Commentary for Meilah 1:7

קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום – even though that their law is to be slaughtered in the north [part of the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), do not say that is like the one that is strangled (see Talmud Meilah 2a) for they were like Holy Things that died when they left the realm of religious sacrilege according to the Written Torah, that it comes to tell us that Holy Things/sacrifices that died are not worthy at all. But the south [part of the Temple courtyard] assuming that it is not appropriate for the Holy of Holies but is appropriate for offerings of lesser sanctity, therefore, they commit religious sacrilege with them, but a person who benefits from them the equivalent of a perutah/penny brings the sacrifice for religious sacrilege. But not only that they were slaughtered in the south and their blood was received In the north that one commits religious sacrilege because the essence of Divine service in the north is [according to law], and from the received tradition and onward, it is the commandment of the priesthood, but even if they were slaughtered in the north and the received their blood in the south, even though tha t the essence of the Divine service is in the south not according to the law, even so, they commit religious sacrilege through them.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses cases where the laws of sacrilege apply to animals despite the fact that the sacrifice was disqualified.

וזרק דמו בלילה – even though that night is not the time of offering [of the sacrifice), one commits religious sacrilege with them

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them. Most holy sacrifices must be sacrificed on the north side of the altar (Zevahim 5:1-5). If they are sacrificed on the south side, they are disqualified. Nevertheless, if a person derives benefit from them he has committed sacrilege and must bring a sacrifice, make restitution and bring the added fifth. Despite the fact that these are disqualified sacrifices, they still retain their holiness.

בלילה וזרק דמן ביום – his all the more so that one is committing religious sacrilege, because he sprinkled [the blood] during the day, which is the essence of Divine service. But it is taught “this but one doesn’t have to state that.”

If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. This section contains a list of other actions that disqualify a sacrifice. A most holy sacrifice must be slaughtered and have its blood received on the north side. It must be slaughtered and have its blood received during the day. The intention of the one performing the sacrifice must be to eat it in its proper time and place. However, if the sacrifice is disqualified, it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege.

או ששחטן – [slaughtered them] in the north , and he thought about eating them outside of their time which is פיגול/an offering disqualified by improper intention which is punishable by extirpation/כרת , or outside of their place which is disqualified which does not have [punishment of] extirpation, one commits religious sacrilege through them.

Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it. Rabbi Joshua has a different rule as to when the laws of sacrilege apply to a disqualified sacrifice. If the sacrifice was at one time edible by priests, then these laws do not apply. This is the case if the blood was spilled on the altar in the correct fashion, but then the sacrifice was disqualified by becoming remnant, impure or by being taken out of the Temple. In these cases the meat was permitted and then became forbidden. However, if the meat was never permitted, such as the cases in section one, or a case where someone unfit either received the blood in a vessel or poured the blood onto the altar, in all of these cases the laws of sacrilege do apply, as we taught in sections one and two.

כלל אמר ר' יהושע כל שהיה לה שעת היתר לכהנים – even though it once again became disqualified and they are not permitted to eat them, nevertheless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with them.

שלנה – after sprinkling, or that it became defiled or that went outside of the courtyard after the sprinkling [of the blood], even though that it is not appropriate for the Kohanim, since it had one hour of availability to [for use[ prior to being left overnight, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it, for we don’t call it “God’s holy things,” for it was appropriate for the Kohanim.

ושקבלו פסולים וזרקו את דמה (the blood of which disqualified men have received or tossed) – the ineligible had received its blood, even though that those that sprinkled/tossed it were fit, or that those who sprinkled it were disqualified, even though who received it were fit. But if after the disqualified had received the blood and sprinkled it, the fit [priests] returned and received the rest of the lifeblood (i.e., the last blood that exits before the animal is dead -which is about one-fourth of a LOG – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1 ) and sprinkled it, thereby the sprinkling by the fit is makes inappropriate use of sacred property, but permits the meat to the Kohanim, there isn’t religious sacrilege. And these words refer to the rest of the disqualified, other than those who are ritually impure, but someone ritually impure who received the blood and sprinkled it, even though the fit returned and received the rest of the lifeblood [of the animal] and sprinkled it, the meat did not have a period of availability [for use by the Kohanim] and one commits religious sacrilege, for the ritually impure, since is appropriate for the Divine Service of the community, as the sacrifice of the community postpones the ritual defilement, when he he tossed the blood, the rest of he blood became remnants, and furthermore, the tossing by the fit of the blood is not an inappropriate use of sacred property to permit the meat, and among the disqualified, you don’t have an individual who makes the blood of the remnants other than the ritually impure alone.

בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים (beyond the veils of the courtyard) – and afterwards it (i.e., the meat) came in and afterwards tossed/sprinkled the blood.

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva argue about whether meat from most holy sacrifices that was taken out of the Temple before its blood was sprinkled on the altar is subject to the laws of sacrilege.

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בו – even though he tossed/sprinkled the blood, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] does not take effect/benefit to [meat] that leaves to exclude something from religious sacrilege.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. There are two background halakhot necessary to understand this debate: 1) The flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be taken out of the Temple courtyard. 2) Once the blood of a sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice can be eaten by the priests. In this mishnah the flesh was taken out before the blood was sprinkled, such that the flesh was never edible. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if the flesh of a sacrifice was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, then it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. In our case, since the flesh was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, because it was disqualified before its blood was spilled, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. However, it is not subject to the laws of piggul (improper intention when offering the sacrifice), remnant or the prohibition of eating leftover sacrifices, because it never became edible. These prohibitions refer only to edible meat. To summarize the essential issue: according to Rabbi Eliezer, since the blood was sprinkled only after the flesh was disqualified, this meat is never considered edible.

ואין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for since it (i.e., the meat) left [the courtyard]. For tossing/sprinkling is fit for it establishes פיגול/an offering disqualified by proper intention, but it is not disqualified.

Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? According to Rabbi Akiva, even though the sprinkling of the blood took place only after the flesh had left the courtyard and it does not therefore allow the flesh to be eaten, it does remove the flesh from the category of being subject to sacrilege. In other words, it counts as edible, even though it can’t be eaten for some other reason. Since it is treated as if it is edible meat (even though it can’t be eaten) it is liable for the laws of piggul, notar or defilement.

רבי עקיבא – Rabbi Akiva holds that we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it. For he holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] takes effect for [the meat] that goes out to exclude it from religious sacrilege.

Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh. Rabbi Akiva now argues by analogy. If one sets aside a hatat and then it is lost, he must set aside another in its place. If the first animal is found, the second one cannot be sacrificed (see Temurah 4:3). However, if he slaughters the first and sprinkles its blood, the sprinkling removes both that hatat and the second, unusable hatat from being subject to sacrilege. In other words, here you have a case where the sprinkling of blood can exempt an animal for being subject to sacrilege, even if the sprinkling does not make the animal’s flesh edible permitted to eat. Rabbi Akiva now takes the argument one step further. If sprinkling of one animal’s blood can exempt another animal’s disqualified flesh from being subject to sacrilege, shouldn’t it be able to exempt its own flesh from being subject to sacrilege. Thus, in our case, although the flesh was disqualified by being taken out of the Temple court, once its blood has been sprinkled, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.

אבל חייבין כו' – but, the language of “surely!”/”truly!”- like truthfully. But when Rabbi Akiva said that tossing/sprinkling [the blood] take effect for [the meat] that leaves [from the courtyard], as for example, that part of the meat went out but not all of it, that because it is effective for that part that is inside [the courtyard], it is effective also for that part [of the meat] that left [the courtyard] to the outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

אמר ר' עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה – now he brings a proof to that which he sasid that tossing/sprinkling effects that [meat] which left [the Temple courtyard].

והרי שתיהן עומדות (both of them are available)– are both slaughtered and their blood was received in two cups and he tossed/sprinkled the blood from one of them.

לא כשם שדמה – of that one.

פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.

כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה– whose blood was not tossed/sprinkled, since he was able to sprinkle/toss the blood of which of them that he wanted.

ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה – even though it is disqualified, that it is permitted as a sin-offering. Does it not follow that it will exempt its own flesh, even though it was disqualified when it went out [of the courtyard?” But Rabbi Akiva did not say that just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its fellow [sacrifice], but rather, when he slaughtered two sin-offerings as one, because if he wanted, he toss/sprinkles from this one, if he wanted, he sprinkles/tosses from that one, but [in the case of] one after another, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the blood would exempt the flesh of its fellow [animal sacrifice].

אימורי קדשים קלים – we don’t commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things other than after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, as we stated at the end of the chapter (see Mishnah 4), and if they went out [from the Temple courtyard] before the sprinkling/tossing of the blood.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with the innards of sacrifices of a lower degree of holiness. These innards are burned on the altar after the blood has been spilled. As in yesterday’s mishnah, today we discuss a case where these innards left the Temple courtyard. This disqualifies them from being able to be placed on the altar. As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi disagree about whether the laws of sacrilege apply. Their opinions are consistent with those found in yesterday’s mishnah.

ר' אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן – just as that Rabbi Eliezer has [the opinion] that the sprinkling [of the blod] does not effect [meat] that leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the most Holy Things from becoming religious sacrilege, here too, it does not take effect [for meat] that leaves to include the parts of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege, and just as Rabbi Akiva has the opinion that sprinkling/tossing of the blood effects that [meat] which leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the Most Holy Things from religious sacrilege, it effects that [meat] which leaves to include the portions of the sacrifice offered o the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege.

If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled:
Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Eliezer holds that when it comes to the rules of sacrilege, the same rules that applied in yesterday’s mishnah to the flesh of most holy sacrifices, apply to the innards of less holy sacrifices. Once they were taken out of the Temple, they became disqualified from being subsequently placed on the altar. The laws of sacrilege therefore do apply, even after the blood was spilled. The other laws do not apply because this flesh was never able to have been placed on the altar.

Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva holds that even though the innards were removed from the Temple before the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling does make them subject to the laws of sacrilege, the same as it did for the flesh in yesterday’s mishnah.

מעשה דמים – this sprinkling/tossing of the blood.

Introduction Today’s mishnah compares the effect that the sprinkling of the blood on the altar has on sacrifices of both higher and lower degrees of holiness.

ואין מועלין בבשר – after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there is no religious sacrilege with the flesh/meat, for already it has its hour of availability [for use by] the Kohanim (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter), which isits leniency, for because of the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there comes the leniency that we don’t have religious sacrilege with it.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. This is an introductory note delineating the structure of the remainder of the mishnah.

על זה ועל זה – whether for those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar whether on the flesh/meat after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood[.

How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. Before the sprinkling of the blood the flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be eaten by the priests, and its innards cannot be placed on the altar. At this point all parts are subject to the laws of sacrilege. Once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to the flesh, because it can be eaten by the priests. This is a lenient effect. The innards are still subject to sacrilege, because they can never be eaten. After the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh becomes subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, three laws which apply only to edible flesh. This is the stringent effect.

חייבין משום פיגול – if he had the wrong intention in one of the four [Divine] Services, for sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] establishes for the wrong intention and also establishes for remnants/left-overs and that which is ritually impure, and this is make a stringemcy.

With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. When it comes to less holy sacrifices, the sprinkling only has a stringent effect. Before the sprinkling, the laws of sacrilege do not apply at all, because they are not yet considered holy. We should note that the laws of meilah (sacrilege) never apply to the flesh of sacrifices of lesser holiness, because they can be eaten by anyone, and not just priests. Sacrilege applies only to food that can be eaten only by priests. Nevertheless, once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do apply to the innards. This is a stringent effect. The sprinkling also serves to make all parts subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, which again is a stringent effect. It turns out that here the sprinkling of blood only has a stringent effect.

ובקדשים קלים – after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood].

כולו להחמיר – and they commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, for it is was already appropriate to “on High” (i.e.,God), and these are Holy Things and not the money of the owners.

ועל זה ועל זה – whether on the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar or on the meat/flesh, they are liable for it because of improper intention, left-overs/remnants, and that which is impure. And that means all of it is for stringency.