## Meilah Daf 9a

###### Meilah 9a:1
[Meilah 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:1)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ עַל כׇּל לְבֹנָתָהּ״ – פְּרָט שֶׁחָסְרָה סׇלְתָּהּ וְחָסְרָה שַׁמְנָהּ וְחָסְרָה לְבוֹנָתָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful **of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense;** and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse **excludes** those situations **where** some of **its flour was missing, or** some of **its oil was missing, or** some of **its frankincense was missing,** in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.


###### Meilah 9a:2
[Meilah 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:2)

אָמְרִי: הָתָם כְּתִיב ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״, קְרָא יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response to the difficulty of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: In general, the terms “remainder” or “leftover” refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as **there it is written: “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). This part of **the verse** is **superfluous,** as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.


###### Meilah 9a:3
[Meilah 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:3)

מֵתִיב אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב הוּנָא: אֶחָד חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָן וּמִיצָּה דָּמָן חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן – פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת מִיצָּה דָּמָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel’s father raises an objection to Rav Huna** from a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 64b): With regard to **both a bird sin** offering **and a bird burnt offering, where** the priest **pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood** with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, **outside its** designated **area,** the offering is **not valid,** but **there is no** liability for ***karet*** for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it **beyond its** designated **time,** the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet*** for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. **In any event,** this mishna **teaches: Squeezed out their blood,** indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.


###### Meilah 9a:4
[Meilah 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:4)

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Shmuel’s father **raises the objection and he resolves it** himself. The *tanna* of that mishna **teaches it disjunctively.** In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The *halakha* of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priest’s intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.


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

גּוּפָא, תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר בַּדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself,** i.e., the *baraita* cited above: **The *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael** taught **that if** any **of** the **blood remains** inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.


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

וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם: שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין, וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ! תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there,** on *Zevaḥim* 52a, that failure with regard to the **remainder** of the blood **invalidates** the offering, **and Rav Pappa said:** Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference **between them is** whether or not failure to **squeeze out** the blood from **a bird sin offering** after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are **two *tanna’im* and** they disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael.**


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

**מַתְנִי׳** עוֹלַת הָעוֹף – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. מִיצָה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One is** liable for **misusing a bird burnt offering from** the moment **that it was consecrated.** When the nape of its neck **was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed** in a ritual bath **that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** its blood being **left overnight.** Once **its blood was squeezed out, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **it, due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure. And** as it may not be eaten, **one is** liable for **its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes,** where it is burned.


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

פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. הוּזָּה דָּמָן – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיךְ הַבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from** the moment **that they were consecrated.** Once **they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** its blood being **left overnight.** Once **its blood was sprinkled, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **it, due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure. And one is** liable for **its misuse** even when it is **in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been** completely **scorched.**


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

הָעוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. נִשְׁחֲטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּעוֹרוֹת, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of the burnt offering from** the moment **that it was consecrated.** Once **it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** its blood being **left overnight.** Once **its blood was sprinkled, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **it, due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure. And one is not** liable for **misuse of the hides, but one is** liable for **misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.**


###### Meilah 9a:10
[Meilah 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:10)

חַטָּאת, וְאָשָׁם, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. נִזְרַק דָּמָן – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֵימוּרֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from** the moment **that they were consecrated.** Once **they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** its blood being **left overnight.** Once **their blood was sprinkled, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **them, due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while **ritually impure. One is not** liable for **misuse of the flesh, but one is** liable for **misuse of their sacrificial portions,** i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, **until they leave to the place of the ashes.**


###### Meilah 9a:11
[Meilah 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:11)

שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. קָרְמוּ בַּתַּנּוּר – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה, וְלִישְׁחוֹט עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַזֶּבַח. נִזְרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of the two loaves** brought on the festival of *Shavuot* **from** the moment **that they were consecrated.** Once **they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** it being **left overnight, and** they are rendered eligible **to slaughter with them the** accompanying **offering** of the two lambs. Once **the blood of** the **lambs is sprinkled, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating the loaves, **due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while **ritually impure. And they are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse,** as at that point their consumption is permitted.


###### Meilah 9a:12
[Meilah 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:12)

לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. קָרַם בַּתַּנּוּר – הוּכְשַׁר לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּלְהִסָּדֵר עַל גַּבֵּי הַשּׁוּלְחָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of the shewbread,** which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, **from** the moment **that it was consecrated.** Once **it formed a crust in the oven** it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that **it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and** it is rendered eligible **for arrangement upon the Table** in the Sanctuary.


###### Meilah 9a:13
[Meilah 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:13)

קָרְבוּ הַבָּזִיכִּין – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once **the bowls** of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week **were sacrificed, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating the loaves **due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while **ritually impure. But it is not** subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse,** as at that point its consumption is permitted.


###### Meilah 9a:14
[Meilah 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:14)

הַמְּנָחוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One is** liable for **misuse of the meal offerings from** the moment **that they were consecrated.** Once **they were consecrated** through placement of the flour **in** a service **vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** its blood being **left overnight.**


###### Meilah 9a:15
[Meilah 9a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:15)

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּשִּׁירַיִם, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בַּקּוֹמֶץ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Once the handful** taken from the meal offering **was sacrificed, one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating the meal offering **due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** and the prohibition of ***notar*, and** the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while **ritually impure. And one is not** liable for **misuse of the remainder** of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, **but one is** liable for **misuse of the handful** that is sacrificed, **until it leaves to the place of the ashes.**


###### Meilah 9a:16
[Meilah 9a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר, הַנֶּהֱנֶה מֵאֵפֶר תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** It **was stated** that there is a dispute between *amora’im* with regard to **one who derives benefit from the ash of the round** heap **that is on top of the altar. Rav says:** One who derives benefit **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, **and Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** One who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Meilah 9a:17
[Meilah 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:17)

לִפְנֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – לְאַחַר תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: **Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that** one who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. **When they disagree** it is with regard to the *halakha* **after the removal of the ashes,** at which point the mitzva has been completed.


###### Meilah 9a:18
[Meilah 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:18)

רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ – הֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וְגוֹ׳״ – כֵּיוָן דִּצְרִיךְ לְבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה, בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says** that one who derives benefit **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, **as its mitzva has been performed** and completed. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that one is liable for misuse, **since it is written: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment,** and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp” (Leviticus 6:3–4). Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: **Since** taking the ashes outside the Temple also **requires the priestly vestments,** albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash **remains in its consecrated** state.


###### Meilah 9a:19
[Meilah 9a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/9a:19)

תְּנַן: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן, קַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. **We learned** in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: **One is** liable for **its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes,** where it is burned. This indicates that the *halakhot* of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is **difficult for** the opinion of **Rav.** The Gemara answers that **Rav** could have **said to you:** The mishna means that one is liable **until** the ash **is fit** to be taken out **to the place of ashes,** i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.