## Meilah Daf 5a

###### Meilah 5a:1
[Meilah 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:1)

אוֹ הֶיתֵּר זְרִיקָה שָׁנִינוּ, אוֹ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה שָׁנִינוּ? חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: הֶיתֵּר שְׁחִיטָה שָׁנִינוּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** was it **fitness** of **sprinkling** of the blood that **we learned,** i.e., once the blood is ready to be sprinkled, even if it was not sprinkled yet, the offering is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse? **Or** was it **fitness** of **consuming** the meat of the offering that **we learned?** In other words, is it only after the blood was actually sprinkled properly, and the meat of the offering is permitted to be consumed by the priests, that the offering is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse? The Gemara cites the different opinions with regard to this matter: **Ḥizkiyya says:** It was **fitness** of **slaughtering** that **we learned,** whereas **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It was **fitness** of **consuming** the meat of the offering that **we learned.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא דַּיְיקָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּחִזְקִיָּה וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further discusses this matter. **Rabbi Zeira says: The mishna is not precisely in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥizkiyya nor** precisely **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** i.e., a close reading of the mishna does not conform to either of their interpretations of the phrase: A period of fitness.


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

תְּנַן: שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, וְשֶׁיָּצָאת. לָאו דְּלָן דָּם, וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira elaborates: **We learned** in the mishna, in its list of examples of offerings that were disqualified after a period of fitness: A sacrificial animal **that remained overnight** after its blood was sacrificed on the altar and was therefore disqualified as *notar*, **and** one **that** was disqualified when it **became ritually impure, and** one **that left** the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. **Isn’t** the case of remaining overnight referring to a situation **where the blood remained overnight** and was not sprinkled after it was collected in a cup? **And** yet the mishna **teaches:** One is **not** liable for **misusing it,** as there was a period of fitness.


###### Meilah 5a:4
[Meilah 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:4)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר זְרִיקָה שָׁנִינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** therefore, one can **learn from** the mishna that it was **fitness** of **sprinkling** of the blood that **we learned.** Since the slaughtering and collecting of the blood was performed properly, the offering is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, despite the fact that the blood was not actually sprinkled. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiyya or with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

לָא, דְּלָן בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל דָּם אִיזְדְּרִיק, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No,** the mishna is not referring to a case where the blood had not been sprinkled. Rather, it is dealing with a case **where the meat was left overnight, but the blood had** already **been sprinkled** properly. It is **due to this** that the mishna **teaches:** One is **not** liable for **misusing it,** as there was a period of fitness of consuming the meat, as stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Meilah 5a:6
[Meilah 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:6)

תְּנַן: וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement. **We learned** in the mishna: **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 who are **unfit** for Temple service **collected** its blood for use in the sacrificial rite **and sprinkled its blood.**


###### Meilah 5a:7
[Meilah 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:7)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, אִילֵּימָא דִּזְרָקוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין וְקִבְּלוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין – לְמָה לִי עַד דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** referred to in the mishna, with regard to people who are unfit for collecting and sprinkling the blood? **If we say** that the mishna is dealing with a case **where** the blood was both **sprinkled** by those who are **unfit** for Temple service **and** the blood was also **collected** by those who are **unfit** for Temple service, this is difficult: **Why do I** need to say that it is not disqualified **until there are two** actions, collecting and sprinkling, which were performed improperly? After all, the offering is disqualified as soon as those who are unfit for Temple service collect the blood.


###### Meilah 5a:8
[Meilah 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:8)

אֶלָּא לָאו דְּקִבְּלוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין וּזְרָקוּהוּ כְּשֵׁרִים, וְקָתָנֵי מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** the blood was **collected** by those who are **unfit** for Temple service **but sprinkled** by those who are **fit? And** the mishna thereby **teaches** us that it is only in this case that one is liable for **misusing it.** This is due to the fact that there was no period of fitness for sprinkling the blood. By contrast, had the blood been collected by those who are fit for Temple service, where the blood is fit for sprinkling, the offering would no longer be subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, even if it was sprinkled by those who are unfit for Temple service.


###### Meilah 5a:9
[Meilah 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:9)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר זְרִיקָה שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, one can **learn from** the mishna that it is **fitness** of **sprinkling** of the blood that **we learned.** In other words, already at this stage the offering is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, despite the fact that the blood was not actually sprinkled. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiyya or the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אִיכָּא לְפַלּוֹגֵי הָכִי, הָא דִּתְנַן הָתָם:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this** interpretation of the mishna: **But if** it **enters your mind** that **there is** a way **to make this distinction** in the mishna, between a case where the blood was collected by those who are unfit for Temple service and sprinkled by those who are fit and a situation where it was collected by those who are fit for Temple service and sprinkled by those who are unfit, then this would present a difficulty with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna **there** (*Zevaḥim* 92a).


###### Meilah 5a:11
[Meilah 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:11)

חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה – אֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the relevant mishna: With regard to **a disqualified sin offering, its blood does not** cause a garment to **require laundering whether** the offering **had a period of fitness** when its blood was fit for presentation **or whether it did not have a period of fitness.** In either case, as the offering is currently unfit, its blood does not require laundering.


###### Meilah 5a:12
[Meilah 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:12)

אִי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה? שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, אוֹ שֶׁיָּצְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna proceeds to explain: **Which** offering **is** the disqualified sin offering **that had a period of fitness and was** then **disqualified?** It is one **that was left overnight** and then became disqualified as *notar*; **or** it is one **that became ritually impure; or** it is one **that left** the Temple courtyard.


###### Meilah 5a:13
[Meilah 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:13)

אֵיזוֹהִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Which** offering **is** the disqualified sin offering **that did not have a period of fitness?** It is one **that was slaughtered** with the intent to eat it or present its blood **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area; or** it is one whose blood was **collected** by people **disqualified** for Temple service **and** they **sprinkled its blood.**


###### Meilah 5a:14
[Meilah 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:14)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקִבְּלוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ פְּסוּלִין – הוּא דְּאֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, הָא קִבְּלוּהוּ וְזָרְקוּ כְּשֵׁרִים – דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef analyzes this mishna: **What are the circumstances** of the mishna’s case? **If we say** that the mishna is referring specifically to a situation **where** the blood was both **collected** by those who are **unfit** for Temple service **and** also **sprinkled** by those who are **unfit** for Temple service, and it is only in such a case **that its blood does not** cause a garment to **require laundering,** it may be inferred that if the blood was **collected** by those who are **fit** for Temple service and sprinkled by those who are unfit, or collected by those who are unfit and **sprinkled** by those who are **fit,** then **its blood** does cause a garment to **require laundering.** But this inference is difficult: It is not possible to interpret the mishna in such a manner, as that conclusion is incorrect.


###### Meilah 5a:15
[Meilah 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/5a:15)

קְרִי כָּאן: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ״ – וְלֹא שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה? אֶלָּא: לָאו דַּוְקָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the above conclusion is untenable: **Read here** the verse that states, with regard to laundering a garment on which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed: “And **if any of its blood is sprinkled** on a garment, you shall wash that upon which it was sprinkled in a holy place” (Leviticus 6:20). The Sages infer from the verse that this *halakha* applies only to the blood of a sin offering that has not yet been sprinkled, **and not to** blood of a sin offering whose blood **had already been sprinkled. Rather,** one can conclude that the language of the mishna with regard to the topic of the blood of a sin offering is **not exact,** as the same *halakha* applies even if the blood was collected and sprinkled by those who are fit.