## Meilah Daf 6a

###### Meilah 6a:1
[Meilah 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ נוֹתָר שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְיֵשׁ נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another source that might resolve the issue: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* that can provide a proof with regard to the meaning of Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement about a period of fitness to the priests: **Rabbi Shimon says** that **there is** a case of ***notar*,** when the blood was left overnight and was rendered unfit, **where** one is liable for **misusing** the meat of the offering, **and there is** also a case of ***notar* where** one is **not** liable for **misusing it.**


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

כֵּיצַד? לָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **How so?** If the blood was **left over** and someone consumed the meat **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, he is liable for **misusing** consecrated property. But if it was consumed **after** the **sprinkling** of the blood, he is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property, as the sprinkling removes the meat from being subject to the *halakhot* of misuse.


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, לָאו דַּהֲוָה שְׁהוּת לְמִיזְרְקֵיהּ, דְּאִי בָּעֵי – זָרֵיק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **In any event,** Rabbi Shimon **teaches** that if one consumes the meat before the leftover blood was sprinkled, he is liable for **misusing it.** Is this **not** referring to a case **where there was time** left in the day **to sprinkle** the blood that had already been collected in the service vessel, and therefore, **if he had desired, he could have sprinkled** the blood? Nevertheless, the offering is subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. This indicates that merely collecting the blood in the service vessel alone, without actually sprinkling it, does not remove the offering from being subject to the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:4
[Meilah 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:4)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה שָׁנִינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** accordingly, one may **conclude from** the *baraita* that it is **fitness** of **consuming** the meat of the offering that **we learned** in Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement in the mishna. It is the fitness of consuming the meat of the offering that removes the possibility of being liable for the prohibition of misuse, not the fitness of sprinkling.


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

לָא, דְּקַבְּלֵיהּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, דְּלֹא הָיָה שְׁהוּת לְמִזְרַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this conclusion: **No,** the *baraita* is not referring to a case where there was time left in the day to sprinkle the blood that had already been collected. Rather, it is referring to a situation **where** the priest **collected** the blood **shortly before sunset, where there was no time** left in the day **to sprinkle** the blood while it was still daytime. Since the blood could not have been sprinkled, the offering is still subject to the prohibition of misuse. But if there had been time to sprinkle the blood, then that blood would be considered ready to be sprinkled, and the offering would no longer be subject to the prohibition of misuse, in accordance with the opinion that the criteria is the fitness of sprinkling of the blood.


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

אֲבָל הָיָה שְׁהוּת, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מוֹעֲלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** in that case, **what** is the *halakha* in a situation where there **was time** in the day to sprinkle the blood? According to the above claim, **so too** the *halakha* is **that** he is **not** liable for **misusing** the offering.


###### Meilah 6a:7
[Meilah 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:7)

מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה״, לִיתְנֵי ״קוֹדֶם שְׁקִיעָה״ וּ״לְאַחַר שְׁקִיעָה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **why does** Rabbi Shimon **specifically teach** this distinction between a case **before sprinkling,** when the offering is still subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, and after sprinkling, when the offering is no longer subject to misuse? **Let** Rabbi Shimon instead **teach** a more precise distinction, between a situation where the blood was collected **before sunset** and there was time to sprinkle it but it was left overnight, in which case the offering is not subject to the prohibition of misuse, **and** a situation where the blood was collected **after sunset,** in which case it is still subject to the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:8
[Meilah 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָתָנֵי: קוֹדֶם שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִזְרִיקָה, וּלְאַחַר שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is **indeed** what Rabbi Shimon meant, as he actually **taught: Before** it was **fit for sprinkling,** the offering is still subject to the prohibition of misuse, **but after** it was **fit for sprinkling,** it is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:9
[Meilah 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ פִּיגּוּל שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְיֵשׁ פִּיגּוּל שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof from a similar *baraita*. **Come** and **hear: Rabbi Shimon says** that **there is** a case of **an offering** of the most sacred order that was sacrificed with ***piggul*** intent **where** one is liable for **misusing it, and there is** also a case of ***piggul*** intent **where** one is **not** liable for **misusing it.**


###### Meilah 6a:10
[Meilah 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:10)

כֵּיצַד? לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **How so?** If someone consumed the meat **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, he is liable for **misusing** consecrated property. If he consumed it **after** the **sprinkling** of the blood, he is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property, as the sprinkling removed the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:11
[Meilah 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:11)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, לָאו דַּהֲוָה שְׁהוּת לְמִיזְרְקֵיהּ, דְּאִי בָּעֵי – זָרֵיק, וְקָתָנֵי ״מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ״, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה שָׁנִינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** Rabbi Shimon **teaches** that if one consumes the meat of an offering that was rendered *piggul* **before** the blood was **sprinkled,** he is liable for **misusing it.** Is this **not** referring to a case **where there was time** left in the day **to sprinkle** the blood that had already been collected in the service vessel, and therefore, **if he had desired, he could have sprinkled** the blood? **And** yet Rabbi Shimon **teaches** that one is liable for **misusing it.** Once again, this would indicate that merely collecting the blood in the service vessel alone, without sprinkling, does not remove the possibility of the prohibition of misuse. **And** accordingly, one may **conclude from** the *baraita* that it is **fitness** of **consuming** the meat of the offering that **we learned** in Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement in the mishna.


###### Meilah 6a:12
[Meilah 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:12)

לָא, דְּלָא הֲוָה שְׁהוּת לְמִיזְרְקֵיהּ. אֲבָל הֲוָה שְׁהוּת לְמִיזְרְקֵיהּ, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דִּנְפַק מִידֵי מְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this conclusion: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to a situation where the priest collected the blood shortly before sunset, **where there was no time to sprinkle** the blood while it was still daytime. Since the blood could not have been sprinkled, the offering is still subject to the prohibition of misuse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if so, **what** is the *halakha* in a case where there **was time** in the day **to sprinkle** the blood? According to the above claim, the offering is **indeed removed** from being subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse.**


###### Meilah 6a:13
[Meilah 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:13)

מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה״, לִיתְנֵי ״קוֹדֶם שְׁקִיעָה״ וּ״לְאַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **why does** Rabbi Shimon **specifically teach** this distinction between **after sprinkling,** when the offering is no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, and before sprinkling, when the offering is still subject to misuse? **Let** Rabbi Shimon instead **teach** a more precise distinction, between a situation where the blood was collected **before sunset** and there was time to sprinkle it but it was left overnight, in which case the offering is not subject to the prohibition of misuse, **and** a situation where the blood was collected **after sunset,** in which case it is still subject to the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:14
[Meilah 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:14)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: קוֹדֶם שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִזְרִיקָה, לְאַחַר שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **that is indeed what** Rabbi Shimon **is saying: Before** it was **fit for sprinkling,** the offering is still subject to the prohibition of misuse, **but after** it was **fit for sprinkling,** it is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 6a:15
[Meilah 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפִּיגּוּל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – מוֹעֲלִין. מַאי לָאו דְּזָרַק, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה שָׁנִינוּ! לָא, דְּלֹא זָרַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests another proof. **Come** and **hear: An offering of the most sacred order** which is ***piggul*** is subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse.** The Gemara analyzes this statement: **What, is** this *baraita* **not** referring to a case **where** the priest already **sprinkled** its blood? This would indicate that a fit offering, unlike a *piggul* offering, is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse only once the blood is sprinkled. **And** if so, one may **conclude from** the *baraita* that it is **fitness** of **consuming** the meat of the offering that **we learned** in Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement in the mishna, i.e., this fitness of consuming the meat of the offering removes the prohibition of misuse. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** one cannot cite a proof from this *baraita*, as it is possible that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the priest did **not** yet **sprinkle** the blood.


###### Meilah 6a:16
[Meilah 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:16)

אֲבָל זָרַק מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ? מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **what,** then, is the *halakha* in a case where the priest did **sprinkle** the blood? Is the *halakha* **indeed that** one is **no** longer liable for **misusing it?** If so, **why does** the latter clause of the *baraita* **specifically teach:** Unlike an offering of the most sacred order, **in** the case of the sacrificial portions of **an offering of lesser sanctity** one is **not** liable for **misusing it?**


###### Meilah 6a:17
[Meilah 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:17)

לִיתְנֵי: כָּאן – לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, כָּאן – לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let** the *baraita* instead **teach** a distinction within the category of offerings of the most sacred order themselves: **Here,** the offering is subject to the prohibition of misuse because it is **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, and **there,** the offering is not subject to the prohibition of misuse because it is **after** the **sprinkling** of the blood.


###### Meilah 6a:18
[Meilah 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:18)

הָא אָתְיָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן: כֹּל לְאֵיתוֹיֵי לִידֵי מְעִילָה, זְרִיקָה כְּתִיקְנָהּ מַיְיתֵי לִידֵי מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* could have taught that distinction, but it chose to state a distinction between offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity because it **comes to teach us this** following principle: In **any** case where the result of sprinkling **brings** the offering **into** the category of the *halakhot* of **misuse,** e.g., the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, to which the *halakhot* of misuse apply only after the blood had been sprinkled, only **sprinkling** the blood **properly brings** the offering **into** the *halakhot* of **misuse.**


###### Meilah 6a:19
[Meilah 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/6a:19)

כֹּל לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִידֵי מְעִילָה, אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ נָמֵי מַפְקַע מִידֵי מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, in **any** situation where the result of sprinkling is **removing** the offering **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse,** e.g., the meat of an offering of the most sacred order, which was subject to the *halakhot* of misuse even before the blood was sprinkled, **even sprinkling** the blood **improperly removes** the offering **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel.