## Meilah Daf 3b

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

קְלָטוּהָ מְחִיצוֹת לְכׇל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is **admitted by the partitions** of the courtyard **for all matters;** and from that point onward it has the status of a burnt offering sacrificed in the Temple with regard to all *halakhot*.


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: [עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ, שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה] – עָלוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: In this regard, **Rabbi Elazar asks:** In the case of **a burnt offering** consecrated to be sacrificed **on a personal altar that one brought into** the Temple courtyard **and** it **was rendered unfit** for sacrifice, e.g., it was slaughtered in the south rather than its proper place in the north, **if** its limbs **ascended** the altar to be sacrificed, **what is** the *halakha* **as** to whether **they should descend?** Although the animal was disqualified due to the change in location, had it been slaughtered in the south on a personal altar it would not have been disqualified.


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

מִדְּקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לַחֲדָא, מִכְּלַל דְּאִידַּךְ פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, אִי כְּרַבָּה אִי כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **From the fact that** Rabbi Elazar **asked** this question only **with regard to this one** case, one can conclude **that** in **the other** case, where the burnt offering was consecrated for sacrifice in the Temple, the *halakha* of the limbs that ascended the altar is **obvious to him.** He **either** holds that the *halakha* is that they are not sacrificed, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba, or** he maintains that they are sacrificed, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Yosef.**


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

חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference, as it is possible that Rabbi Elazar was actually uncertain with regard to that case as well; but **he raises one** dilemma **as a result of the other.** In other words, Rabbi Elazar was asking two questions, one predicated on the other, and the second question is valid regardless of whether he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba or Rav Yosef.


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

עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּה הָתָם אִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ, מְחִיצָה כְּתִיקְנָהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Even if Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, that in a regular case the limbs are removed from the altar, one can claim that **Rabba says** that **if** the limbs **ascend** the altar **they shall descend only there,** i.e., if the burnt offering was consecrated for sacrifice in the Temple. In that case, the owner consecrated the offering with the intention of sacrificing it within the **partition** of the courtyard, where slaughtering is performed **properly,** in the north.


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

פָּסְלָה, שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ – לֹא פָּסְלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, if it was slaughtered in the south, that **renders** the offering entirely **disqualified,** and therefore even if it ascended the altar it must descend. But in a case where he consecrated the offering in order to sacrifice it **improperly** on a personal altar, slaughtering it in the south **does not render** the offering entirely **disqualified,** and therefore if it ascends the altar it does not descend.


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

אוֹ דִילְמָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמַר אִם עָלְתָה – לֹא תֵּרֵד, מְחִיצָה כְּתִיקְנָהּ – קָלְטָה, שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ – לָא קָלְטָה. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps,** the opposite is the case: **Even according to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef, who said** that **if** it **ascends** the altar it **shall not descend,** that *halakha* applies only in a case where the owner consecrated the offering in order to sacrifice it within the **partition** of the courtyard, in which case it was consecrated **properly.** In such an instance, the offering is **admitted** by the partitions of the courtyard, and therefore even in a case where it was disqualified, if it ascended the altar it does not descend. By contrast, in a case where he consecrated it in order to sacrifice it **improperly** on a personal altar, the offering is **not admitted** at all by the partitions of the courtyard, which means that even if it ascends the altar it must descend. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved **[*teiku*]**.


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

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִידֵי מְעִילָה בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא לִידֵי מְעִילָה בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the misuse of offerings that were rendered unfit, **Rav Giddel says** that **Rav said: Sprinkling** the blood of **an offering** with **the intent to consume it after its appointed time [*piggul*],** in a case where there was *piggul* intent during the slaughter as well, **does not remove** the meat of the offering **from** the status of being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse, in** the case of **offerings of the most sacred order.** The reason is that its meat is still classified as “the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15), since there was no proper sprinkling that permitted the priests to partake of the offering, as it is *piggul*. Similarly, this sprinkling **does not bring** the sacrificial portions **of offerings of lesser sanctity into** the status of being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse,** as only a valid sprinkling confers that status.


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

יְתֵיב אַבָּיֵי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לִפְנִים, וְלַחְמָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – לֹא קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַלֶּחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Abaye sat and related this *halakha*,** which Rav Giddel said that Rav said. **Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye** from a mishna (*Menaḥot* 78b): With regard to **one who slaughters the thanks offering** in its proper place **inside** the Temple courtyard, **and** at that time, **its** forty accompanying **loaves** were **outside the wall,** where it is prohibited to partake of the loaves, **the loaves are not sanctified** by this slaughtering.


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

שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ בַּתַּנּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ קָרְמוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **if he slaughtered** the thanks offering **before the surface** of the loaves **formed a crust in the oven, and** this is the *halakha* **even** if the surface of **all** the loaves **formed a crust except for one of them, the loaves are not sanctified,** even those that had already formed a crust. If the priest **slaughtered** the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the portions consumed on the altar **beyond its** designated **time** and it was thereby rendered *piggul*, **or outside its** designated **area** and was disqualified, **the loaves are sanctified** and are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. This is presumably the case even if he also sprinkled the blood with *piggul* intent, as the mishna does not differentiate in this regard.


###### Meilah 3b:11
[Meilah 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3b:11)

אַלְמָא פִּיגּוּל מַיְיתֵי לַהּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה! אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **Evidently,** sprinkling the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity with the intent of ***piggul* subjects** offerings of lesser sanctity **to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** This apparently contradicts the opinion that Abaye stated that Rav Giddel said that Rav said. Abaye **was silent,** and was unable to resolve the difficulty against Rav’s statement.


###### Meilah 3b:12
[Meilah 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3b:12)

כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Abaye **came before Rabbi Abba** and reported Rav Pappa’s comments, Rabbi Abba **said to** Abaye: That is not a difficulty, as Rav Giddel said that the intent of *piggul* **during sprinkling** does not subject offerings of lesser sanctity to the *halakhot* of misuse. Since the offering is rendered full-fledged *piggul* and is disqualified, it cannot become subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. By contrast, the mishna in *Menaḥot* is referring specifically to the intent of *piggul* during slaughtering, whereas there was no such intent during sprinkling. In such a case, the sprinkling was performed with proper intent, and therefore it subjects the offering to the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 3b:13
[Meilah 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבָא: וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: קוֹמֶץ פִּיגּוּל שֶׁהֶעֱלוֹ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – פָּקַע פִּיגּוּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rava,** with regard to this explanation of Rav Giddel’s statement: **But doesn’t Ulla say:** In the case of **a handful** that is ***piggul*,** which is unfit for sacrifice, **that was brought up onto the altar** to be sacrificed and was burned by the fire of the altar, **its *piggul*** status **lapsed from it,** and it is fit for sacrifice?


###### Meilah 3b:14
[Meilah 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3b:14)

וּקְמִיצָה הַיְינוּ שְׁחִיטָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** since the **removal of** the **handful** in the case of the meal offering **is** the same as **slaughtering** animal offerings, i.e., it is the equivalent rite, and in this case the improper intent during the removal of the handful rendered the meal offering *piggul*, the same should apply to slaughtering in the case of an animal offering: The sacrificial portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity should be rendered full-fledged *piggul* by slaughtering alone with the intent of *piggul*, regardless of the intent during sprinkling. If so, Rabbi Abba’s answer above is incorrect.


###### Meilah 3b:15
[Meilah 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/3b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיסּוּרָא דְּמַיְיתֵי לִידֵי פִיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Ashi: This is not a difficulty, as Ulla did not mean that the intent during the removal of the handful alone rendered the meal offering full-fledged *piggul*. Rather, he meant that **a prohibited act** was performed upon it **which brings** it to a status of ***piggul*,** but the full status of *piggul* is attained only if there is also improper intent at the time of the sacrificing of the handful, which is equivalent to sprinkling in the case of an animal.