## Meilah Daf 8b

###### Meilah 8b:1
[Meilah 8b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:1)

תְּחִלָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with **first-**degree impurity with regard **to sacrificial** food. In other words, an item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item of food assumes third-degree impurity. If a third item comes into contact with the second item, it assumes fourth-degree impurity, i.e., it may not be eaten but does not impart impurity to other items.


###### Meilah 8b:2
[Meilah 8b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:2)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה וְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says:** One who immersed that day is considered impure with second-degree impurity, even with regard to sacrificial food, and therefore he **renders sacrificial** food **impure and disqualifies *teruma*. And the Rabbis say: Just as he** merely **disqualifies *teruma* liquids and *teruma* foods,** without them becoming impure to a degree that their impurity is transferred to another item, **so too, he** only **disqualifies sacrificial liquids and sacrificial foods.** Apparently, the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir.


###### Meilah 8b:3
[Meilah 8b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לִטְבוּל יוֹם כָּרִאשׁוֹן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** rejects this analysis and **says:** The mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir, as they might agree that by Torah law one who immersed that day only disqualifies the food and does not render it impure. But **according to Abba Shaul,** the Sages **established a higher standard with regard to consecrated** items, and therefore the **Sages equated** one who **immersed that day to** one who is impure with **first-**degree ritual impurity.


###### Meilah 8b:4
[Meilah 8b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:4)

לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּאוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי. לְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּטְבַל – קְלַשׁ טוּמְאָה, פָּסוּל – מְשַׁוֵּי, טָמֵא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **According to Rabbi Meir,** the Sages equated the impurity of one who immersed that day **to food** of **second-**degree ritual impurity, but **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis** there is no additional impurity by rabbinic law. Their reasoning is that **since he has immersed,** although he is not completely pure, **his** level of ritual **impurity is** relatively **weak.** Therefore, he **renders** a sin offering **disqualified,** but he does **not render** it ritually **impure.**


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

הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳. מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל אִיסּוּרָא – אִיכָּא. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֲנִים הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches with regard to a sin offering: Once **its blood was sprinkled, one is liable** to receive *karet* for its consumption due to violation of the prohibition of *piggul*, and the prohibition of *notar*, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, but there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara infers: **There is no** liability for **misuse** of consecrated property, **but there is a prohibition** against deriving benefit from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. **But why** is there such a prohibition? **Isn’t** the meat of the sin offering **the property of the priests** after the blood has been sprinkled? Accordingly, they would therefore be permitted to consume this meat.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, דְּלָאו בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina says** in explanation: The mishna is referring **to** meat that has been **taken out** from the place where it is permitted to be eaten. **And** this ruling **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said: Sprinkling** of the blood **renders fit those** portions **that were taken out** of the place where they may be eaten, i.e., the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to them, but they are **not fit for consumption.**


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. דְּתָנֵי רַב: ״הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the *halakha* of a bird sin offering. After the nape of its neck has been pinched and the blood sprinkled, the neck of the bird is pressed onto the side of the altar so that the blood is squeezed out and trickles down to the base of the altar. **Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** Failure to **squeeze out** the blood from **a bird sin offering** after sprinkling the blood **does not invalidate** the offering or prevent atonement, **as Rav teaches** in his version of the mishna: Once **its blood was sprinkled.**


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

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב. וְתָנֵי רַב: ״מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rav Adda bar Ahava says** that **Rav says:** Failure to **squeeze out** the blood from **a bird sin offering** after sprinkling the blood **does invalidate** the offering and prevents atonement. **And Rav teaches** in his version of the mishna: Once **its blood was squeezed out.** Only after the blood has been squeezed out is the atonement complete and the bird may be eaten.


###### Meilah 8b:9
[Meilah 8b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הִיא״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה... חַטָּאת הִיא״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, מַאי ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. **Come** and **hear** a verse in the Torah: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; **and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”** (Leviticus 5:9). **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rav Adda bar Ahava,** who holds that the squeezing out of the blood is essential, **this is as it is written: “And the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out** at the base of the altar, it **is a sin offering.”** This clause indicates that only after the blood has been squeezed out is it considered a valid sin offering. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav Huna, what** does the verse mean when it states: **“The remainder** of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”?


###### Meilah 8b:10
[Meilah 8b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:10)

כִּדְתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר. וּמַאי ״חַטָּאת הִיא״? אַרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rav Huna explains this verse **as it is taught** in a *baraita* **of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:** The verse teaches **that if** any of the blood **remains** inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood must remain so that it can be squeezed out. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out any blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid. **And what** is the meaning of the phrase: “It **is a sin offering”?** This is referring **to the first clause** of the verse, i.e., it is a valid sin offering only if the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar.


###### Meilah 8b:11
[Meilah 8b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/8b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מִנְחָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״. הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁאִם נִיתּוֹתַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so,** consider the fact **that it is written with regard to a meal offering: “But that which is left** of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 2:3). Does this **also** mean **that if** some of the meal offering **remains** then it is given to the priests, but there is no need to ensure that some of it remains *ab initio*? **And if you would say** this is **indeed** the case,