What happens at each stage of the bird sin offering (designation of the animal, its slaughter and sprinkling of its blood) regarding when there is or isn’t potential for meilah, its ability to become disqualified by a tvul yom or mechusar kipurim coming in contact with it or being left overnight, and it’s ability to effect the karet obligation for pigul, notar and impure meat that was eaten? What about the shmearing of the blood – why is that not mentioned in the mishna? Is that a necessary part of a sin offering?
Meilah 8
09.25.2019 | כ״ה באלול תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Meilah 8
אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה הוּא דְּלֹא מְרַצָּה.
But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה, נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לְהִפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment that it was consecrated. Once the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed in a ritual bath that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; and through its blood being left overnight, i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהּ מְעִילָה.
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. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. לִיפָּסֵל – אִין, אֲבָל לְטַמּוֹיֵי – לָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: From the time the nape of its neck was pinched, the bird sin offering 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. It can be inferred from here that yes, it is susceptible to disqualification, but it is not fit to render other items ritually impure.
מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם
In light of the above inference, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day,
תְּחִלָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food. In other words, an item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item of food assumes third-degree impurity. If a third item comes into contact with the second item, it assumes fourth-degree impurity, i.e., it may not be eaten but does not impart impurity to other items.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה וְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ.
Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered impure with second-degree impurity, even with regard to sacrificial food, and therefore he renders sacrificial food impure and disqualifies teruma. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma liquids and teruma foods, without them becoming impure to a degree that their impurity is transferred to another item, so too, he only disqualifies sacrificial liquids and sacrificial foods. Apparently, the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לִטְבוּל יוֹם כָּרִאשׁוֹן,
Rava rejects this analysis and says: The mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir, as they might agree that by Torah law one who immersed that day only disqualifies the food and does not render it impure. But according to Abba Shaul, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to consecrated items, and therefore the Sages equated one who immersed that day to one who is impure with first-degree ritual impurity.
לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּאוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי. לְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּטְבַל – קְלַשׁ טוּמְאָה, פָּסוּל – מְשַׁוֵּי, טָמֵא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.
Rava continues: According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages equated the impurity of one who immersed that day to food of second-degree ritual impurity, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no additional impurity by rabbinic law. Their reasoning is that since he has immersed, although he is not completely pure, his level of ritual impurity is relatively weak. Therefore, he renders a sin offering disqualified, but he does not render it ritually impure.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳. מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל אִיסּוּרָא – אִיכָּא. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֲנִים הוּא!
§ The mishna teaches with regard to a sin offering: Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for its consumption due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, but there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara infers: There is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, but there is a prohibition against deriving benefit from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. But why is there such a prohibition? Isn’t the meat of the sin offering the property of the priests after the blood has been sprinkled? Accordingly, they would therefore be permitted to consume this meat.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, דְּלָאו בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.
Rabbi Ḥanina says in explanation: The mishna is referring to meat that has been taken out from the place where it is permitted to be eaten. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Sprinkling of the blood renders fit those portions that were taken out of the place where they may be eaten, i.e., the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to them, but they are not fit for consumption.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. דְּתָנֵי רַב: ״הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ״.
The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of a bird sin offering. After the nape of its neck has been pinched and the blood sprinkled, the neck of the bird is pressed onto the side of the altar so that the blood is squeezed out and trickles down to the base of the altar. Rav Huna says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does not invalidate the offering or prevent atonement, as Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was sprinkled.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב. וְתָנֵי רַב: ״מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ״.
By contrast, Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does invalidate the offering and prevents atonement. And Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was squeezed out. Only after the blood has been squeezed out is the atonement complete and the bird may be eaten.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הִיא״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה… חַטָּאת הִיא״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, מַאי ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר״?
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who holds that the squeezing out of the blood is essential, this is as it is written: “And the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.” This clause indicates that only after the blood has been squeezed out is it considered a valid sin offering. But according to the opinion of Rav Huna, what does the verse mean when it states: “The remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”?
כִּדְתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר. וּמַאי ״חַטָּאת הִיא״? אַרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara answers that Rav Huna explains this verse as it is taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse teaches that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood must remain so that it can be squeezed out. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out any blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid. And what is the meaning of the phrase: “It is a sin offering”? This is referring to the first clause of the verse, i.e., it is a valid sin offering only if the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מִנְחָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״. הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁאִם נִיתּוֹתַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: “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). Does this also mean that if some of the meal offering remains then it is given to the priests, but there is no need to ensure that some of it remains ab initio? And if you would say this is indeed the case,
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Meilah 8
אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה הוּא דְּלֹא מְרַצָּה.
But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה, נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לְהִפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment that it was consecrated. Once the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed in a ritual bath that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; and through its blood being left overnight, i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהּ מְעִילָה.
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. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. לִיפָּסֵל – אִין, אֲבָל לְטַמּוֹיֵי – לָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: From the time the nape of its neck was pinched, the bird sin offering 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. It can be inferred from here that yes, it is susceptible to disqualification, but it is not fit to render other items ritually impure.
מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם
In light of the above inference, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day,
תְּחִלָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ.
until sunset he is treated as one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food. In other words, an item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item of food assumes third-degree impurity. If a third item comes into contact with the second item, it assumes fourth-degree impurity, i.e., it may not be eaten but does not impart impurity to other items.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה וְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵל מַשְׁקֵה קֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ.
Rabbi Meir says: One who immersed that day is considered impure with second-degree impurity, even with regard to sacrificial food, and therefore he renders sacrificial food impure and disqualifies teruma. And the Rabbis say: Just as he merely disqualifies teruma liquids and teruma foods, without them becoming impure to a degree that their impurity is transferred to another item, so too, he only disqualifies sacrificial liquids and sacrificial foods. Apparently, the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, not the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לִטְבוּל יוֹם כָּרִאשׁוֹן,
Rava rejects this analysis and says: The mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinions of Abba Shaul and Rabbi Meir, as they might agree that by Torah law one who immersed that day only disqualifies the food and does not render it impure. But according to Abba Shaul, the Sages established a higher standard with regard to consecrated items, and therefore the Sages equated one who immersed that day to one who is impure with first-degree ritual impurity.
לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּאוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי. לְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּטְבַל – קְלַשׁ טוּמְאָה, פָּסוּל – מְשַׁוֵּי, טָמֵא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.
Rava continues: According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages equated the impurity of one who immersed that day to food of second-degree ritual impurity, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no additional impurity by rabbinic law. Their reasoning is that since he has immersed, although he is not completely pure, his level of ritual impurity is relatively weak. Therefore, he renders a sin offering disqualified, but he does not render it ritually impure.
הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳. מְעִילָה הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל אִיסּוּרָא – אִיכָּא. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מָמוֹנָא דְכֹהֲנִים הוּא!
§ The mishna teaches with regard to a sin offering: Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for its consumption due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure, but there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara infers: There is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, but there is a prohibition against deriving benefit from it even after the blood has been sprinkled. But why is there such a prohibition? Isn’t the meat of the sin offering the property of the priests after the blood has been sprinkled? Accordingly, they would therefore be permitted to consume this meat.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לַיּוֹצְאִין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, דְּלָאו בַּת אֲכִילָה הִיא.
Rabbi Ḥanina says in explanation: The mishna is referring to meat that has been taken out from the place where it is permitted to be eaten. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Sprinkling of the blood renders fit those portions that were taken out of the place where they may be eaten, i.e., the prohibition of misuse no longer applies to them, but they are not fit for consumption.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. דְּתָנֵי רַב: ״הוּזָּה דָּמָהּ״.
The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of a bird sin offering. After the nape of its neck has been pinched and the blood sprinkled, the neck of the bird is pressed onto the side of the altar so that the blood is squeezed out and trickles down to the base of the altar. Rav Huna says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does not invalidate the offering or prevent atonement, as Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was sprinkled.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב. וְתָנֵי רַב: ״מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ״.
By contrast, Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: Failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood does invalidate the offering and prevents atonement. And Rav teaches in his version of the mishna: Once its blood was squeezed out. Only after the blood has been squeezed out is the atonement complete and the bird may be eaten.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הִיא״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה… חַטָּאת הִיא״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, מַאי ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר״?
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rav Huna. Come and hear a verse in the Torah: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who holds that the squeezing out of the blood is essential, this is as it is written: “And the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering.” This clause indicates that only after the blood has been squeezed out is it considered a valid sin offering. But according to the opinion of Rav Huna, what does the verse mean when it states: “The remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar, it is a sin offering”?
כִּדְתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר. וּמַאי ״חַטָּאת הִיא״? אַרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara answers that Rav Huna explains this verse as it is taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse teaches that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood must remain so that it can be squeezed out. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out any blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid. And what is the meaning of the phrase: “It is a sin offering”? This is referring to the first clause of the verse, i.e., it is a valid sin offering only if the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מִנְחָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״. הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁאִם נִיתּוֹתַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, consider the fact that it is written with regard to a meal offering: “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). Does this also mean that if some of the meal offering remains then it is given to the priests, but there is no need to ensure that some of it remains ab initio? And if you would say this is indeed the case,
Follow
