Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 9 for kids: Ashes, Embers, and Blood

מעילה ט׳

🔥 This daf finishes talking about squeezing blood from bird offerings, then gives a big list of when each offering becomes forbidden to use for yourself (called 'me'ilah'). It also asks a fun question: once the altar's ashes did their job, can you still get in trouble for using them?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 9a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 9b 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 9

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 9 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 9a, in English Tab translation (34)
  1. Ve'amrei hatam ketiv vehanoteret kra yiteira — They said [in response]: there [regarding the meal offering] the word 'and the remainder' (vehanoteret) is written, which is a superfluous verse. For 'vehanoteret' is written twice there — 'vehanoteret mimenah' and 'vehanoteret min haminchah' (Leviticus 2:3, 10) — and Scripture repeated it to teach that it invalidates the offering if the flour was lacking. This means: 'vehanoteret' implies there must be a remainder, but not 'a remainder of the remainder' (i.e., the leftover portion itself, which remains after the handful is taken, must not be lacking, but one need not worry about a further remainder of that leftover). But here, regarding the blood [of the bird sin offering], only the word 'vehanish'ar' (and what is left) is written alone, implying: if blood remains inside, he must squeeze it out, but if none remains, it does not invalidate the offering. And as for the two exclusionary expressions written regarding the meal offering — 'vehanoteret' and 'misoltah' — one teaches a preferred practice (mitzva), and one teaches that it invalidates.
  2. Katani miha u'mitzah damah — At any rate, the mishna teaches 'and he squeezed out its blood,' which indicates that squeezing the blood also invalidates the bird sin offering [if omitted], since one can render the offering piggul through this act, just as one can through sprinkling.
  3. Letzdadin katani — The mishna teaches the two clauses disjunctively: 'he pinched the nape' applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering, but 'and he squeezed out its blood' applies only to the bird burnt offering, which has no sprinkling, only squeezing. But in the case of the bird sin offering, which does have sprinkling, since he did not render it piggul through improper intent at sprinkling, he cannot render it piggul through improper intent at squeezing, because squeezing does not invalidate that offering.
  4. She'im nish'ar badam — 'That if blood remained' — this implies that failure to leave a remainder of blood does not invalidate the offering.
  5. Veha tana devei Rabbi Yishmael hatam — But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, in the chapter 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim 52a)...
  6. Shirayim me'akvin — 'The remainder invalidates' — for this reflects the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva: Rabbi Yishmael says it invalidates, and Rabbi Akiva says it does not. And Rav Pappa said there that everyone agrees that an ordinary remainder [of blood meant for the base] does not invalidate; rather, the dispute here concerns the remainder of the bird sin offering's blood, meaning the squeezing out — Rabbi Yishmael holds it invalidates, Rabbi Akiva holds it does not. And this creates a difficulty, since one statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael contradicts another statement attributed to him.
  7. Terei tanna'ei aliba de'Rabbi Yishmael — There are two tanna'im who disagree about Rabbi Yishmael's position; and the tanna here, who taught 'that if it remained,' holds, in accordance with [one version of] Rabbi Yishmael's view, that squeezing does not invalidate the offering.
  8. Matnita mitzah damah chayavin aleha mishum piggul — MISHNA: 'He squeezed out its blood... one is liable for piggul' — because the squeezing of the bird burnt offering takes the place of the sprinkling (zerikah) done for an animal offering and the sprinkling (hazza'ah) done for the bird sin offering, since only 'venimtza damo' (Leviticus 1:15) is written regarding it. That squeezing is what establishes liability for piggul if he had improper intent during the pinching to burn it beyond its designated time, for once he squeezed out its blood, the factors that permit the offering took effect for piggul purposes, making one liable for karet. Likewise, after the squeezing, the offering becomes subject to the laws of notar (leftover) and tumah (impurity).
  9. U'mo'alin bah ad shetetze l'veit hadeshen — 'And one is liable for misusing it until it goes out to the place of the ashes' — since it is entirely consumed [on the altar] and has no portion permitted to the priests, one remains liable for misusing it until it is completely burned and removed as ash-waste (terumat hadeshen), as it is written, 'and he shall remove the ashes...' (Leviticus 6:3). Afterward, since its mitzva has been fulfilled, one is no longer liable for misusing it.
  10. Parim hanisrafin usse'irim hanisrafin — 'Bulls that are burned and goats that are burned' — these are of the most sacred order and have no portion permitted to the priests. The sprinkling of their blood establishes liability for piggul if he had improper intent during the slaughtering. And since they have no portion permitted to the priests, one remains liable for misusing them even at the place of the ashes, where they are burned.
  11. Ad sheyutakh habasar — 'Until the flesh is melted' — until the flesh is consumed and turns to ash, which is the completion of its mitzva.
  12. Ha'olah — 'The burnt offering' — and all the cases in this mishna deal with offerings of the most sacred order (kodshei kodashim).
  13. Ve'ein mo'alin b'orah — 'And one is not liable for misusing its hide' — for the hide belongs to the priests, as it is written, 'the hide of the burnt offering that he offered shall be the priest's, his own' (Leviticus 7:8).
  14. U'mo'alin babasar ad shetetze l'veit hadeshen — 'And one is liable for misusing the flesh until it goes out to the place of the ashes' — since it is entirely consumed [on the altar].
  15. Chatat ve'asham v'chu' ve'ein mo'alin babasar — 'Sin offering and guilt offering, etc.... and one is not liable for misusing the flesh' — since once the blood was sprinkled, the flesh became permitted to the priests, as these are offerings of the most sacred order.
  16. Aval mo'alin ba'eimurin — 'But one is liable for misusing the sacrificial portions [burned on the altar]' — until they are consumed on the altar and the ashes go out to the place of the ashes, for then the mitzva has been completed.
  17. Shtei halechem mo'alin bahen mishehukdeshu — 'The two loaves — one is liable for misusing them from when they were consecrated' — by verbal declaration.
  18. Karmu batanur — 'When they formed a crust in the oven' — this is the beginning of their preparation, and that crust is considered sufficient to render them susceptible [to the halakhot of consecrated items], so they become disqualified through contact with one who immersed that day, etc., just as slaughter does for offerings of the most sacred order. And here there is no concern for leaving overnight (linah), because the two loaves may be eaten only from the second day through the third day.
  19. Velishchot aleihen hazevach — 'And to slaughter the offering on their account' — as it is written, 'and you shall offer with the bread' (Leviticus 23:18), and we say elsewhere (Menachot 62a) that 'with' means 'in proximity to' (in time). Once they have formed a crust, they are called 'bread.'
  20. Nizrak hadam — 'Once the blood was sprinkled' — referring to the blood of the lambs.
  21. Chayavin aleihen — 'One is liable for them' — meaning for the two loaves, due to piggul, if he had improper intent during the slaughtering to eat the bread beyond its designated time, since the lambs can render the bread piggul.
  22. Ve'ein bahen me'ilah — 'And there is no longer liability for misusing them' — since they have a time when they become permitted to the priests, and their mitzva has already been fulfilled.
  23. Lechem hapanim mo'alin bahen mishehukdeshu — 'The showbread — one is liable for misusing it from when it was consecrated' — by verbal declaration.
  24. Karmu batanur v'chu' — 'When they formed a crust in the oven, etc.' — as stated regarding the two loaves; and here too there is no concern for leaving overnight, for we hold (Menachot 100b) that the showbread may be eaten on the eighth, ninth, or tenth day.
  25. Ul'sader sidro al gabei hashulchan — 'And to arrange it, he arranged it upon the table' — and as long as it has not formed a crust, it is not called 'bread.'
  26. Karvu habezichin (When the bowls were offered) — this refers to the frankincense bowls that accompany the showbread, which are considered its permitting factor; one is liable for piggul on their account. For if, while burning the bowls, one had intent to eat the bread beyond its designated time, the bread becomes fixed with piggul. Just as the sprinkling of an animal's blood, its permitting factor, fixes the offering with regard to piggul, notar, and tumah, so too the burning of the bowls fixes the showbread with regard to all these.
  27. Ve'ein bo me'ilah (and there is no liability for misuse regarding it) — because it has a time when it is permitted to the priests.
  28. Hamenachot mo'alin bahen mishehukdeshu (One is liable for misusing meal offerings from when they were consecrated) — meaning consecrated verbally, by declaration.
  29. Aval mo'alin bakometz (But there is liability for misuse regarding the handful) — until it is entirely burned and goes out to the place of the ashes, like the law of the sacrificial portions of consecrated offerings, because the handful is entirely consumed [on the altar].
  30. Gemara: Hanehene me'efer tapuach (One who derives benefit from the ash-heap) — this refers to after the removal of the ash-gift (terumat hadeshen) had already taken place. For so we learn in tractate Tamid (28b): At first, when the priest wished to perform the removal of the ash-gift, he would go up to the top of the altar and push the coals from side to side, rake out the innermost burnt coals, and descend — this was the ash-gift. When it reached the floor, he piled the coals on the floor three handbreadths from the ramp — this was the place for the ash-gift. The rest, remaining atop the altar, he gathered to one side of the altar and shaped into a round mound like an apple, high like a cap. And it is said there that sometimes it held three hundred kor. Afterward he would remove his garments and put on lesser ones, as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael (Yoma 23b): garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, one should not use to pour his master's cup. He would then carry the ashes outside the camp to the place of the ashes. It is regarding this [remaining ash-heap, before being carried out] that the Gemara speaks of 'one who derives benefit from the ash-heap.'
  31. Kulei alma lo pligi demo'alin bahen (Everyone agrees that there is liability for misuse regarding them) — because its mitzvah [purpose] has not yet been fulfilled.
  32. Rabbi Yochanan savar (Rabbi Yochanan holds) — since carrying out the ash-heap requires priestly garments, the phrase 'and he put on other garments' refers to priestly garments, only of lesser sanctity than the first; therefore it retains its sacred status, and there is liability for misuse regarding it.
  33. Tenan mo'alin bahen ad shetetze levet hadeshen (We learned: 'One is liable for misuse regarding them until it goes out to the place of the ashes') — this implies that even after the ash-gift was taken, there is still liability for misuse regarding the remainder.
  34. Ad shetera'eh ('Until it is seen') — meaning until the removal of the ash-gift; but after the ash-gift has been removed, what remains is fit and ready for removal of the ashes, and there is no longer liability for misuse regarding it — and this accords with Rav's view.
Tosafot on Meilah 9a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. But isn't it taught: 'from its fine flour,' etc. — You might ask: why not simply answer that here the case is different because the verse explicitly states 'from its fine flour and from its oil'? The response is that we should treat this verse as referring to a sin offering, just like the phrase 'from its fine flour and from its oil.' Furthermore, my teacher Rabbi explained that since we see that the term 'the remainder' implies there must be something left over, similarly 'and that which is left' must mean that something must remain — there's no reason to distinguish between the two expressions, since the wording is identical. You might further ask: why does the Gemara cite the verse 'from its fine flour and from its oil' instead of the verse 'from the meal offering,' from which we derive 'excluding a meal offering that was lacking'? In the first chapter of Menachot (9b) both verses are needed: one for a meal offering lacking before the handful was taken, and one for the remainder lacking between the taking of the handful and its burning — and there it seems that the law about the remainder is derived specifically from 'from the meal offering.' So shouldn't the Gemara have cited that verse here, since this case deals with exactly that situation? The answer is that the Gemara was not being so precise in citing 'from the meal offering,' and simply quoted one of the two available verses, similar to the phrase 'moreover.' My teacher, may he live long, further explained that without the verse 'from its fine flour and from its oil' (from which we derive the law of a meal offering lacking before the handful is taken), we would not have been able to derive from 'from the meal offering' the law about the remainder lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning. Only once it is written 'from its fine flour' — implying that at the time of taking the handful the meal offering must be whole — do we then derive from 'from the meal offering' the law of the remainder, implying 'from the meal offering that had already been whole' at the time the handful was taken. That is why the verse 'from its fine flour' is cited even regarding the remainder that was lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning. The Gemara there answers that the phrase 'and the remainder' is superfluous, since obviously there is a remainder — as it is written 'he shall take his handful... and burn it,' implying that not all of the meal offering remains, only the handful that is burned. Since that verse is therefore superfluous, we cannot say the same must apply here. Here, however, the phrase 'and what remains' refers to the blood, and it is not superfluous, since it must teach that there needs to be a remainder of blood — not all of it sprinkled — though it does not mean that the sprinkling of a sin offering depends on squeezing, i.e., that squeezing is indispensable.
  2. It is taught disjunctively — meaning that pinching the nape applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering, but squeezing out the blood applies only to the bird burnt offering. You might ask: why didn't the Gemara cite instead the first clause of that mishna taught in the chapter 'Chatat HaOf' (Zevaḥim 64b): 'Offerings of the most holy order that were pinched or squeezed not for their own sake, or for the wrong sake, are invalid'? The answer is that from that mishna there is no difficulty at all, since it is no stronger than our mishna, which states 'squeezed,' while Rav taught 'sprinkled' — one could likewise say there that 'squeezed' really means 'sprinkled.' But in the mishna cited here, one cannot say this, since it explicitly mentions 'and one bird burnt offering,' to which sprinkling does not apply — so it must mean squeezing specifically.
  3. And Rav Pappa said: the squeezing out of blood from a bird sin offering — In the chapter 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevaḥim 52a), concerning the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, where it states that failure regarding the remainder is indispensable, this refers specifically to the bird sin offering.
Rashi on Meilah 9b, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. And all of them that were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them — for it is taught in tractate Zevachim, chapter HaMizbe'ach (85b): And these, if they went up [onto the altar] they must come down: the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order, etc.; the wool on the heads of the lambs, the hair on the beard of the goats (when attached), and the bones, sinews, horns, and hooves — when they are attached, they may be offered, as it is stated, 'And the priest shall burn the whole upon the altar'; but if they became detached, they may not be offered. And all of them that went up to the top of the altar and afterward became dislodged from upon the altar — the priest does not restore them, and there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property regarding them.
  2. And likewise, an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar — this is not referring to an ember from the sacrificial portions, but rather to an ember from the wood, meaning that if it were an ember from the sacrificial portions, the priest would be obligated to restore it, since its mitzvah was not yet completed until the removal of the ashes was performed. It also implies that this is referring even to an ember within the pile of ashes, since it is impossible that there were no embers mixed into the ashes piled in the mound. And if the ember fell from the mound onto the fire of the arrangement, and afterward the ember became dislodged from the fire of the arrangement to the ground, the priest does not restore it, and there is no liability for misuse regarding it.
  3. Only from the ground onto the altar does the priest not restore it — implying that if it were still on top of the altar — for example, if it was dislodged from one side of the altar to another side that is still on the altar —
  4. He restores it — and from the fact that we infer 'he restores it,' this implies that there is liability for misuse of it even after the removal of the ashes was performed. This accords with Rabbi Yoḥanan's view, and is difficult for Rav.
  5. Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, since it has substance — for this reason it is significant enough to be restored, and there is liability for misuse of it even after the removal of the ashes. But ash, which has no substance, has no liability for misuse attached to it.
  6. There is one who raised this objection in the opposite way: The reason stated is that an ember is restored because it has substance — implying that ash, which has no substance, has no liability for misuse attached to it even while on top of the altar, and this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: The same is true even for ash that was dislodged from upon the altar after the removal of the ashes — it must be restored, and there is liability for misuse of it. And this is the reason the mishna teaches 'ember' and not 'ash': to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it becomes dislodged from upon the altar to the ground, the priest does not restore it.
  7. Rav says: the value of that which he benefited — meaning, the principal and the added fifth that he must pay for what he benefited go to the fund for communal gift offerings; and he is also obligated to bring a guilt offering for misuse to atone for his act of misuse.
  8. And Levi says: he must bring, with that principal and fifth, an item that is entirely consumed on the altar — namely, incense.
  9. This payment for misuse — the principal and fifth that one is obligated to bring for having benefited from consecrated items — to where does it go?
  10. Those who learn before the Sages — this refers to Levi, who stated this baraita in the name of Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi]: one must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, namely incense, and nevertheless he also brings a guilt offering for misuse.
  11. One who benefits from money designated for a sin offering or money designated for a guilt offering — for example, he set aside money for his sin offering or his guilt offering, and benefited from some of it before he purchased the offering. The meaning is: if it becomes known to him that he benefited from it before his sin offering was sacrificed — meaning he had not yet purchased the sin offering with the money he set aside — he adds this principal and fifth, which he owes for having misused, to the remaining money, and brings his sin offering from both; and the same applies to a guilt offering.
  12. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed — before it became known to him that he had misused, and only afterward does it become known — he must cast this principal and fifth into the Dead Sea. For had his sin offering not yet been sacrificed, he would have added this principal and fifth to the money for his sin offering and brought a sin offering for misuse with it; but now, since it became known to him only after his sin offering was sacrificed, this money which he would have needed to add to the sin offering money — since his sin offering has already been sacrificed — is like a sin offering whose owner has already achieved atonement, which goes to its death; so the money must go to the Dead Sea, which represents the place of death.
  13. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed — then too, the money of the principal and fifth goes to the fund for communal gift offerings, for we hold (Temurah 18a) that anything which, in the case of a sin offering, would go to its death, in the case of a guilt offering is left to graze until it becomes blemished, and is then sold, and its proceeds go to the fund for gift offerings.
  14. One who benefits from offerings of the most sacred order, etc. — it goes to the fund for gift offerings — and this accords with the view of Rav.
  15. All offerings of the altar — meaning, if one benefited from offerings of the altar, the principal and fifth go to the fund for gift offerings for the altar.
  16. And if one benefited from items consecrated for Temple maintenance, he pays the principal and fifth to Temple maintenance.
  17. For the fund of communal gift offerings — meaning, for the trumpet-shaped collection boxes [for communal offerings].
Tosafot on Meilah 9b, in English Tab translation (11)
  1. וכולן שפקעו מעל גבי המזבח לא יחזיר — In the chapter HaMizbeiach Mekadesh (Zevaḥim 85b) it is stated that the reference there to bones, sinews, and hooves is discussed in the first clause of that mishna, namely 'if they separated, they may not be placed [on the altar]' — meaning the bones and sinews separated from the flesh to which they had been attached. This latter clause refers back to that and states: 'and all of them' — whether still attached or separated — 'that became dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them. And likewise an ember that became dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it.' This implies that if it is still upon the altar, he does restore it. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said above regarding misuse that even after the removal of the ashes the altar's mitzva has still not been completed, this works well, for here we say he restores it. But according to Rav it is difficult: why does he restore it, since its mitzva has been completed, as one might think an ember is like ash? And if you say, let him answer that certainly after the removal of the ashes the mitzva has indeed been completed, and we do not say here that he restores it because of the removal of the ashes, but rather because the ashes still need to be removed — for here we deal with before midday, which is the time for removing the ashes. And you can know this, since the mishna distinguishes between before midday and after midday in the latter clause regarding the limbs, but here regarding the ember it does not distinguish; and so it is indicated in the Talmudic discussion there, that regarding the ember it deals with even before midday. And the Rav of Coucy says that certainly the mishna had to explain that he restores it, not because of removing the ashes — for there is much ash to remove besides this; for although regarding misuse there is a strictness about the ashes not yet having been removed, as indicated above, that is because its mitzva was not completed, since the ash upon the 'mound' remains to be removed. But where an ember becomes dislodged, we should not say he restores it in order to fulfill the removal of ashes with this very ember, since it is possible to fulfill that mitzva with the rest of the ash. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says there is a strictness regarding the removal of the ashes generally, it works out well that he must restore the ember, because the Torah says: 'and he shall take out all the ashes.'
  2. שאני גחלת דאית בה מששא — That is, it is not comparable to ash, for it has substance; therefore he must restore it, since burning [on the altar] still applies to it.
  3. הנהנה מבשר קדשי קדשים לפני זריקת דמים — For then they are consecrated to the Lord and have not yet been permitted to the priests; and from the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood — for then they are consecrated to the Lord, since the portion belonging to the Most High has been clarified. Rav says: the value of what he benefited from is allocated to the fund for communal gift offerings, for the summer burnt offering, for the altar; and the hides belong to the priests.
  4. הלמידין לפני חכמים — This is not the same as 'those who learn before the Sages' mentioned in Sanhedrin (17b), which is explained there to mean Levi — for we never find Levi mentioned by name in a baraita; and furthermore, it would not make sense for a teaching method to bring proof for Levi's own opinion from Levi himself.
  5. לא קרבה חטאתו — One should not explain this as meaning that he learned of his misuse before his sin offering was sacrificed, for if so, in the next clause, which states 'if his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money goes to the Dead Sea,' we would likewise have to explain that the sin offering was sacrificed before he learned of the misuse — but this cannot be said, since Rabbah states shortly afterward that if he learned of it after atonement was achieved, the money is allocated to the fund for communal gift offerings. Rather, the meaning here is: 'if his sin offering has not yet been sacrificed' refers to one who comes to pay before his sin offering is sacrificed — he must add and bring a [more expensive] sin offering, meaning he adds the money he owes (principal and fifth) to the sin offering he is to bring. But the baraita here is not dealing at all with the guilt offering for misuse.
  6. יוסיף ויביא אשמו — Meaning a more expensive guilt offering, as I explained regarding the sin offering.
  7. כבר קרבה חטאתו — Meaning that he learned of the misuse before his sin offering was sacrificed, as explained above, but he did not come to pay for the misuse until after his sin offering was sacrificed — then the money goes to the Dead Sea. For had it been a sin offering [itself], it would have had to die, since he achieved atonement through another animal; therefore now, since it is only money, it is cast into the Dead Sea.
  8. כבר קרב אשמו יפלו לנדבה — For had it been a living guilt offering, it would be left to graze [until blemished and then sold, with proceeds to the fund for gift offerings], since anything that in the case of a sin offering would die, in the case of a guilt offering is left to graze (Temurah 18a).
  9. כל קרבן המזבח למזבח — And even if the owners achieved atonement through other animals; and shortly the Gemara raises a difficulty from the first clause against the latter clause.
  10. קרבנות בדק הבית — For example, if one commits misuse with items consecrated for Temple maintenance and brings the principal and the fifth, this money goes to Temple maintenance, even if the owners who brought it have died, since there is no individual owner over it.
  11. קרבנות צבור לצבור — Meaning that even if that generation which brought the communal burnt offering has died, the community endures, for 'one generation goes and another comes' (Ecclesiastes 1:4).

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 9.