Meilah 1:3-4
משנה מעילה א:ג-ד
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 1
📖 Mishna
Mishna 1:3
משנה א:ג
Hebrew:
אֵמוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא:
English:
The mishna adds that just as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether the sprinkling of blood exempts meat that left the courtyard from liability for its misuse, so too, they disagree with regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity consumed on the altar that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood. The dispute is whether the subsequent sprinkling of the blood generates liability for misuse of those portions. Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective in rendering those portions consecrated to the Lord. Consequently, one is not liable for misusing them. And similarly, one is not liable for their consumption due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of meat while ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective, and therefore one is liable for misusing them. And likewise, one is liable for its consumption due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna extends the Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbi Akiva dispute from mishna 1:2 to a mirror-image case. In 1:2, the question was about meat of kodshei kodashim (most sacred offerings) that left the courtyard. Here, the question is about the sacrificial portions (eimurim) of kodashim kalim (lesser sanctity offerings) that left before blood sprinkling.
The twist is that the directions are reversed. For kodshei kodashim, meat starts subject to me’ilah and is released by sprinkling. For kodashim kalim, the sacrificial portions start without me’ilah (since the offering isn’t yet fully “God’s”) and become subject to me’ilah only after sprinkling transfers the eimurim to the altar. So when Rabbi Akiva says sprinkling is effective here, it means the eimurim become subject to me’ilah — the sprinkling adds stringency, not leniency.
Key Terms:
- אימורים (Eimurim) = Sacrificial portions burned on the altar (fats, kidneys, diaphragm)
- קדשים קלים (Kodashim Kalim) = Offerings of lesser sanctity (peace offerings, firstborn, tithe)
Mishna 1:4
משנה א:ד
Hebrew:
מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וּבַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִים בָּאֵמוּרִים וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין לֹא בָאֵמוּרִין וְלֹא בַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. נִמְצָא מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר:
English:
With regard to establishing liability for misuse of consecrated items, there is an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, it contains in its entirety aspects of stringency, i.e., there are only aspects of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of the most sacred order is that before the sprinkling of blood, one is liable for misusing their sacrificial portions that are to be burned on the altar, and for misusing the meat that is to be eaten by the priests. Since the meat is prohibited prior to sprinkling the blood, it is in the category of items consecrated to God, which are subject to the halakhot of misuse. After the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order, one is still liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, as they remain prohibited to be eaten and are in the category of items consecrated to God, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat, as it is now permitted for consumption by the priests. This explains how there is an aspect of leniency in the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and the prohibition against consumption of notar, and the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, the act of sprinkling blood of offerings of the most sacred order is found to contain an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their aspects are of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of lesser sanctity is that before the sprinkling of the blood, one is not liable for misuse, not for their sacrificial portions nor for the meat. After the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat. This explains how the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity causes a stringency in terms of the halakhot of misuse. And for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and of the prohibition against consumption of notar, and of the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, it is found that all of their aspects are of stringency.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This is one of the most beautifully structured mishnayot in all of Seder Kodashim. It provides a comprehensive summary of Chapter 1 by mapping how blood sprinkling affects me’ilah status across the two categories of offerings. The mishna presents a clean conceptual grid:
For kodshei kodashim (most sacred), sprinkling has both a lenient and a stringent effect. Before sprinkling: me’ilah applies to both the sacrificial portions and the meat. After sprinkling: me’ilah still applies to the sacrificial portions (they belong to the altar) but no longer to the meat (now permitted to priests). The leniency is the removal of me’ilah from the meat; the stringency is adding the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and impurity.
For kodashim kalim (lesser sanctity), sprinkling is entirely stringent. Before sprinkling: no me’ilah applies to anything — the offering hasn’t yet been fully dedicated. After sprinkling: me’ilah now applies to the sacrificial portions (they are designated for the altar), though the meat remains exempt. The sprinkling only adds obligations, never removes them. This asymmetry is the core insight: the same ritual act (zerikat damim) has opposite effects depending on the sanctity category of the offering.
Key Terms:
- מעשה דמים (Ma’aseh Damim) = The act of blood sprinkling; the pivotal ritual that changes an offering’s halachic status
- להקל ולהחמיר (LeHakel ULeHachmir) = Leniency and stringency; the dual effect of sprinkling on kodshei kodashim
- כרת (Karet) = Spiritual excision; the penalty for eating piggul, notar, or sacrificial meat while impure