Comentario sobre Meilá 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:
La carne de Kodshei kodashim [sacrificios] que fue retirada [del patio] antes de que se rociara su sangre, el rabino Eliezer dice: Uno es responsable de mí'ilah pero no es responsable de pigul [un sacrificio que se vuelve inadecuado debido a la intención de ser comido más allá de su tiempo], notar [un sacrificio que fue sobrante más allá del tiempo de consumo] y tamei [un sacrificio que no es apto porque se contaminó]. El rabino Akiva dice: Uno no es responsable de me'ilah , pero son responsables de pigul , notar y tamei . El rabino Akiva dijo: ¿Por qué en el caso cuando alguien deja de lado una ofrenda por el pecado y se perdió y luego deja a un lado otra en su lugar [y fue sacrificado], y luego el primero fue encontrado [y fue sacrificado], y ahora ellos [la sangre] de ambos están frente a nosotros [listos para ser rociados], ¿no es así como el [rociado] de la sangre del primero exime su carne [de me'ilah ], así también debería eximir la carne de la segunda? Y si la [rociadura] de la sangre de uno exime la carne del otro de me'ilah , ¿no es lógico [a través del razonamiento fortiori] que exime su propia carne [de me'ilah ].
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
לא כשם שדמה – of that one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy