Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 8 for kids: The Bird Offering's Blood

מעילה ח׳

🐦 This daf is about a bird sin offering. It explains when using it wrongly counts as misuse, and later asks whether squeezing out its blood is required.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 8a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 8b 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 8

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 8 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 8a, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. But as for permitting it for eating — Rashi explains that Rabbi Akiva did not say that the sprinkling of the blood is effective to permit it; rather, this is what is meant by 'there is a prohibition' — that it is forbidden to eat because of the status of an offering that exited its permitted place (yotzei).
  2. MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment it was consecrated — meaning consecrated verbally; even if one derives benefit from it while it is still alive, such as by selling it, thereby removing it to non-sacred status, he is liable.
  3. Once it was rendered susceptible to disqualification — that is, once its neck was pinched, additional sanctity was added to it, so that it becomes disqualified if a person who immersed that day (tevul yom) or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering touches it, or if it is left overnight.
  4. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable for it due to piggul — because the sprinkling (hazaah) of a bird takes the place of the tossing of the blood (zerikah) of an animal; the sprinkling establishes the prohibition of piggul for an improper intention held earlier, just as the tossing does for an animal offering. Afterward it also carries the prohibitions of notar and of eating while impure if it became impure, since the sprinkling fixes the offering's status with regard to all of these.
  5. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property — because once its blood has been sprinkled, it becomes permitted for the priests to eat.
  6. GEMARA: But not to become impure — meaning it does not become ritually impure itself and cannot transmit impurity to others.
  7. The mishna — which teaches that it is rendered susceptible to disqualification but not to becoming impure — follows the view of the Rabbis, who hold that just as one who immersed that day disqualifies those who eat terumah and terumah liquids, so too he disqualifies those who eat consecrated food, but he does not render it (or them) impure so as to make others impure.
  8. As it is taught: Abba Shaul says that one who immersed that day is a 'first' with regard to consecrated items — meaning he has the status of a primary source of impurity (rishon) and renders consecrated food a 'second' (sheni); that second-degree item then makes a 'third' and even a 'fourth' degree of impurity within consecrated food, and it disqualifies terumah.
Tosafot on Meilah 8a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. The Mishnah: A bird sin offering — Until now [the Gemara] was discussing the law of disqualified sacrifices, [namely] when misuse of consecrated property applies to them; from here on it discusses valid sacrifices.
  2. One is liable for misuse from the moment they were consecrated — meaning consecration by verbal declaration, i.e., when he consecrated them.
  3. It was rendered susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day and one who has not yet brought his atonement offering — meaning that if one who immersed that day or one who has not yet brought his atonement offering touched it, it becomes disqualified from being eaten.
  4. And through being left overnight — this refers to the blood being left overnight until sunset; alternatively, to the meat being left overnight for a day and a night. Even though the Mishnah afterward teaches 'once its blood was sprinkled,' implying that it is not yet discussing a case where the blood was sprinkled, and the overnight disqualification of a day and a night could seemingly only apply after sprinkling — since sprinkling occurs on the day of pinching, for otherwise the blood would become disqualified by sunset — nevertheless the Mishnah mentions, in connection with the pinching, the overnight disqualification of the meat, because from the moment of pinching the overnight period of a day and night begins, and the count starts from the time of pinching.
  5. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable for it due to... — According to the opinion above (Meilah 5a) that we learned this regarding the permission for eating, it means the blood was actually sprinkled in a manner fit for eating; according to the opinion that it means the permission for sprinkling, it means it was fit to be sprinkled; and according to the opinion that it means the permission achieved through slaughter — just as above we required, regarding sacrifices for which receiving the blood in a vessel applies, that it be fit for such receiving in order to be sprinkled, so too here, since receiving in a vessel does not apply to a bird sin offering, we require that it be fit for sprinkling.
  6. But there is no liability for misuse of it — By right, the Mishnah should have taught the bird sin offering together with the bulls that are burned, since in both cases not the entire offering goes up to God; however, the bird sin offering must precede the bird burnt offering since it takes precedence. The bird burnt offering is taught before all other offerings because it has a greater connection to the law of misuse, even more than an animal burnt offering — for with an animal burnt offering there is no misuse liability regarding its hide, since the hide belongs to the priests, whereas with a bird burnt offering there is misuse liability even regarding its hide, and even after it goes to the ash heap misuse liability still applies. So it appears to my teacher, Rabbi Peretz, may he be preserved.
  7. A bird burnt offering — one is liable for misuse regarding it, etc. — Just as was explained regarding the bird sin offering, so it is regarding the burnt offering.
  8. He drained its blood — Regarding the bird sin offering the Mishnah used the term 'sprinkled,' because with the bird sin offering there is both sprinkling and draining; but with the burnt offering there is only draining, meaning he squeezes the flesh and the blood comes out with difficulty and is drained, whereas sprinkling means flicking the blood a distance.
  9. And one is liable for misuse of it until it goes out to the ash heap — meaning even after it was burned, since the ash still needs to be taken outside the camp; but from this point on its mitzvah has been fulfilled and there is no longer liability for misuse.
  10. The bulls that are burned — this refers to the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull of Yom Kippur; and the goats that are burned refers to the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat for communal idol worship.
  11. They were rendered susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day — This is difficult: for what halachic purpose is this stated? If it is regarding eating — the bulls that are burned have no eating for the priests at all! And if it means disqualification from offering up their sacrificial portions, in any case regarding the bull and goat of Yom Kippur this cannot be said, since they come from communal funds and are brought even in impurity. One must say it refers to burning it in the ash heap where disqualified items are burned, for the disqualified items had their own separate ash heap, as stated in the chapter 'Tevul Yom' (Zevachim 104b) regarding the three ash heaps that were there.
  12. Their blood was sprinkled — meaning on the curtain and on the golden altar, as stated in the chapter 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim 47a); and one is liable for misuse of them until the flesh is consumed by fire, but once the flesh has been consumed there is no more liability, since its mitzvah has been fulfilled.
  13. There is no liability for misuse regarding the hides, but there is liability regarding the flesh — because once the blood was sprinkled, the altar acquired rights to the flesh, and it became items consecrated to God.
  14. And the priests acquire rights to the hides — and they are thereby excluded from the category of items consecrated to God, as stated (Zevachim 103a): whenever the altar has not acquired rights to the flesh, the priests have not acquired rights to the hide.
  15. But there is liability for misuse of the flesh until it goes out to the ash heap — because its mitzvah has not yet been fulfilled, since it still needs to be taken to the ash heap; but regarding the bulls and goats that are burned, there is no such taking out to the ash heap, since that is the place where they are burned; therefore there is no liability for misuse of them once the flesh has been consumed.
  16. Once its surface browned in the oven, it became susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day and one who has not yet brought his atonement offering — This is because the oven sanctifies the bread once its surface browns. Some texts omit 'and through being left overnight,' for we learned in the chapter 'Shtei HaLechem' (Menachot 100b) that the two loaves are baked from the evening before and do not override Shabbat or Yom Tov; and if overnight leaving disqualified them, then baking from the evening before would already disqualify them by the next day! The Ri says the text correctly includes it, for since the Mishnah teaches that browning in the oven causes susceptibility to disqualification, this shows that this Tanna holds the oven sanctifies the bread, and therefore overnight leaving certainly disqualifies, meaning the baking must override Shabbat — as is indeed inferred at the end of the chapter 'Rabbi Yishmael' (Menachot 72b). The Mishnah in 'Shtei HaLechem' (Menachot 95b) holds the oven does not sanctify, and therefore states that baking does not override Yom Tov. One might ask: since the Tanna of our Mishnah holds the oven sanctifies, why specify 'once its surface browned' rather than mere entry into the oven, since a service vessel sanctifies? One can answer that he mentions this specifically regarding susceptibility to disqualification through one who immersed that day, since he holds that non-sacred items made under the purity level required for sacred items are not treated as sacred (Chullin 35b); and the principle that a service vessel sanctifies applies only once everything meant to be done with it has been done, which is when the surface has browned.
  17. To slaughter the offering on their account — meaning that once their surface has browned, they immediately attain the status of 'bread' so the offering may be slaughtered on their account; but if not yet browned, this is not so, since regarding the slaughtering of the offering it is written 'bread,' and it is not called 'bread' unless its surface has browned.
  18. Once the blood of the lambs was sprinkled, one is liable for them, etc. — meaning liable for misuse on account of the lambs.
  19. And there is no liability for misuse regarding them — One might ask: is it only the liability for misuse that is absent, while the prohibition still exists and the monetary value belongs to the priest, as concluded above at the end of the first chapter (Meilah 7b)? And if you say, as stated above, that this is needed only for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva — this cannot be, for even according to Rabbi Akiva there is no misuse liability for the two loaves, since they are not part of the lambs' body itself. One can answer that the Mishnah mentions 'there is no liability for misuse' here simply following the pattern of the previous cases; and the same must be said regarding the showbread.
  20. Once the bowls of frankincense were offered, one is liable for them due to piggul, etc. — The bowls of frankincense serve as that which permits the bread; their removal from the table is like the scooping out of the handful, and their carrying to the altar is like the carrying of the handful; and the bowls are burned just as the handful is burned.
  21. There is no liability for misuse regarding the remainder of the showbread — since it is permitted to the priests to eat it.
  22. The handful and the frankincense — I have explained this at length in my commentary on Zevachim (second chapter, 20).
  23. Once it was sanctified in a vessel, it became susceptible to disqualification, etc. — The Mishnah did not mention 'sanctified in a vessel' specifically because of the handful, for even before the handful was placed in a vessel, it was already sanctified and had become susceptible to disqualification through one who immersed that day earlier, while in the first vessel with the entire meal offering before it was scooped out — as we learn further on (Meilah 9a): regarding meal offerings, one is liable for misuse from the moment they were consecrated; once sanctified in a vessel, susceptibility to disqualification through one who immersed that day begins. Rather, the Mishnah here mentions 'sanctified in a vessel' only following the pattern of the other cases.
  24. But there is no liability for piggul regarding them — because none of them have a permitting factor, and anything without a permitting factor cannot incur liability for piggul. Regarding the wine libation, if it refers to one that comes independently, as stated there (Zevachim 44a) that a person may bring his animal sacrifice today and the libations anytime within the following ten days — this is so according to all opinions, since it has no permitting factor. But if it refers to one that comes together with the animal sacrifice, this is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis at the end of the chapter 'Beit Shammai' (Zevachim 43a): Rabbi Meir holds it can become piggul, while the Rabbis hold it cannot; and our Mishnah follows the Rabbis. Regarding 'being left overnight' taught here — if it refers to the libation coming with the animal sacrifice, this means until sunset, since in the laws of substitution it is considered something that by rule should be offered during the day. But if it refers to one coming independently, it is proven in the laws of substitution, in the chapter 'Yesh BeKorbanot' (Temurah 14b), that it may be offered even at night, and only the break of dawn disqualifies it; in that case we would need to interpret 'overnight' here as referring to the break of dawn.
  25. But not to render it impure — meaning that one who immersed that day does not render the item impure enough to transmit impurity to others; the Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabbis.
Rashi on Meilah 8b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Rabbi Meir says: he renders sacrificial food impure — because it is second-degree impurity, and he makes sacrificial food third-degree.
  2. And the Rabbis say: just as he disqualifies, etc. — but he does not render it impure, and this matches our mishna.
  3. Rava said [this also works] according to Abba Shaul — who also holds [a tevul yom is] first-degree with regard to sacrificial food, making it second-degree; the mishna can also be reconciled this way: certainly a tevul yom by Torah law only disqualifies and does not render impure, but the Sages instituted a stringency regarding consecrated items, treating the tevul yom as first-degree with regard to sacrificial food — meaning he is like one who ate first-degree impure food and renders what he touches second-degree. The mishna teaches the Torah law, that he only disqualifies.
  4. According to Rabbi Meir, the mishna can also be reconciled: when it says 'he renders sacrificial food impure,' it means he makes it third-degree and disqualifies teruma — this is by rabbinic law; but by Torah law, since he has immersed, he only disqualifies.
  5. And the Rabbis — who say 'just as he disqualifies...' and do not say he renders impure — hold that since he has immersed, his impurity is weakened, so he renders [sacrificial food] disqualified but does not render it impure.
  6. There is a prohibition — meaning, a prohibition against eating it.
  7. But why [should it be forbidden]? Isn't it the property of the priests — since through the sprinkling of the blood it had already become permitted to them for consumption?
  8. Rabbi Ḥanina said: this refers to meat that went out — that is, meat taken out from the place where it may be eaten. There, there remains a prohibition against eating it, and this follows Rabbi Akiva, who says that sprinkling the blood is effective for meat that went out, to remove it from the status of misuse (or to permit it for burning, as stated above), but it does not render it fit for eating, as stated at the end of this chapter. Although the sprinkling is effective to remove it from misuse, it does not permit the meat that went out to be eaten. This is what the Gemara deduces: 'but there is a prohibition' — meaning it is not fit to be eaten.
  9. Rav Huna says that Rav says: the squeezing out of the blood of a bird sin offering — as it is written, 'and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out' — meaning, after the sprinkling, it should be squeezed out.
  10. Does not prevent [validity] — since once the blood has been sprinkled, even if it was not squeezed out, the commandment has been fulfilled: it is removed from the status of misuse, one becomes liable for it on account of piggul, notar, and impurity, and the offerer fulfills his obligation, since the squeezing does not prevent atonement.
  11. As Rav teaches: 'he sprinkled its blood' — since in Rav's version of the mishna concerning the bird sin offering it teaches 'he sprinkled its blood' and not 'he squeezed out its blood,' this shows that the Tanna of the mishna holds that the sprinkling is primary, and the squeezing does not prevent validity.
  12. And Rav Adda bar Ahava says in the name of Rav: the squeezing out does prevent [validity] — meaning, he has not fulfilled his obligation and has not achieved atonement, and the sin offering is not established with regard to piggul, notar, and impurity, even though the blood was sprinkled, until he performs the squeezing.
  13. And Rav teaches: 'he squeezed out its blood' — in the mishna, regarding the bird sin offering, [his version reads] 'he squeezed out its blood' and not 'he sprinkled its blood,' for he holds that the squeezing is also a primary part of the commandment and does prevent validity [if omitted].
  14. Granted, according to Rav Adda, this is why it is written: 'and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar...' — for what remains after the sprinkling, that is, the squeezing, is called 'a sin offering.' This shows that the remainder — the squeezing — is indispensable.
  15. But according to Rav Huna — who says the squeezing does not prevent validity — what does 'the remainder' come to teach? Since it does not prevent validity, why is it written 'the remainder'?
  16. Therefore it is written 'the remainder,' as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: 'that if [blood] remained' — meaning, if some blood remained, there is a commandment to squeeze it out, but if none remained, this does not prevent validity, for the squeezing does not prevent the offering from being valid.
  17. 'And what does it is a sin offering [mean]?' — this does not refer back to 'the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out,' as you might have thought, which would imply that the essence of the sin offering lies in the remainder, that is, in the squeezing, making the squeezing indispensable.
  18. Rather, it refers to the beginning of the verse — 'and he shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger... it is a sin offering' — meaning that the sprinkling is indispensable, and not the squeezing.
  19. So too here — that if, when he scooped up a handful of the meal offering, something remained, there is a residue for the commandment [of giving it to the priests], and this is fine; but if nothing remained — that is, if the residue was lacking between the scooping and the burning — this does not matter.
  20. And if you would say the same here [that a deficient residue does not prevent validity] — but it is taught: 'of its fine flour and of its oil,' though the verse could have written simply 'of the fine flour and the oil.' What then does 'of its fine flour and of its oil' teach? That all of its fine flour and oil must remain intact, even the residue — for this is the implication of 'its fine flour': from the fine flour that existed at the time of the scooping, that it must remain whole. This shows that a deficiency in the residue does prevent validity (and likewise regarding the residue of a sin offering, we say that a deficiency in the residue prevents validity) — so how can it be said that if nothing remained, it does not prevent validity?
Tosafot on Meilah 8b, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. Tehillah LeKodesh (first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food) — And if he touches sacrificial food, he renders it second-degree; [if] a second [item touches the first, it becomes] third-degree; [if] a third [touches the second, it becomes] fourth-degree.
  2. Metamei et HaKodesh (He renders sacrificial food impure) — Meaning, so as to make yet another item impure, and he disqualifies teruma so that it does not go on to impart impurity further.
  3. VeChachamim Omrim [etc.] Kach Hu Posel etc. (And the Rabbis say... he likewise only disqualifies) — For they hold that one who immersed that day only disqualifies whatever he touches, even sacrificial liquid, and the mishna is established in accordance with their view.
  4. LeAbba Shaul Ma'alah Asu BeKodashim etc. (According to Abba Shaul, the Sages established a higher standard regarding consecrated items) — One might object: here it implies that the status of one who immersed that day is by rabbinic law, as it says 'the Sages equated one who immersed that day,' etc. But in Tractate Sotah, chapter 'Keshem' (29b), it derives the fourth-degree impurity of sacrificial food through a kal vachomer from one who still lacks atonement: just as one lacking atonement — who does not disqualify teruma — [nonetheless] renders sacrificial food third-degree impure, all the more so should one who immersed that day — who does disqualify teruma — render it fourth-degree impure. And the Gemara challenges this: let food that became impure through contact with one who immersed that day prove otherwise [since it only disqualifies without imparting further impurity]. The Gemara answers: perhaps he holds like Abba Shaul. But what does it mean that he 'holds like Abba Shaul,' when Abba Shaul's position is itself rabbinic? It must be that fourth-degree impurity of sacrificial food is itself rabbinic. So, too, Rashi explains in the first chapter of Pesachim (19a) that fourth-degree impurity of sacrificial food cannot be found according to the view that one food item does not impart impurity to another, except by rabbinic law. However, Rabbeinu Tam explains that it can be found through contact via wood [used for the offering], in which case fourth-degree impurity of sacrificial food would be by Torah law. [If so, according to Abba Shaul] how can the Gemara say 'perhaps he holds like Abba Shaul,' when Abba Shaul's ruling is rabbinic? It can be answered that the passage in Sotah (29b) does not accept Rava's distinction here, but rather holds that the impurity of one who immersed that day is by Torah law — unlike what the Gemara here sought to establish, that the mishna follows the Rabbis' opinion.
  5. Amar Rabbi Chanina LaYotz'in VeRabbi Akiva Hi (Rabbi Chanina says: this refers to [meat] that went outside, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva) — This is difficult: what is the case? If the limb went out on the side of the head, then [the Gemara] should have said 'Rabbi Akiva would agree,' as stated above. And if it went out on the side of the legs, we already say in the second chapter of Zevachim (25b) that if the bird's body is inside [the permitted area] and its legs are outside, and one then cuts [slaughters] it, it is invalid, because the fat of the protruding limb mixes with the blood, so that one ends up sprinkling invalid blood (that went out) on the altar. One can answer that this is referring to a case where all the blood had already gathered in the neck before the leg protruded, so there is no concern about the fat, since whatever fat was going to rise into the neck from the limbs had already risen. Alternatively, it may refer to a case where the whole bird went out and he cut off the protruding part together with the bone — for this is not considered invalid for birds unless the limb is first severed and the bird is slaughtered afterward. Rabbeinu Rechavya explained that this is what is meant in Zevachim (26a): if he received [the blood] and then cut [off the protruding limb], it is invalid, because he sprinkles the fat that became invalid by protruding; but if he had already sprinkled all the blood, it is valid, since he has fulfilled the mitzva of sprinkling from the blood, even though the fat that protruded and mixed with the blood had already risen and been sprinkled on the altar. Here too, the mishna teaches 'it was sprinkled,' implying that the sprinkling already occurred; therefore the bird sin offering is valid, since the mitzva of sprinkling from the blood was fulfilled, even though the fat had mixed with the blood.
  6. VeTani Rav Huzah Damah (And Rav teaches: 'its blood was sprinkled') — As soon as the blood of the bird sin offering is sprinkled, its mitzva is accomplished, as indicated by the verse...
  7. Bishlama LeRav Adda bar Ahava Haynu DeChativ VeHanish'ar BaDam Yimatzeh (Granted, according to Rav Adda bar Ahava, this matches what is written: 'and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out') — Even though it is called 'remainder' — meaning, even though the only blood present is what remains from the sprinkling — it is still called a sin offering, and its sprinkling's validity depends on the squeezing out, which is indispensable.
  8. KeDetanya DeVei Rabbi Yishmael She'im Nish'ar (As taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: 'if it remains') — Meaning: if blood remains, it should be squeezed out; but if not, there is no need to squeeze it out, and this is not indispensable [to the offering's validity].
  9. U'Mai Chatat Hi Arisha (And what does 'it is a sin offering' refer to? To the first clause) — Meaning, 'it is a sin offering' does not refer to the squeezing out, but to the first part of the verse, namely the sprinkling and the other matters of pinching the neck mentioned before 'and the remainder.'
  10. Ela Me'atah Gabei Minchah DeChativ VeHanotteret Hachi Nami She'im Nitotar (But if so, regarding a meal offering, where it is written 'and the remainder,' should the same apply — that if something remains, etc.) — Meaning: regarding a meal offering it is written, 'and the remainder of the meal offering shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons.' Should this likewise mean that if something remains they may eat it, but if the leftover portion was not left over between the scooping of the handful and its burning, there is no problem? And if you would say this is indeed so, but isn't it taught, 'of its fine flour,' etc., implying that it is obvious to the Gemara that if the leftover portion diminished between the scooping and the burning, it is invalid? This is difficult, for in the first chapter of Menachot (9a), Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree, and one of them holds that the handful is burned regardless. It can be answered that although the handful is burned regardless, he nevertheless agrees that the leftover portion is forbidden for consumption, as implied by the wording 'and the remainder of the meal offering shall be eaten,' etc. — meaning that if nothing remained, i.e., the leftover portion diminished, the priests would not eat anything.

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 8.