## Menachot Daf 102a

###### Menachot 102a:1
[Menachot 102a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:1)

וְאִי בָּעֵי זָרֵיק, וְקָתָנֵי דְּאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין. מַאי לָאו דְּפַיגֵּל בִּזְרִיקָה? לָא, דְּפַיגֵּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and if he had wanted,** he could have **sprinkled** the blood of these offerings properly? Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon **teaches** in the *baraita* **that** the meat of an offering that was rendered *piggul* **is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. What, is it not** referring to a case **where** he **rendered** it ***piggul* during** the rite of **sprinkling?** If so, since the offering stood to have its blood sprinkled, it is considered as though it has been sprinkled, and the offering was considered fit for consumption before he rendered it *piggul*; therefore, it should be susceptible to the impurity of food. The Gemara answers: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** he **rendered** it ***piggul* during** the rite of **slaughtering,** and the blood never stood to be sprinkled.


###### Menachot 102a:2
[Menachot 102a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:2)

אֲבָל פַּיגֵּל בִּזְרִיקָה, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if he **rendered** it ***piggul* during** the rite of **the sprinkling, what** is the *halakha*? Is the *halakha* that the meat of the offering **indeed becomes susceptible to** the **ritual impurity of food?**


###### Menachot 102a:3
[Menachot 102a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:3)

אַדְּתָנֵי פִּיגֵּל בְּמִנְחָה מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, לִיפְלוֹג בְּדִידַהּ, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? דְּפַיגֵּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל פַּיגֵּל בִּזְרִיקָה – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: If so, **rather than** continuing and **teaching** that if he **rendered the meal offering *piggul*** it **is** susceptible to the **ritual impurity of food,** i.e., instead of contrasting the animal offering case with a case involving an meal offering, **let** the *tanna* **distinguish within** the case of the animal offering **itself** in the following way: **In what** case **is this statement,** that if one renders an offering *piggul* the meat is not susceptible to the impurity of food, **said?** It is said in a case **where** he **rendered** it ***piggul* during** the rite of **slaughtering, but** if he **rendered** it ***piggul* during** the rite of **sprinkling,** it **is** susceptible to **the impurity of food.**


###### Menachot 102a:4
[Menachot 102a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:4)

פִּיגֵּל בְּמִנְחָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּפַיגֵּל בִּקְמִיצָה, דְּקוֹמֶץ בְּמִנְחָה כִּשְׁחִיטָה דָּמֵי, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary for him** to contrast it with a case of one who rendered **a meal offering *piggul*** in order to teach **that even though he** already **rendered it *piggul* at** the time of the **removal of the handful,** and the principle is that **the removal of the handful of a meal offering is equivalent to the slaughtering** of an animal offering, and an offering that was rendered *piggul* at the time of slaughtering is not susceptible to the impurity of food, **even so,** the meal offering **is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it initially had a time that was fit for consumption,** when the flour was not yet consecrated as a meal offering.


###### Menachot 102a:5
[Menachot 102a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:5)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא לָן מַמָּשׁ, וַאֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דְּפַיגֵּל בִּזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: I related** this **discussion in the presence of Rav Naḥman** and explained Rabbi Shimon’s opinion differently: **Even** if **you say** that the case in the *baraita* is one in which the meat was **actually left overnight** and there was time to sprinkle the blood during the day, **and even** if **you say** that he **rendered** the offering ***piggul* at** the time of the **sprinkling** of the blood rather than during the slaughtering, Rabbi Shimon does not consider those to be cases in which the offering had a time when it was fit for consumption.


###### Menachot 102a:6
[Menachot 102a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:6)

דְּאִי בָּעֵי פָּרֵיק – אָמְרִינַן, אִי בָּעֵי הֲוָה זָרֵיק – לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon **said** only that **if he had wanted,** he **would have redeemed** it, and therefore an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as if it were already redeemed. Redemption is simple and requires only a verbal statement. According to Rabbi Shimon **we do not say that if he had wanted,** he **would have sprinkled** it, i.e., that the sprinkling of the blood and similar actions that stand to take place are treated as having taken place already.


###### Menachot 102a:7
[Menachot 102a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav Ashi’s opinion from a mishna (*Me’ila* 2a): **Rabbi Yehoshua states a principle** about the misuse of offerings that became disqualified: With regard to **any offering that had a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests** before it became disqualified, one is not liable for **misusing it, and** with regard to **any** offering **that did not have a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests** before it became disqualified, one is liable for **misusing it.** Misuse of consecrated property applies only to offerings that are considered fully reserved for God. Once the priests are permitted to partake of the offering it is no longer categorized as consecrated property.


###### Menachot 102a:8
[Menachot 102a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:8)

וְאֵיזֶהוּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, וְשֶׁיָּצְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehoshua clarifies: **And what is** a disqualified offering that had **a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests?** Examples of such a situation are as follows: **When,** after the blood was sprinkled, the meat of the offering **was left overnight; or when** the meat of an offering **became ritually impure; or when** an offering **left** the Temple courtyard. One is not liable for misuse in these cases, since the meat of these offerings became permitted to the priests once the blood was sprinkled and only subsequently was it disqualified.


###### Menachot 102a:9
[Menachot 102a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:9)

וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is** a disqualified offering **that did not have a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests?** Examples of such a situation are as follows: **When,** at the time that it **was slaughtered,** he intended to eat it, sprinkle the blood, or burn the sacrificial potions on the altar **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area; or when** priests who were **disqualified** for Temple service **collected or sprinkled its blood.** In these cases, since there was never a time that it was permitted for the priests to consume the meat of the offering, one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property.


###### Menachot 102a:10
[Menachot 102a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:10)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא רֵישָׁא שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, וְשֶׁיָּצְאָה. מַאי לָאו לָנָה מַמָּשׁ, וְהָכָא דְּאִי בָּעֵי הֲוָה זָרֵיק הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי דְּאֵין מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses the objection to Rav Ashi’s opinion: **In any event, the first clause teaches** that meat of an offering **that was left overnight, and** meat **that became impure, and** meat **that left** the courtyard all had a time when they were permitted to the priests. **What, is it not** referring to a case where it was **actually left overnight,** i.e., both the blood and the meat of the offering, **and here** the case **is** an instance **of: If he had wanted, he could have sprinkled** the blood, and for that reason the mishna **teaches that** one is not liable for **misusing** it? It is considered as having had a time that it was permitted to the priests since he could have sprinkled the blood during the day, and therefore the offering is treated as if the sprinkling already happened, counter to Rav Ashi’s claim that such reasoning does not apply with regard to the sprinkling of the blood.


###### Menachot 102a:11
[Menachot 102a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:11)

לָא, רְאוּיָה לָצֵאת, וּרְאוּיָה לִטַּמֵּא, וּרְאוּיָה לָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the mishna is referring to cases where the meat left the courtyard at a time when it was **fit to leave, and** the meat became impure when it was **fit to become impure, and** was left over when it was **fit to be left over,** i.e., the mishna is discussing cases where these occurred after the blood was sprinkled, rendering the meat fit to be consumed by the priests. For that reason it was not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Menachot 102a:12
[Menachot 102a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:12)

אֲבָל לִינָה מַמָּשׁ, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמוֹעֲלִין! הַאי ״כׇּל (שהיה) [שֶׁהָיְתָה] לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים״ וְ״כֹל שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again challenges Rav Ashi’s opinion: **But** according to this, **what** is the *halakha* with regard to a case where the whole offering, including the blood, was **actually left overnight?** Is **that indeed** a case where one is liable for **misusing** consecrated property, as the priests never had a time when it was permitted to consume the meat? If so, **those** statements in the mishna: **Any** offering **that had a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests, and any** offering **that did not have a time** that it was **permitted for** consumption **by the priests,** are imprecise. They indicate that the critical factor is whether the meat had a time that it was potentially permitted, even if it was ultimately disqualified.


###### Menachot 102a:13
[Menachot 102a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:13)

״כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ״, וְ״כֹל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Instead, the mishna **should have** stated: With regard to **any** offering **that has,** in actuality, **a time** that it is **permitted for** consumption **by the priests,** one is **not** liable for **misusing it. And,** similarly, with regard to **any** offering **that does not have a time** that it is **permitted for** consumption **by the priests,** one is liable for **misusing it.**


###### Menachot 102a:14
[Menachot 102a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מְעִילָה אַטּוּמְאָה קָא רָמֵית?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It must be that Rav Ashi concedes that the mishna in *Me’ila* should be understood to include the case where both the blood and the meat were leftover, and that under such circumstances one is not liable for misuse of the offering due to the fact that once the blood could have been sprinkled, the offering is already considered permitted to the priests. Rav Ashi nevertheless claims that this mishna does not pose a difficulty to his understanding of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with regard to an offering’s status as susceptible to the impurity of food. **Rather, Rav Ashi says: Are you raising a contradiction between** the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property and the *halakhot* of **ritual impurity?**


###### Menachot 102a:15
[Menachot 102a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:15)

מְעִילָה מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה וְלָאו קְדוּשָּׁה הִיא, לְבָתַר דְּפָקְעָה לַהּ קְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ, בְּמַאי הָדְרָא רָכְבָא לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These cannot be compared, as liability for **misuse** of consecrated property is **due to the sanctity or lack of sanctity** of an item, i.e., on whether it is classified as fully reserved for God. Therefore, **after the sanctity** of the offering **has lapsed,** which occurs when the blood is ready to be sprinkled, as at that point it is already regarded as permitted to the priests, **how** can it **return** and **be inured in it?**


###### Menachot 102a:16
[Menachot 102a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:16)

טוּמְאָה מִשּׁוּם אוּכְלָא וְלָאו (מִשּׁוּם) אוּכְלָא הִיא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִי בָּעֵי זָרֵיק מָצֵי זָרֵיק לֵיהּ – מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ אוּכְלָא, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין. הֵיכָא דְּאִי בָּעֵי (מָצֵי) זָרֵיק לָא מָצֵי זָרֵיק – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ אוּכְלָא, [וְלָא] מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But with regard to **impurity,** the offering’s susceptibility to the impurity of food **is due to** whether it is considered **food or not** considered **food.** Therefore, in **any** case **where if** he **wants** to **sprinkle** the blood he **could sprinkle it,** it is only in sprinkling the blood that he **grants** the meat the status of **food, and** then it **is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.** But in a case **where if** he **wants** to **sprinkle** the blood he **cannot sprinkle it** for some reason, and the offering is subsequently disqualified, he **does not grant it** the status of **food,** since it never became permitted to eat **and** it therefore **is not susceptible to the impurity of food.**


###### Menachot 102a:17
[Menachot 102a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא – אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises** another **objection** from a mishna (*Karetot* 23b) to Rav Ashi’s opinion that with regard to susceptibility to the impurity of food, blood that is ready to be sprinkled is not considered as if it were sprinkled: With regard to **one who brings a provisional guilt offering** to be sacrificed, because he is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering (see Leviticus 5:17–19), **and** later **it becomes known** to him **that he has not sinned,** the status of the offering is as follows: **If it became known to him** that he had not sinned **before** the offering **was slaughtered,** the consecrated ram **should go out and graze in the flock** as a non-sacred animal, as the consecration was performed in error. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say**