## Meilah Daf 3a

###### Meilah 3a:1
[Meilah 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:1)

אָמֵינָא: חַטָּאת, הוֹאִיל וּלְכַפָּרָה קָא אָתְיָא – לָא בְּדִילִין מִינַּהּ, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים, הוֹאִיל וְלָאו לְכַפָּרָה קָאָתֵי – בְּדִילִי מִנְּהוֹן, וְלֵית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
to **say: Since a sin offering is brought for atonement,** people **do not distance themselves from it** after it dies, as they realize that it is no longer fit to atone. Therefore, in order to ensure that people do not show disrespect, the Sages decreed that one is liable for its misuse. **But** with regard to other **sacrificial** animals of the most sacred order, **since they are not brought for atonement,** people still **distance themselves from them** after the animals die, **and** therefore one might think that there is **no** need to decree that **they are subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** Consequently, Ulla **teaches us** that even other sacrificial animals that die are subject to misuse by rabbinic decree.


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

וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתָה מִי אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה? וְהָתְנַן: חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת וּמָעוֹת הַהוֹלְכוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is a sin offering that died subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse? But didn’t we learn** in a *baraita*: With regard to **sin offerings** that are left to **die** because they are no longer fit for the altar, from which one is prohibited to derive benefit, **and** likewise **money** from which one is prohibited to derive benefit, **which goes to the Dead Sea** to be destroyed, one **may not** derive **benefit** from them *ab initio*, **but** if one derived benefit from them, he is **not** liable for their **misuse?**


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

אָמְרִי: חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת – בְּחַיֵּיהֶן בְּדִילִין מִנְּהוֹן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הֵיכָא דְּמֵחַיִּים – דְּלָא בְּדִילִין מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They say** in response to this question: With regard to **sin offerings** that are left to **die,** since even **during their lifetimes** people **distance themselves from them,** as they are no longer fit for sacrifice, there was no need for the Sages to institute a prohibition of misuse. This is **to the exclusion of** a sin offering **that** was fit **during its lifetime, as** people **do not distance** themselves **from it,** and therefore the Sages saw fit to institute a prohibition of misuse after it dies.


###### Meilah 3a:4
[Meilah 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא, וַחֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to offerings that were slaughtered in the wrong place and then were brought up to the altar. Rabba maintains that such offerings are removed from the altar while Rav Yosef rules that once they ascended the altar they do not descend from it and are burned. **Rav Yosef raised an objection to Rabba, one** source **from** another **one, and** that **one from** another **one,** i.e., his objection is based upon the combination of several sources.


###### Meilah 3a:5
[Meilah 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:5)

וְכוּלָּן, אֵין מְטַמְּאִים בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The mishna on *Zevaḥim* 66b, which deals with bird offerings that were disqualified for having either the napes of their necks pinched or their blood sprinkled in the wrong place, teaches: **And all of** the offerings mentioned in that mishna do **not** render one who swallows their meat **ritually impure** to the extent that his **garments are rendered impure** when it is **in the throat.** Although the offering is disqualified, since the nape of its neck was pinched as part of the rite one is not rendered impure by swallowing an olive-bulk of its meat, as is the *halakha* with regard to a carcass of a kosher bird. **And** one who derives benefit from these offerings is liable for **misusing them.**


###### Meilah 3a:6
[Meilah 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:6)

חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעָשָׂה לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is the *halakha* concerning all bird offerings, **except for the bird sin offering that one performed below** the red line, **according to the procedure of a bird sin offering,** and **for the sake of a sin offering.** Since it was sacrificed correctly, its meat is permitted to the priests and is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 3a:7
[Meilah 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:7)

וְקָתָנֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ: כׇּל שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in another mishna (*Zevaḥim* 68b) **with regard to** the same disqualified bird offerings: For **any** one of them **whose disqualification** occurred **in the sacred** area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, e.g., if the nape of its neck was pinched at night, **it does not render** the **garments** of one who swallows it **impure** when the meat is **in the throat. And** for **any** one of them **whose disqualification did not** take place **in the sacred** area, **it does render** the **garments** of one who swallows it **impure** when the meat is **in the throat.**


###### Meilah 3a:8
[Meilah 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:8)

וְקָתָנֵי: כׇּל שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – אִם עָלוּ, לֹא יֵרְדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in yet another mishna (*Zevaḥim* 84a): With regard to **any** offering **whose disqualification** took place **in the sacred** area, the sacred area renders the offering acceptable, and **if** such offerings **ascended** onto the altar they **shall not descend.** The first mishna establishes that birds disqualified because their rites were performed in the wrong place are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. The second mishna teaches that these same birds are considered items whose disqualification occurred in the sacred area. The last mishna establishes that if items whose disqualification occurred in the sacred area ascend the altar, they do not descend. By citing all these *mishnayot*, Rav Yosef demonstrates that an offering that is slaughtered in the wrong place is not removed from the altar, contrary to Rabba’s opinion. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rabba** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Meilah 3a:9
[Meilah 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3a:9)

וְהָא דִּפְלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד, שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara notes: **And that** matter with regard to **which Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree** is **obvious to Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says:** In the case of **a burnt offering** consecrated to be sacrificed **on a personal altar,** during the period when it is permitted to do so, **that one brought inside** the Temple courtyard,