## Meilah Daf 7b

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

נִזְרַק דָּם שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם, אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה, אַף יִפְטוֹר בְּשַׂר חֲבֶירְתָּהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And in a case where the **blood of one** of the sin offerings **was sprinkled, do you not concede that just as** the sprinkling of **its blood exempts its meat from** the *halakhot* of **misuse, so too, it exempts the meat of the other** animal **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse?**


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

אִם הִצִּיל בְּשַׂר חֲבֶירְתָּהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, one may infer from here by an *a fortiori* inference with regard to the case of sprinkling the blood of meat that left the courtyard: **If** the sprinkling of its blood **spared the meat of the other** animal **from** the *halakhot* of **misuse, even though** that animal **is unfit,** as it is a leftover sin offering, it is only **right that** the blood that was sprinkled should **exempt its own meat,** despite the fact that it left the courtyard.


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

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: תְּשׁוּבָה גְּנוּבָה הֱשִׁיבוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְאוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד, בְּבַת אַחַת – אִין, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – לָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this reply by Rabbi Akiva, **Reish Lakish says in the name of Rav Oshaya: Rabbi Akiva gave a deceptive response to that student** of his, Rabbi Shimon. Reish Lakish elaborates: Based on Rabbi Akiva’s reply, one would think that if the two sin offerings were slaughtered **at the same time,** then **yes,** the blood of one sin offering exempts the meat of the other from the *halakhot* of misuse. But if they were slaughtered **one after the other,** it does **not** exempt the meat of the other offering.


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

דְּכֵיוָן דְּפָסוּל הוּא, מָה לִי בְּבַת אַחַת, מָה לִי בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **since** in either case the other offering, whose blood was not sprinkled, **is unfit,** as it is a leftover sin offering, **what** difference does it make **to me whether** they were slaughtered **at the same time** or whether they were slaughtered **one after the other?** In either case, according to Rabbi Akiva, the sprinkling of one should exempt the meat of the other from the *halakhot* of misuse.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְאַתָּה, אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish** in response: **And you,** who raise this difficulty, **do you not** also **say the same,** that there is a difference between a case where they were slaughtered at the same time, and are therefore considered one entity, when the sprinkling of the blood of one offering exempts the meat of the other, and a case where they were slaughtered one after the other, and are therefore considered two separate entities, which means that the blood of one offering does not exempt the meat of the other?


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

אִילּוּ הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, וְשָׁחַט אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן, וְקָדַם וְהֶעֱלָה אֵימוּרִין שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But in a case **where** one **separated two guilt offerings as a guarantee** for his obligation of a single guilt offering, i.e., that if one were lost he could achieve atonement by means of the second, **and one slaughtered both of them,** and the priest **first brought up** the **sacrificial portions of one of them** onto the altar **before sprinkling** any blood, and then sprinkled the blood of the other offering, **would you not concede that** even **if** the sacrificial portions of this offering whose blood was not sprinkled **ascended** the altar, that **they shall descend** without being sacrificed? The proper procedure is that first the blood is sprinkled and only then are the sacrificial portions brought up onto the altar to be sacrificed.


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חַד גּוּפָא הוּא, אַמַּאי אִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ? הָאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּם – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשָׂה לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan analyzes this case: **And if** it **enters your mind** to say that even when the two offerings were slaughtered one after the other they are still considered as **one entity, why** is it the *halakha* that **if** the sacrificial portions **ascended** the altar, **they shall descend? Doesn’t Ulla say** that **sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity which** one **brought up** to the altar **before** the **sprinkling of** the offering’s **blood,** and are therefore not yet fit for the altar, **shall not descend,** but are sacrificed, as the sacrificial portions **have become the food of** the **altar,** by virtue of their placement upon it?


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

אִישְׁתִּיק. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַצֵּצְתִּינּוּן לְרַגְלוֹהִי דְיָנוֹקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **was silent,** as he had no answer to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s difficulty. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in this regard: **We have cut off the legs of the child,** i.e., I have refuted Reish Lakish’s opinion by raising a difficulty that eliminates the basis for his opinion.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** יֵשׁ מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר, וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּלְּהוּ לְהַחֲמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to establishing liability for misuse of consecrated items, **there is** an aspect of **leniency and** an aspect of **stringency in the act** of sprinkling the **blood of offerings of the most sacred order. But** with regard to the sprinkling of the blood **in** the case of **offerings of lesser sanctity,** it contains **in its entirety** aspects of **stringency,** i.e., there are only aspects of stringency.


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

כֵּיצַד? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֵימוּרֵיהֶן וּבַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֵימוּרֵיהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** The status of **offerings of the most sacred order** is that **before the sprinkling of blood, one is** liable **for misusing their sacrificial portions** that are to be burned on the altar, **and for** misusing **the meat** that is to be eaten by the priests. Since the meat is prohibited prior to sprinkling the blood, it is in the category of items consecrated to God, which are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. **After the sprinkling of the blood** of offerings of the most sacred order, **one is** still liable **for misuse of their sacrificial portions,** as they remain prohibited to be eaten and are in the category of items consecrated to God, **but one is not** liable **for misuse of the meat,** as it is now permitted for consumption by the priests. This explains how there is an aspect of leniency in the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order.


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

וְעַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה – חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. נִמְצָא, מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **for** consumption of both **this,** the sacrificial portions, **and that,** the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, **one is liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violation of the prohibition against consumption of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition against consumption of ***notar*, and** the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure.** Consequently, **the act of** sprinkling **blood of offerings of the most sacred order** is **found** to contain an aspect of **leniency and** an aspect of **stringency.**


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

וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד? קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָמִים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין לֹא בָּאֵימוּרִין וְלֹא בַּבָּשָׂר, לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָמִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵימוּרִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to** the sprinkling of the blood of **offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their** aspects are of **stringency. How so?** The status of **offerings of lesser sanctity** is that **before the sprinkling of** the **blood, one is not** liable for **misuse, not for** their **sacrificial portions nor for the meat. After the sprinkling of** the **blood, one is** liable for **misuse of** their **sacrificial portions, but one is not** liable for **misuse of the meat.** This explains how the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity causes a stringency in terms of the *halakhot* of misuse.


###### Meilah 7b:13
[Meilah 7b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:13)

עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. נִמְצָא מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **for** consumption of both **this,** the sacrificial portions, **and that,** the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, **one is liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violation of the prohibition against consumption of ***piggul*,** and of the prohibition against consumption of ***notar*, and** of the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure.** Consequently, in **the act of** sprinkling the **blood of offerings of lesser sanctity,** it is **found** that **all of their** aspects are of **stringency.**


###### Meilah 7b:14
[Meilah 7b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** קָתָנֵי ״אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר״ – מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֵן הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna **teaches:** After the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order, one is **not** liable for **misusing the meat.** The Gemara infers from this **that there is no** liability for **misuse** of consecrated property, **but there is a prohibition** for the priest to eat from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. The Gemara therefore asks: **But why** is there such a prohibition? **Isn’t** the meat **the property of the priests** after the blood has been sprinkled, and therefore it is permitted for them in consumption?


###### Meilah 7b:15
[Meilah 7b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:15)

לָא קַשְׁיָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּנָסֵיב רֵישָׁא ״מוֹעֲלִין״, נָסֵיב סֵיפָא ״אֵין מוֹעֲלִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as the above inference is invalid. The reason that the mishna taught that one is not liable, rather than saying that the meat is permitted, is as follows: **Since the first clause mentions** the phrase: One is liable for **misusing, the latter clause also mentions** the parallel phrase: One is **not** liable for **misusing.** Therefore, the above inference is incorrect, as there is in fact no prohibition for the priests to eat the meat.


###### Meilah 7b:16
[Meilah 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:16)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּלְּהוּ לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד? בְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְאֵימוּרֵיהֶן, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֵימוּרֵיהֶן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the mishna. **Say the latter clause:** But **with regard to** the sprinkling of the blood of **offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their** aspects are of **stringency. How so?** The status of **the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity** is that **before the sprinkling of** the **blood, one is not** liable for **misuse, not for** their meat **nor for their sacrificial portions. And one is not liable due to** violation of the prohibition against ***piggul*, *notar*, or** the consumption of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure. After the sprinkling of** the **blood, one is** liable for **misuse of their sacrificial portions, and one is not** liable for **misuse of the meat.**


###### Meilah 7b:17
[Meilah 7b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:17)

מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דִבְעָלִים הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers as above: **There is no** liability for **misuse** of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, **but there is a prohibition** for the owners to consume it, even after the blood has been sprinkled. **But why** is there such a prohibition? **Isn’t** this meat **the property of the owners** after the blood has been sprinkled, and it is permitted for them in consumption?


###### Meilah 7b:18
[Meilah 7b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina says** in explanation: This is referring to meat **that** was **taken out** from the place where it is permitted to be eaten before the sprinkling of the blood, and the blood was later sprinkled. In such a case, the meat is prohibited. **And** this ruling **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** in the mishna on 6b, who rules that sprinkling is effective in that it exempts the meat of the offerings of the most sacred order from the *halakhot* of misuse, and renders the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity subject to misuse, even if the meat left the courtyard.


###### Meilah 7b:19
[Meilah 7b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/7b:19)

כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת, לַיּוֹצֵא לִשְׂרֵיפָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina continues: The *tanna* here is teaching that **when Rabbi Akiva says** that **sprinkling is effective** with regard to the meat of offerings of the most sacred order or the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity **that left** the courtyard, with regard to the *halakhot* of misuse, *piggul*, *notar*, and the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, that applies **specifically with regard to** the *halakhot* of its **burning,** that it is not burned right away, but that one must wait until the following morning to burn it.