## Meilah Daf 2b

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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִי עָלוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: אִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אִם עָלוּ – לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In a case where a rite was performed in the wrong location, e.g., offerings of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the south rather than the north, **if** the offerings **had** already **ascended** the altar, **what is** the *halakha* **as** to whether **they descend,** i.e., are they removed from the altar or are they sacrificed? **Rabba says: If they ascended** the altar, **they shall descend. Rav Yosef says: If they ascended** the altar, **they shall not descend.**


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

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara cites a relevant dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 84a). Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in certain cases when an offering became disqualified in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, it was removed from the altar. By contrast, Rabbi Shimon rules that any offering that became disqualified once it was already inside the Temple courtyard was not removed from the altar if it ascended there. The Gemara states: **In accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, you should not raise** this **dilemma, as everyone,** i.e., both Rabba and Rav Yosef, **agrees that** in the cases of the mishna Rabbi Yehuda would rule that even **if** the disqualified offerings have **ascended the altar, they must descend. They disagree when** the dilemma is raised **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon.**


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

רַב יוֹסֵף כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה אוֹ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef holds in accordance with** a straightforward interpretation of the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** that the offerings listed in the mishna do not descend from the altar, as they became disqualified inside the Temple courtyard. By contrast, **Rabba** could have **said to you: Rabbi Shimon states** that the offerings do not descend **only with regard to** cases such as the bird sin offering, whose blood should be **placed below** the red line on the altar, **which one placed above** the red line; **or with regard to** offerings such as the bird burnt offering, whose blood should be **placed above** the red line, **which one placed below** that line.


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

וּלְעוֹלָם דִּשְׁחָטָן וְקִבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – כְּמַאן דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** therefore, Rabbi Shimon is **actually** dealing **with** cases where **one slaughtered** the offerings **and collected their blood in the north,** in accordance with the *halakha*. **But here,** in the cases of the mishna, **since one slaughtered them in the south, it is considered as though they were strangled** to death, and were not slaughtered at all. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon agrees that they should be removed from the altar.


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

תְּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! מַאי מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: With regard to **offerings of the most sacred order** that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, if **one slaughtered them in the south** of the Temple courtyard, he is liable for **misusing them** if he derives benefit from them. **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef,** this *halakha* **works out well.** Since they remain consecrated and do not become permitted to the priests, they may remain on the altar. **But according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** it is **difficult:** If these offerings must be removed from the altar, why can one be liable for misusing them? The Gemara explains: **What** is the meaning of the clause: One is liable for **misusing them?** This means that one is liable for misusing them **by rabbinic law,** but they are not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law.


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לְרַבָּנַן? דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מְשַׁלְּמִין חוֹמֶשׁ, דְּרַבָּנַן – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What** practical difference **is there between** misuse **by Torah law** and misuse **by rabbinic law?** The Gemara explains that those who misuse **by Torah law** must **pay** an additional **one-fifth** to the Temple treasury, over and above the principal. By contrast, misuse **by rabbinic law** does **not** render one obligated to pay the additional one-fifth.


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

וּמִי אִיכָּא מְעִילָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִין, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה, דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אַלְמָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אִית לְהוֹן, בִּדְרַבָּנַן אִית בְּהוֹן. הָכִי נָמֵי – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there** a concept of **misuse** of consecrated property **by rabbinic law?** The Gemara answers: **Yes** there is, **as Ulla said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial** animals **that died** have been **removed from** the *halakhot* of **misuse by Torah law. Evidently,** it is **by Torah law** that the *halakhot* of misuse do **not apply to them,** but **by rabbinic law** they do **apply to them. So too** in this case, where the animals are slaughtered in the south, they are subject to misuse **by rabbinic law.**


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

לֵימָא תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן! אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנֵינָא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּעוּלָּא, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הָכָא לָא בְּדִילִין מִנְּהוֹן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If Rabba is correct that the mishna is referring to misuse by rabbinic law, **let us say** that **we** already **learned** in the mishna **that which Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said. Why, then, was it necessary for Ulla to repeat this *halakha*? The Gemara explains: **Even though we** already **learned** it in the mishna, the statement **of Ulla was necessary:** It might **enter your mind to say** that **here,** with regard to offerings slaughtered in the south, people **will not distance themselves from them,** as they are no different in appearance from animals sacrificed properly, and therefore the Sages decreed that they are subject to misuse by rabbinic law.


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

אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ, הוֹאִיל וּבְדִילִין מִנְּהוֹן, אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ מְעִילָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case of **sacrificial** animals **that died,** and were never slaughtered at all, **since** people **distance themselves from them,** one might **say** that they are **not** subject to **misuse even by rabbinic law.** There-fore, Ulla **teaches us** that they are nevertheless subject to misuse by rabbinic law.


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

מֵתוּ – נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. וּכְשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן דְּנֶהֱנָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **Didn’t we also learn** in a mishna that sacrificial animals that **died** are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by rabbinic law? As the mishna (18a) teaches: **One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive** is **not** liable for **misuse until he** causes it one *peruta* worth of **damage. But** if he derives benefit from it **when it is dead,** since it will not be redeemed it cannot be damaged. Therefore, **once he derives** one *peruta* worth of **benefit** from it, even without damaging it, **he is liable for misuse.** This misuse must apply by rabbinic law, as sacrificial animals that have died are not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law. If so, the *halakha* that these animals are subject to misuse by rabbinic law is already stated in a mishna and therefore there is no reason for Ulla to repeat it.


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

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind**