## Meilah Daf 5b

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

הָכִי נָמֵי, לָאו דַּוְקָא. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אִם כֵּן, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי תַּרְתֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, one can say that **so too** the mishna here is **not exact,** and therefore one cannot infer from it that the *halakhot* of misuse apply only when those who were unfit for Temple service collected the blood. Rather, the *halakhot* of misuse are in effect even if those who collected the blood were fit and those who sprinkled it were unfit, which means that the phrase: A period of fitness, can be referring to fitness of consuming the meat of the offering. **Rav Asi said: If so,** that the mishna is not exact, **why do I** need the *tanna* to **teach two** *mishnayot* in an inexact manner? It must be that at least one of them is taught in a precise fashion, and for that reason the same style was preserved in the other mishna.


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

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם דִּמְעִילָה דַּוְקָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must say that only one mishna is imprecise, i.e., the one in *Zevaḥim* with regard to the blood of a sin offering, and **actually** the mishna here **with regard to misuse** of consecrated property is **precise,** and therefore one can infer that the meaning of the phrase: A period of fitness, is fitness to sprinkle the blood.


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

וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּפָסוּל עוֹשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for the mishna in *Zevaḥim*, which speaks of those who are unfit for collecting the blood despite the fact that the same *halakha* applies if those who are fit collected it, **this** is what it **teaches us: That** if those who are **unfit** for Temple service collected some of the blood, it **renders** the blood, including that which he did not collect, as **leftovers.** The blood has the same status as the remainder of the blood of a fit offering after some of its blood was sprinkled on the altar.


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

אַף עַל גַּב דְּקִיבֵּל פָּסוּל וְזָרַק, וְקִיבֵּל כָּשֵׁר וְזָרַק – לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּשִׁירַיִים נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And consequently, it teaches with regard to a case where the blood was collected in two vessels, that **even though** the priest who was **unfit collected** the blood **and sprinkled** it, **and** a priest who was **fit** subsequently **collected** the blood **and sprinkled** it, the sprinkling of the fit priest is considered as though he did **not** do **anything. What is the reason** for this? The reason is **that** the blood **is** considered **leftovers.**


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

וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּסוּל, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But didn’t Reish Lakish ask Rabbi Yoḥanan:** In the case of an individual **unfit** for Temple service who sprinkled the blood, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to the remaining blood? Does the fact that he sprinkled some of the blood **render** the remaining blood **leftovers?**


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

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצִּין לְפִיגּוּלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him** in response: **You do not have a matter** of an invalid sprinkling **that renders** the remaining blood **leftovers except** for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area.** In these instances it is considered a significant sprinkling, **since** this sprinkling with improper intent **effects acceptance,** i.e., it is considered a valid sprinkling **with regard to** rendering the meat of the offering ***piggul*.**


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

מַאי לָאו, בַּר מִפָּסוּל? לָא, אֲפִילּוּ פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: **What, is it not** the case that when he said that only *piggul* intent renders the blood leftovers, this is **to the exclusion of** a sprinkling performed by **an unfit** priest? If so, this would mean that an unfit priest does not render the remainder of the blood leftovers, which contradicts the opinion of Rav Asi. The Gemara rejects this inference: **No, even an unfit** priest renders the blood leftovers.


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

וְהָא ״אֵין לְךָ״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** Rabbi Yoḥanan **taught** in a broad manner: **You do not have** a matter of an invalid sprinkling that renders the remaining blood leftovers except for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the blood is rendered leftovers only in those cases.


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

הָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה בְּצִיבּוּר וְעוֹשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אֲבָל טָמֵא, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּצִיבּוּר – מְשַׁוֵּי שִׁירַיִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **this** is what Rabbi Yoḥanan **is teaching: You do not have a matter** of an invalid sprinkling **that does not effect acceptance in** the case of offerings of the **community,** and yet **which renders** the remaining blood **leftovers, except** for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area.** Although these offerings are not sacrificed, nevertheless the sprinklings render the blood leftovers. **But** Rabbi Yoḥanan was not referring to a ritually **impure** priest, **who is** fit to effect acceptance for offerings **of** the **community** in a case where the majority of the community is impure, as he **does render** the remainder of the blood **leftovers.**


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

שְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין דְּלָא אִיתַנּוּן בְּצִיבּוּר – לָא מְשַׁוִּין שִׁירַיִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, with regard to all **other invalid** sprinklings, which **are not** fit to effect acceptance in the case of offerings **of** the **community,** e.g., a blemished priest, they **do not render** the blood **leftovers.** Accordingly, Rav Asi’s comment, that the mishna in *Zevaḥim* teaches that if those who are unfit for Temple service collect some of the blood they thereby render the blood leftovers, is referring only to an impure priest.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפִּיגּוּל – לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s phrase: That had a period of fitness to the priests. **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: With regard to an offering of the most sacred order that is ***piggul*,** one who derives benefit **from it** is **always** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property.


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

לָאו דְּלֹא זָרַק, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר זְרִיקָה שָׁנִינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: Is this **not** referring to a case **where** the priest collected the blood but did **not** yet **sprinkle** it? If so, this would mean that it is specifically the collection of the blood after the intent of *piggul* that does not remove the offering from the *halakhot* of misuse. One can infer from here that if the blood was collected with the proper intent, i.e., when the offering is not *piggul*, and is ready to be sprinkled, it does remove the offering from the *halakhot* of misuse. Accordingly, **conclude from** the *baraita* that it is **fitness** of **sprinkling** of the blood that **we learned** in the mishna.


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

לָא, זַרְקֵהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **No,** one cannot cite a proof from here, as it is possible that the *baraita* is referring to a case where the priest already **sprinkled** the blood. If so, the reason that one is liable for misuse is because the sprinkling of *piggul* does not remove it from the *halakhot* of misuse. It can therefore be inferred from the *baraita* that if the offering was not *piggul*, then the sprinkling would remove it from misuse. This interpretation is in accordance with the opinion that when Rabbi Yehoshua referred to a period of fitness, he meant fitness of consuming the meat of the offering, i.e., only when the blood was sprinkled properly.


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

וּמַאי ״לְעוֹלָם״? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב גִּידֵּל, דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל – אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִידֵי מְעִילָה, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא לִידֵי מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if so, **what** does the *baraita* mean when it states that one who derives benefit from an offering that is *piggul* **always** remains subject to the *halakhot* of misuse? **This** is what the *baraita* **teaches us** by this phrase, that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: Sprinkling** the blood of **an offering** with ***piggul*** intent **does not remove** the offering **from** the status of being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse,** in the case of offerings of the most sacred order. **And** similarly, such a sprinkling **does not bring** the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity **into** the status of being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse.**