Reference for Meilah 1:2

בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת, לֹא כְשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ, כָּךְ הוּא פוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. וְאִם פָּטַר דָּמָהּ אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטֹר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ:

The meat of <i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices] that was removed [from the Courtyard] before their blood was sprinkled, Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> but they are not liable for <i>pigul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the the intention to be eaten beyond its time], <i>notar</i> [a sacrifice that was leftover beyond the time of consumption] and <i>tamei</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit because it became defiled]. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>, but they are liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva said: Why in the case when someone sets aside a sin offering and it got lost and he then sets aside another one in its place [and it was slaughtered], and then the first one was found [and was slaughtered], and now they [the blood] of both are in front of us [ready to be sprinkled], is it not so that just as the [sprinkling] the blood of the first one exempts its meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>], so too it should exempt the meat of the second one? And if the [sprinkling] of the blood of one exempts the meat of the other one from <i> me'ilah</i>, is it not logical [through fortiori reasoning] that it should exempt its own meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>].

Explore reference for Meilah 1:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.