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵּי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, הָכִי נָמֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי דָרוֹם, כְּמָה דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** for the mishna to mention the case of slaughtering them in the south, as it might **enter your mind to say** that **since Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial** animals **that died** without being sacrificed **are excluded from** being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse by Torah law, so too,** in the case of **offerings of the most sacred order** that were improperly slaughtered **in** the **south, they are considered as though they were strangled** to death, and therefore they are no longer subject to misuse.


###### Meilah 2a:8
[Meilah 2a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:8)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – לָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל. אֲבָל דָּרוֹם – נְהִי דְּאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל רָאוּי הוּא לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, the mishna **teaches us** that although they were slaughtered improperly, they are not considered to have the status of **sacrificial animals that died,** as those **are not fit at all. But** with regard to slaughtering an animal in the **south, although** this **is not fitting for offerings of the most sacred order, yet** the act is still classified as slaughter of sacrificial animals, as slaughter in the south **is fitting for offerings of lesser sanctity.**


###### Meilah 2a:9
[Meilah 2a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:9)

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי כׇּל הָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna **to teach all of these** different cases? It could have mentioned just one case, from which one would have derived the principle that even in a situation where the rite of the offering is not performed in the proper manner, the animal can still be subject to the *halakhot* of misuse.


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

צְרִיכִי: אִי תְּנָא שְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, הָכָא דְּאִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַבָּלָה בַּצָּפוֹן הוּא. אֲבָל שְׁחָטָן בַּצָּפוֹן וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּדָּרוֹם, הוֹאִיל וְקִיבֵּל בַּדָּרוֹם הוּא – נָפֵיק מִידֵי מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: All these cases **are necessary. If** the mishna had **taught** only the case of **one** who improperly **slaughtered them in the south** of the courtyard **and** properly **collected their blood in the north,** one might have thought that it is only **here,** in this case, **that** the animals **are subject** to the *halakhot* of **misuse, as** the **collection** of the blood was **in the north. But** if **he slaughtered them in the north and collected their blood in the south, since the collection,** which is a more fundamental rite than the slaughter, **is in the south,** one might think that they are **removed** from the status **of** being **subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** Therefore, the mishna mentions that case as well.


###### Meilah 2a:11
[Meilah 2a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:11)

וְאִי תְּנָא הַאי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: יְמָמָא זְמַן הַקְרָבָה הוּא, אֲבָל שְׁחָטָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה וְזָרַק בַּיּוֹם – לַיְלָה לָאו זְמַן הַקְרָבָה, וְהַאי דְּשָׁחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה – דְּנָפֵיק מִידֵי מְעִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna had **taught** only **these** aforementioned cases, **I would say** that only in such situations is the offering subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, as they were at least sacrificed during the **day,** which **is the** appropriate **time for sacrifice. But** if **one slaughtered** an offering **at night and sprinkled** its blood **during the day,** it would not be subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, as **night is not the** appropriate **time** for **sacrifice, and** therefore in **this** case of one **who slaughtered at night,** the animal is **removed** from its status **of** being **subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.**


###### Meilah 2a:12
[Meilah 2a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:12)

וְאִי תְּנָא שְׁחָטָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְקִבֵּל דָּמָה בַּיּוֹם – אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה, אֲבָל שְׁחָטָן בַּיּוֹם וְזָרַק דָּמָן בַּלַּיְלָה, הוֹאִיל וְלָאו זְמַן הַקְרָבָה הוּא – כְּמַאן דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי, וְלָא אִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna had **taught** only the case where he **slaughtered it at night** and collected the blood during the day, **I would say: Since he collected the blood during the day,** as required, the offering retains its status and **is subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse. But** if **he slaughtered** animals **during the day and sprinkled their blood,** which is the main act of sacrifice, **at night, since it is not a time** fit **for sacrifice, it is considered as though they were strangled, and they are not subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** all of these cases.


###### Meilah 2a:13
[Meilah 2a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:13)

חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. לְמַאי חֲזוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered sacrificial animals with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood **beyond its** designated **time,** rendering them *piggul*, or **outside its** designated **area,** disqualifying them, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. The Gemara asks: **For what are** these sacrificial animals **fit?** Since they are unfit for both sacrifice and consumption by the priests, even in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, why are they considered as consecrated items that are subject to misuse?


###### Meilah 2a:14
[Meilah 2a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/2a:14)

הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצִּין לְפִיגּוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since** sprinkling their blood on the altar **renders them accepted** in that they receive **their** status of being subject to ***piggul*,** therefore they have still not entirely lost their sanctified status and are subject to misuse. In other words, an offering with regard to which there was an improper intention is rendered *piggul* only if all its permitting factors, one of which is sprinkling the blood, are performed properly (see *Zevaḥim* 28b). The fact that its permitting factors are important for the purpose of rendering it subject to *piggul* shows that the offering has not lost its consecrated status.