Meilah 2:9-3:1
משנה מעילה ב:ט-ג:א
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 2-3
📖 Mishna
Mishna 2:9
משנה ב:ט
Hebrew:
הַקֹּמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמְנָחוֹת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִין, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהֻקְדְּשׁוּ. קָדְשׁוּ בַכְּלִי, הֻכְשְׁרוּ לִפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה, וְחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא, וּפִגּוּל אֵין בָּהֶן. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ מַתִּירָיו. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין, כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בַּכְּלִי, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא, וּפִגּוּל אֵין בּוֹ:
English:
The mishna lists sacrificial items that are consumed in their entirety on the altar and of which the priests have no share. One is liable for misuse of the handful taken from the meal offering, and the frankincense burned with the handful on the altar, and the incense burned each day on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and the meal offering of priests, from which a handful is not taken but which is burned in its entirety, and the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and the meal offering sacrificed with the libations that accompany offerings. In all these cases, one is liable for misuse from the moment that they were consecrated through declaration. Once one consecrated them by placing them in the appropriate service vessel, each was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to the prohibition of partaking of it while ritually impure; but there is no liability for piggul in each of these cases. This is the principle that applies to piggul: With regard to any consecrated item that has permitting factors, i.e., there is another item whose sacrifice renders it permitted for consumption by the altar or by an individual, one is not liable due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of it while ritually impure, until they sacrifice the permitting factors. And with regard to any item that does not have permitting factors, e.g., the handful and the frankincense, as they render other items permitted whereas no other items are needed to render them permitted, once one sanctified them in the appropriate service vessel, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of it while ritually impure; but there is no liability for piggul in those cases.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna is the culmination of Chapter 2, listing offerings that are entirely consumed on the altar and have no portion eaten by any person. These include the kometz (handful), frankincense, daily incense, priestly meal offerings, the High Priest’s daily meal offering (chavitin), and the meal offering accompanying libations. For all of these, me’ilah applies from consecration and continues even after placement in a service vessel, because no permitting act ever transfers them to human consumption.
The mishna notes a critical distinction: these items are subject to notar and tumah after being sanctified in a vessel, but piggul does not apply to them. This is because piggul — the intention to eat or burn the offering outside its designated time — can only apply to items that have a matir (permitting factor). Since these offerings are themselves the matir for other items (e.g., the kometz permits the shirayim), and no other item permits them, the mechanism of piggul simply does not engage.
The mishna then articulates the general principle (klal) that organizes the entire chapter. Items that have matirin (permitting factors) are subject to piggul, notar, and tumah only after those matirin are offered. Items that lack matirin — because they are themselves the permitting agents — become subject to notar and tumah immediately upon sanctification in a vessel, but can never be subject to piggul. This elegant rule connects all the individual cases discussed throughout the chapter into a single coherent framework.
Key Terms:
- קְטֹרֶת (Ketoret) = The daily incense offering burned on the golden altar in the Sanctuary
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ (Minchat Kohen Mashiach) = The High Priest’s daily meal offering (chavitin), half in the morning and half in the evening
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִין (Minchat Nesakhin) = The meal offering that accompanies animal sacrifices along with wine libations
- מַתִּירִין (Matirin) = Permitting factors — sacrificial components whose offering permits other parts for consumption
- כְּלָל (Klal) = A general principle or rule that unifies multiple individual cases
Mishna 3:1
משנה ג:א
Hebrew:
וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְעָלֶיהָ, יָמוּתוּ. שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאָבְדָה וְשֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם מִשֶּׁכִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים, תָּמוּת, וְאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה, וְלֹא נֶהֱנִים, וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא כִפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים, תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב, וְתִמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא בְדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת, וְעוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ:
English:
This mishna, which also appears in tractate Temura, deals with the five sin offerings left to die. It is cited here because of its relevance to the halakhot of misuse. The mishna first mentions three of those offerings: The offspring of a sin offering, and an animal that is the substitute for a sin offering, whether or not the owners achieved atonement by means of another offering, and a sin offering whose owners have died before the offering was sacrificed, shall die. And the other two sin offerings left to die are the sin offering whose year since birth passed and is therefore unfit for sacrifice, and a sin offering that was lost and when it was found it was blemished, with regard to which the halakhot are as follows: If the sin offering was found after the owner achieved atonement through the sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, then the blemished animal shall die, and it does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, as it is has neither inherent sanctity, which would make it fit for sacrifice on the altar, nor sanctity that inheres in its value. And one may not derive benefit from the found animal ab initio, but if he derived benefit from the animal he is not liable for its misuse. And if the animal whose year passed was found before the owner achieved atonement, the found animal shall graze until it becomes blemished [shetista’ev], at which point it may not be sacrificed; and it shall be sold and the owner shall purchase another animal with the money received from its sale. The animal that was found blemished may be sold immediately, and the owner shall purchase another animal with the money received from its sale. In both cases, the animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, and one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing it.
קלאוד על המשנה:
Mishna 3:1 shifts to a new topic: the five categories of sin offerings that must be left to die (chatat ha’meitah). This mishna, which also appears in Masechet Temurah, is placed here because of its direct implications for me’ilah law. The five categories are: (1) the offspring of a sin offering, (2) an animal substituted for a sin offering, (3) a sin offering whose owner died, (4) a sin offering whose year has passed, and (5) a sin offering that was lost and found blemished.
The first three categories — offspring, substitute, and owner’s death — must always be left to die. The last two — year passed and found blemished — depend on whether the owner has already achieved atonement through another offering. If atonement was already achieved, these animals must die, cannot effect a temurah (substitution), and occupy a peculiar halakhic status: one may not benefit from them ab initio, but one who does benefit is not liable for me’ilah. They lack both inherent sanctity (they cannot be sacrificed) and monetary sanctity.
If the owner has not yet achieved atonement, the situation differs. An animal whose year passed must graze until it becomes blemished, then be sold, with the proceeds used to buy a replacement. A blemished animal can be sold immediately. In both pre-atonement cases, the animal retains its sanctity: it can effect a temurah, and one who benefits from it is liable for me’ilah. This distinction — pre- vs. post-atonement — determines whether the animal retains enough sanctity to trigger me’ilah.
Key Terms:
- וְלַד חַטָּאת (Vlad Chattat) = The offspring of a sin offering, born after the mother was consecrated
- תְמוּרָה (Temurah) = Substitution — attempting to exchange a consecrated animal for a non-sacred one; both become sacred
- תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב (Tir’eh Ad She’tista’ev) = It shall graze until it becomes blemished, rendering it unfit for sacrifice and eligible for sale
- כִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים (Kippru Ha’be’alim) = The owners achieved atonement, through sacrifice of a replacement offering
- חֲמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת (Chamesh Chata’ot Meitot) = The five sin offerings that are left to die, a well-known Talmudic category