## Meilah Daf 7a

###### Meilah 7a:1
[Meilah 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:1)

מְחַשְּׁבִין עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הַשָּׂרוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**one** renders an offering *piggul* by having **an intention** at the time of sprinkling to later sacrifice its sacrificial portions after the proper time, even **with regard to** sacrificial portions that were already **lost and with regard to** sacrificial portions that were already **burned.**


###### Meilah 7a:2
[Meilah 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:2)

וְהָא אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף לָא אִיתִינּוּן בָּעוֹלָם, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָתָנֵי מְחַשְּׁבִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: **But** sacrificial portions that are **lost or burned are not present in the world,** i.e., they are not available, **and even so** it is **taught** that **one** renders an offering *piggul* by **an intention** to consume it after its appointed time. It can be derived from here that if the entire offering left the courtyard, which is comparable to a case where it was lost, the sprinkling is effective with regard to the *halakhot* of misuse according to Rabbi Akiva. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רַב אַסִּי הָכִי? הָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חִישֵּׁב לַנִּשְׁפָּכִין, לְמָחָר, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did Rav Asi** actually **say this?** Does he maintain that even if all of the meat and the sacrificial portions left the courtyard, the sprinkling is effective according to Rabbi Akiva? **Didn’t Rav Asi raise** the following **dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is** the *halakha* in a case where the priest **intended** during the sacrificial rites that the remnant of the blood, **which is** meant to be **poured** on the base of the altar immediately after the sprinkling, will be poured improperly **tomorrow?** Does the offering thereby become *piggul*, as this is similar to intending to sprinkle the blood after the proper time; or does such intent apply only to the blood that is actually sprinkled on the altar?


###### Meilah 7a:4
[Meilah 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּבָר שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ אָלָל! אַלְמָא הַאי אָלָל, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא – לֹא קִיבֵּל טוּמְאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rabbi Zeira said to** Rav Asi in response to this dilemma: **You already taught us** in tractate *Ḥullin*, with regard to the ritual impurity of food and animal carcasses, that items that are not themselves edible but are attached to meat combine with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to transmit the impurity of foods. One instance of this principle is the **meat residue** attached to the hide after flaying, which combines with the meat to transmit the impurity of foods, despite the fact that it is not considered food and does not transmit impurity of foods on its own. **Evidently this meat residue, since it has no substance** and significance in and of itself, it **is not susceptible to impurity.**


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

הָנֵי נִשְׁפָּכִין נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְאִיבּוּד אָזְלִי – בְּהוּ מַחְשָׁבָה לָא מַהְנְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the contradiction: It follows that according to Rav Asi, in the case of **this** blood, **which is** meant to be **poured** on the base of the altar, **since it is going to be lost** and therefore is **also** insignificant, **intent with regard to it is not effective** to render the offering *piggul*. The blood that is to be poured on the base of the altar is similar to an offering that left the courtyard in its entirety, as they are both considered as though they are not present. Consequently, according to Rav Asi, in a case where the entire offering left the courtyard and is meant to be burned and thereby destroyed, it cannot be rendered *piggul* by means of intent during the sprinkling. This follows Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that he is referring only to a case where the offering left partially, not where the entire offering left.


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

אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הַשָּׂרוּף – קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רָבָא: אֵימָא: עַל הָעוֹמֵד לְאִיבּוּד וְעַל הָעוֹמֵד לִישָּׂרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** Rav Asi cited **that** which the *baraita* **teaches:** One can render an offering *piggul* by means of one’s intent, even **with regard to** sacrificial portions that were already **lost and with regard to** sacrificial portions that were already **burned.** This *baraita* itself poses **a difficulty,** as it indicates that intent is effective even for that which has been destroyed. **Rava said** in response: Emend the wording of the *baraita* and **say** instead: One can render an offering *piggul* by means of one’s intent, even **with regard to** sacrificial portions that **stand to be lost or with regard to** sacrificial portions that **stand to be burned,** but were not yet destroyed. Since they are currently present, such intent is effective to render the offering *piggul*. But in a case where the offering left the courtyard, as it is not present, intent is ineffective with regard to it.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל דָּם – אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in the mishna, **Rav Pappa says** that **Rabbi Akiva says** his ruling, that **sprinkling is effective** for the meat of offerings **that left** the courtyard before sprinkling, with regard to *piggul* and the *halakhot* of misuse, **only** in a case **where** the **meat left** while the blood remained inside and was sprinkled. **But** if the **blood** itself left, then even if it was returned to the courtyard and was sprinkled, in such a case the **sprinkling** of blood that **left** the courtyard **is not effective** to remove the meat from the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 7a:8
[Meilah 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:8)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שָׁחַט בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְיָצָא דָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּזְרָקוֹ – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this** opinion of Rav Pappa **is also taught** in a *baraita*: If one **slaughtered** the animal **in silence,** i.e., with no improper intent, **and** the **blood** subsequently **left** the courtyard, **even though** it was **returned** to the courtyard **and** the priest later **sprinkled it, he has done nothing,** i.e., it is ineffective. Therefore, **in** the case of **offerings of the most sacred order,** one who derives benefit **from it** is still liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, as the sprinkling did not render the meat permitted. Likewise, **in** the case of **offerings of lesser sanctity,** the sprinkling does not render the sacrificial portions subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, and therefore one who derives benefit **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse,** as is the case before the sprinkling.


###### Meilah 7a:9
[Meilah 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הָא זֶה, לְמָה דּוֹמֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. **Rabbi Akiva said,** in support of his opinion: **To what is this** case, where the meat left before the blood was sprinkled, **comparable?** To the case of one who designated an animal as his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and thereafter the first sin offering was found and both of them stand fit for sacrifice. From the fact that the second, unfit offering is exempted by means of the sprinkling of the blood of the first, fit offering, it may be inferred that the meat of an offering is exempted from the *halakhot* of misuse by the sprinkling of its own blood, despite the fact that the meat left the courtyard.


###### Meilah 7a:10
[Meilah 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּבַת אַחַת, אֲבָל בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says: When Rabbi Akiva says** his opinion, that the sprinkling of the blood of one of the offerings exempts the other from the *halakhot* of misuse, that applies specifically in a situation where the two offerings were slaughtered **at the same time,** i.e., by two priests simultaneously, as in such a case they are considered like a single body. **But** in a case **where** the two offerings were slaughtered **one after the other, Rabbi Akiva did not say** that the sprinkling of one exempts the other from the *halakhot* of misuse. This is because when the first offering was slaughtered, the other became unfit as a leftover sin offering. Since there was no point at which its meat was permitted to be consumed by the priests, it was not exempted from the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 7a:11
[Meilah 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:11)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לִכְפַר פָּאנִי, מְצָאַנִי זָקֵן אֶחָד וְאָמַר לִי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא? אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: הֵן. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי חֲבֵירַי שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל, אָמְרוּ לִי: הֲלֹא פָּסוּל הוּא, הֵיאַךְ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַפָּסוּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a relevant *baraita*: It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon said: When I went to the village of Pani, a certain old man found me and said to me:** Is it so that **Rabbi Akiva would say** that **sprinkling is effective** for the meat of offerings **that left** the courtyard and were thereby rendered unfit, with regard to the *halakhot* of misuse? **I said to him: Yes. And when I came and presented** this **matter** that the old man said **before my colleagues in Galilee, they said,** agreeing with his skepticism: How could Rabbi Akiva have said that? Since the meat that left the courtyard **is unfit, how** can the sprinkling **effect acceptance for** that which is **unfit?**


###### Meilah 7a:12
[Meilah 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7a:12)

וּכְשֶׁיָּצָאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר לִי: בְּנִי, אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. שְׁחָטָן, וַהֲרֵי דָּמָן מוּנָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But when I left** their presence **and presented** this **matter before Rabbi Akiva, he said:** And you, **my son, do you not say so,** that sprinkling is effective even with regard to that which is unfit? **But** in the case of one who **designated** an animal as **his sin offering and it was lost and he designated another** animal **in its stead, and thereafter the first** sin offering **was found and both of them stand** fit for sacrifice, he may sacrifice either animal, thereby rendering the other unfit, and yet **both** are subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse.** This is due to the fact that these offerings remain consecrated to God, and therefore one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse. Likewise, if one **slaughtered them** both, **and their blood** is **placed in cups** and the blood of one of them will be sprinkled on the altar, **both of them** are subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse.**