Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 15 for kids: Joining Together for Holiness

מעילה ט״ו

🔗 This daf asks which consecrated items can join together to reach the measure needed for misuse, piggul, or notar. It also explores a mix-up between a teacher and student about how many parts of an offering combine.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 15a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 15b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Meilah 15

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 15 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 15a, in English Tab translation (12)
  1. In the mishna, 'for misuse' — this means that if one derives benefit worth one peruta from two types of items consecrated for the altar combined, he is liable for misuse. They also join together to constitute an olive-bulk, to render one liable for them due to notar, piggul, or impurity, or to render one liable for sacrificing them outside [the Temple courtyard].
  2. 'Items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together with one another for misuse' — but the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and impurity do not apply to them, because these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, since such items have sanctity that inheres only in their monetary value.
  3. 'Items consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together for misuse' — but not for anything else. This is why the mishna divides the cases, teaching items consecrated for the altar separately and items consecrated for Temple maintenance separately.
  4. GEMARA: 'Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear' — meaning 'it is an obvious matter,' similar to the phrase 'it is clear to him' used in tractate Nazir (63a).
  5. 'That one is not liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse,' etc. — 'We learned in a mishna,' etc.
  6. The Gemara answers: It is by rabbinic law that items consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse, but not by Torah law.
  7. 'One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive has not committed misuse until he causes a depletion [in value]' — for example, if he rode on it and thereby weakened it, as is explained later in this chapter (Me'ila 19a). This refers to a blemished sin offering, which stands to be redeemed for money; therefore he becomes liable for misuse only when he causes a loss to the consecrated property by diminishing its value. But when it is dead, once he derives benefit from it, he is liable for misuse even without causing depletion, because it no longer stands to be redeemed for money — since one does not redeem consecrated animals [once dead] in order to feed them to dogs (Pesachim 29a). This liability for misuse, too, is by rabbinic law.
  8. 'But the tanna cites a verse' — to teach that by Torah law one is liable for misuse.
  9. 'They are exempted from the halakhot of misuse by Torah law' — because it is written 'the sacred items of the Lord,' and since they have died, they are no longer considered 'the sacred items of the Lord.'
  10. 'And with regard to what' is Ulla speaking? If you say he means items consecrated for Temple maintenance — even after they died, they would not be exempted from the halakhot of misuse. For instance, if one consecrated a dunghill, is it not consecrated for its monetary value, making it subject to misuse? So too here: if one consecrated an animal for Temple maintenance, even though it died, it remains consecrated with respect to its value, and is subject to misuse.
  11. Rather, it is obvious that he is speaking about items consecrated for the altar — and after death they are exempted from the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This implies that while alive, they are subject to misuse by Torah law, which poses a difficulty for Rabbi Yannai's opinion.
  12. Rabbi Yannai could respond to you: Indeed, items consecrated for the altar are also subject to misuse by Torah law; but we do not derive this from the term 'the sacred items of the Lord' in the verse 'if a person commits misuse' (Leviticus 5:15) — that verse teaches only about items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are exclusively for the Lord. Rather, we derive that items consecrated for the altar are subject to misuse from a different verse, as it is written: 'And if anyone eats of a sacred item in error...' (Leviticus 22), which refers to any sacred item.
Tosafot on Meilah 15a, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. The mishna states: Items consecrated to the altar join together for misuse — If one ate half an olive-bulk of meat from this burnt offering and half an olive-bulk from the meat of another burnt offering, he is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. Likewise, according to the opinion stated later (Meila 18b) that the measure for misuse is benefit worth a peruta, if one derived benefit worth half a peruta from this one and half a peruta from that one, he is liable.
  2. And [they join together] to render one liable for piggul, notar, and consuming while impure — meaning that if one ate half an olive-bulk from this item and half an olive-bulk from that item, he is liable to receive karet. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together for misuse, and if one derives half the requisite measure of benefit from this one and half from that one, he has committed misuse.
  3. Both items consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, etc. — meaning that if one derives benefit equivalent to half an olive-bulk from meat consecrated for the altar and half an olive-bulk from meat consecrated for Temple maintenance, they join together.
  4. Now that one says — The mishna teaches that both items consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, as stated in the latter clause of the mishna; if so, why is it necessary to teach in the first clause that items consecrated for the altar join with items consecrated for the altar? And if one asks: what is the Gemara's difficulty — is it not common in many places for mishnayot to teach a matter first specifically and then more generally? One can answer that the Gemara's question arises because the first clause is actually included in the latter clause: the statement that both items consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together implies every combination — whether altar items join with Temple-maintenance items, or altar items join with altar items, or Temple-maintenance items join with each other. If so, this is not a case of teaching 'this, and likewise that' [a minor case followed by a more inclusive one], for had the tanna wished to teach in that style, he should have stated in the latter clause: items consecrated for the altar join together with items consecrated for Temple maintenance.
  5. Because it teaches afterward: 'and to render one liable for piggul, notar, and impurity' — since this does not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, the tanna therefore separates it into its own clause. That is: he taught it in the first clause by itself because it was not possible to include 'liable for piggul' in the latter clause, which deals with items consecrated for Temple maintenance. And since he taught the joining of altar items with altar items in a separate clause, the tanna likewise taught separately the joining of Temple-maintenance items, even though this could have been inferred from the latter clause.
  6. It is clear — meaning this is an obvious and clear matter: but items consecrated for the altar have a portion for the priests and a portion for the owners, and therefore misuse does not apply to them; even a burnt offering's hide goes to the priests. Shortly afterward the Gemara raises many difficulties with this, until it concludes that according to Rabbi Yannai, this verse does not actually teach the law of misuse for items consecrated for the altar at all. And if one asks: but at the end of tractate Temurah (32b) Rabbi Yannai states that the Torah explicitly teaches misuse only regarding a burnt offering, from the phrase 'from the sacred items of the Lord' — implying the opposite, that misuse is stated more explicitly for altar items than for Temple-maintenance items, while here he says the opposite! One can answer that the two statements do not contradict each other. There, he did not mean to exclude Temple-maintenance items by saying 'burnt offering,' for the verse 'from the sacred items of the Lord' certainly implies that misuse applies to Temple-maintenance items, and no one disputes this. Rather, Rabbi Yannai meant that a sin offering and guilt offering do not have an explicit law of misuse, since they are not uniquely consecrated to the Name as a burnt offering is. Thus there he means: misuse is not explicitly stated regarding altar items except for a burnt offering. And here, when he says 'rather, only for Temple-maintenance items,' he does not mean to exclude a burnt offering, which is called 'the sacred items of the Lord' since it is entirely offered on the altar — the fact that its hide goes to the priests does not matter, since the offering itself is primary; rather, he means to exclude a sin offering and guilt offering. So here he means: one is liable for misuse definitively only regarding Temple-maintenance items, since for them it is a clear-cut matter that misuse applies, whereas for altar items it is not clear-cut, applying only to a burnt offering. This explains the statement 'but altar items have a portion for the priests and a portion for the altar' — meaning that it is specifically these (sin offering and guilt offering) to which misuse does not apply, since a burnt offering is indeed considered uniquely consecrated to the Name, being entirely consumed on the altar.
  7. While it is alive, he has not committed misuse until he causes devaluation — this implies that once devaluation occurs, misuse does apply to them.
  8. And even when they die, let it be no less than items consecrated to a garbage heap, etc. — meaning that misuse properly applies, since they are not inferior to a consecrated garbage heap. Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen Gadol raised a difficulty: is this truly comparable? A garbage heap is fit for redemption, but this dead animal is not fit for redemption, since it cannot be appraised and valued. One can answer that perhaps he holds that items consecrated for Temple maintenance were never subject to the requirement of appraisal. Alternatively, perhaps the case is where the animal was appraised while alive but was not redeemed before it died, and even so Ulla says it is no longer subject to misuse. And if one asks: should we not conclude that there is no misuse, since it is taught that one may not redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs, and even with Temple-maintenance items we say in Pesachim (29a) that there is no misuse [in such a case]? One can answer, as explained there, that this applies specifically to feeding them to dogs, but for other purposes one may redeem Temple-maintenance items — such as to burn them under one's cooking pot — and therefore misuse does apply here to consecrated animals that died.
  9. From this verse we derive [the law for] items consecrated for Temple maintenance — meaning that from the verse 'from the sacred items of the Lord' we derive only the law of misuse for Temple-maintenance items, not for altar items; the law for altar items is derived from the earlier verse 'all the fat.' Some texts do not read 'and it was taught: all the fat,' but rather 'but he cites this verse,' meaning that Rabbi Yannai derives from the verse at the end of the chapter Kol HaBasar (Chullin 117a) that misuse applies, by comparing the anointed priest's bull to the peace offering through the phrase 'as it is removed.' However, it appears to my teacher that the correct reading is 'and it was taught: all the fat,' and the reason the Gemara does not cite Rabbi Yannai's statement is that it is obvious that his statement is merely rabbinic and a mere support; rather, the Gemara raises its difficulty from the verse 'all the fat,' which is the verse from which the Gemara's conclusion derives that misuse applies to altar items. And if one asks: how can offerings of the most sacred order be derived from this verse, since it speaks only of the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity? One can answer that since the verse 'from the sacred items of the Lord' was removed from the earlier exposition limiting misuse to items uniquely consecrated to the Name, this indicates that nothing specific is derived from it in that way; rather, we establish that it applies to all consecrated items. So it appears to my teacher.
Rashi on Meilah 15b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Five items in the burnt offering join together with one another — The flesh, the fat, and the fine flour (this is the meal offering that accompanies it), and the wine and the oil join together to constitute an olive-bulk, to render one liable for sacrificing outside [the Temple courtyard] and to render one liable for piggul, notar, and impurity, and also for misuse (me'ila). And even though the first clause also taught that sacrificial portions of the altar join together with one another, it was necessary to teach this [clause] to inform us of a novel point: that flesh, fine flour, and wine join together even though they are different types [of substance].
  2. Six items in the thanks offering — join together for piggul, notar, and impurity. And this 'fine flour' taught regarding the thanks offering also refers to the libation meal offering that accompanies the thanks offering, as stated in Tractate Menachot, chapter 'Two Measures' (Menachot 90b), that a thanks offering also requires a libation meal offering, derived from the phrase 'or a sacrifice.'
  3. Gemara: Did you say 'in the world' — meaning this implies that among all the offerings in the world there are [only] five items that join together, and no more.
  4. And he said to him: But isn't there a thanks offering which has six items that join together with one another — Blood is not counted [among them], because there is no liability for misuse with blood, and it is not subject to piggul or impurity, as stated in Tractate Chullin, chapter 'Kol HaBasar' (Chullin 117b).
  5. Rather, teach: 'in the burnt offering' — there are five items that join together, and not elsewhere. [Alternatively]: He said to him: You said 'in the world,' meaning that regarding any item in the world these five items join together; but is it not taught with regard to a thanks offering, which implies that the discussion concerns sacrificial animals and not non-sacred items?
  6. A burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for sacrificing it outside — For if one burns half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions outside, he is liable for burning outside [the Temple], and burning requires an olive-bulk, as it is written, 'If it shall indeed be eaten,' and we say (Zevachim 28b) that the verse speaks of two kinds of eating: eating by a person and eating by the altar. Just as eating by a person requires an olive-bulk, so too eating by the altar requires an olive-bulk.
  7. A burnt offering, since it is entirely [consumed], they join together — the flesh and the fat, to render one liable for burning it outside. But peace offerings, since they are not entirely consumed [on the altar], the sacrificial portions do not join with the flesh.
  8. But to render one liable for them due to piggul, notar, and impurity, in the case of peace offerings, why not — [meaning, why do the flesh and fat] not join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for piggul, notar, and impurity?
  9. Rather say: A burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk in order to sprinkle the blood upon them, and it is Rabbi Yehoshua's view, as it is taught, etc.
  10. Since it is entirely [consumed] — unlike other offerings. Rabbi Yehoshua's reasoning for other offerings is based on the verse 'If it shall indeed be eaten,' as stated above, that the verse speaks of two kinds of eating. Therefore he holds that one does not sprinkle the blood until an olive-bulk of meat remains (eating by a person) or an olive-bulk of fat remains (eating by the altar); but half an olive-bulk of meat (eating by a person) together with half an olive-bulk of fat (not eating by a person) does not permit sprinkling, since they do not join together. But a burnt offering, which has no eating by a person at all, allows even half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat to join together.
  11. And in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains — and none of the meat is present at all, he may not sprinkle.
  12. A meal offering, what is its relevance here — what sprinkling does a meal offering require [at all]?
  13. Rav Pappa said: the libation meal offering — meaning that this statement, 'and in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains, etc.,' refers to the meal offering that accompanies the libations, as it is written, 'And their meal offering shall be fine flour, etc.' One might have thought that since it comes together with the animal offering, it is considered like part of the body of the offering, and even if none of the meat remains at all, one should sprinkle the blood for it; this teaches that this is not so.
  14. Mishnah: Teruma — this refers to the great teruma (teruma gedola), which is about two parts in a hundred.
  15. And teruma of the tithe — this is the tithe taken from the [Levite's] tithe.
  16. And teruma of the tithe of demai — which is one part in a hundred.
  17. And ḥalla and first fruits join together with one another to render forbidden — meaning that if produce from all of them fell into a batch of non-sacred dough, and there is enough to cause leavening, it is forbidden. And they also join together to constitute the consumption of a peruta's worth from all of them combined, if eaten unwittingly, to render one liable to pay the added fifth.
  18. Gemara: What is the reason — that ḥalla and first fruits join together with teruma?
  19. But the others — meaning the rest of these items do not need a verse to teach that they join together with one another, since they are all called 'teruma.'
  20. Mishnah: All unslaughtered carcasses (nevelot) join together with one another — to constitute an olive-bulk. This implies even the carcass of an impure animal together with that of a pure animal. And all creeping creatures (sheratzim) join together with one another, to constitute an olive-bulk for one who eats from them.
Tosafot on Meilah 15b, in English Tab translation (11)
  1. Five items in the burnt offering, etc. — He goes on to explain them.
  2. Rav Huna taught Rava: Five items in the world — He was mistaken in the wording of the mishna, which reads 'in the burnt offering' (ba'ola), and he said 'in the world' (ba'olam). Rava said to him: Did you say 'in the world'? Meaning, is there only five items in the whole world [of offerings]? But doesn't the mishna teach six items with regard to a thanks offering? The Gemara concludes: Rather, one should teach 'in the burnt offering' — meaning, retract and read 'ba'ola.'
  3. Granted, with regard to sacrificing it outside [the Temple courtyard], since a burnt offering is entirely consumed [on the altar], they join together — Meaning: if one sacrificed an olive-bulk outside, whether of meat or of the sacrificial portions, he is liable, because the whole of it is consumed on the altar, and everything is considered like complete sacrificial portions. But with regard to a peace offering, no — meaning, if one sacrificed an olive-bulk outside from a peace offering, whether meat or sacrificial portions, he is exempt, since one is liable for sacrificing outside only for something that would be accepted inside, as stated there in the chapter HaShochet VeHaMa'aleh (Zevachim 111b), and the meat of peace offerings is not meant for the altar. But didn't we learn in the mishna: All piggul pieces join together with one another — even sacrificial portions and meat? Rather, say: a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to permit sprinkling the blood for it. That is, if it was lost and only half an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions and half an olive-bulk of meat of the burnt offering remained, one sprinkles the blood as though a full olive-bulk of one of them remained, since the whole of it is consumption of the altar, and therefore they join together. But with regard to peace offerings, no, since the sacrificial portions are consumed by the altar while the meat is consumed by a person, and consumption by a person and consumption by the altar do not join together. And who taught this? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught: 'All the offerings,' etc. — excluding the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that if there is sufficient blood, even without meat, one sprinkles; according to him, an olive-bulk of meat is not required. And when it teaches 'to render one liable for it due to piggul, notar, and impurity,' this means: once the blood has been sprinkled ab initio with reference to that meat, one becomes liable for eating it due to piggul, notar, and impurity, since the valid sprinkling establishes the offering's status for piggul — read into the verse: 'That which enables [the offering] has come' (kirvu matirin).
  4. An olive-bulk of meat and an olive-bulk of fat — [The baraita] means: or an olive-bulk of fat.
  5. What is the relevance of a meal offering? — Meaning, what does sprinkling the blood have to do with a meal offering here? Rav Pappa said: this refers to the meal offering brought with libations, meaning there is an animal offering accompanied by a meal offering, and the entire animal offering was lost. One might have thought that since the meal offering remains intact and stands in place of the meat or the sacrificial portions, one should sprinkle the blood. [The baraita] teaches that this is not so.
  6. Teruma, and teruma of the tithe, etc. — The Gemara explains the reason: because all of these are called teruma.
  7. All the piggul [pieces], etc., and all the notar [pieces], etc. — This was already taught in the first clause, but since the mishna wants to teach 'all carcasses join together' and 'all creeping animals join together,' it also teaches 'all piggul [pieces].'
  8. But these do not need [explanation] — Meaning, teruma, teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of demai do not require explanation as to why they join together, since it is obvious that they themselves are all called teruma.
  9. All the carcasses — The Gemara will explain what this is referring to.
  10. All the carcasses join together with one another — Meaning, the meat of this carcass with the meat of another carcass.
  11. Rav said: They taught this only with regard to impurity — The mishna means that all carcasses join together with regard to [transmitting] impurity, but with regard to the prohibition of eating, they do not join together; rather, [carcasses of] pure animals combine only among themselves, and [carcasses of] impure animals combine only among themselves. This is because the prohibition on a pure animal's carcass is due to the prohibition of 'carcass,' while the prohibition on an impure animal is due to the prohibition against eating a non-kosher species — but there is no additional prohibition of 'carcass' applying to it, since he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already applies. And Levi says: they join together for eating as well. And if you ask: do Rav and Levi disagree about a general dispute among tannaim as to whether a prohibition takes effect where another already applies? But since the Gemara below raises a difficulty against Rav Asi and answers that this tanna holds a prohibition does take effect on another, it would seem that all the amora'im here hold that a prohibition does not take effect on another. It seems that all of them indeed follow the view that a prohibition does not take effect on another, and Levi says: even though in general a prohibition does not take effect on another, here he concedes that it does, since Scripture reveals this with regard to a carcass, as it is written (Leviticus 7): 'And the fat of a carcass... you shall not eat it at all' — the Torah states that the prohibition of 'carcass' comes and takes effect on the prohibition of 'fat,' and likewise the prohibition of 'carcass' takes effect on [the prohibition of] impurity. And Rav Asi says: pure [carcasses] by themselves and impure [carcasses] by themselves. Some say he disagrees with Rav and holds that even with regard to impurity they do not join together. And if you ask: what is the reason? With regard to eating it is understandable, as explained above, since they are two separate prohibitions — but with regard to impurity, why do they not join together, since the prohibition on both the pure and impure one is due to impurity? One may answer that he holds that since they do not join together for eating, they also do not join together for impurity. And if you ask: but doesn't the mishna teach 'all the carcasses,' implying that they join together at least with regard to impurity? One may answer that it refers to pure with pure, such as a goat and a cow, or impure with impure, such as a camel and a donkey. And if you ask: but doesn't the mishna teach, 'all whose measure and impurity are equal join together,' and all carcasses — whether of impure or pure species — have the same measure and impurity? One may answer that it says they join together only with regard to creeping animals, which are not distinguished with regard to the prohibition of eating, but with regard to animals, which are distinguished with regard to eating — such as pure versus impure — it does not say that they join together.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Me'ilah, Meila 15.