Meilah — Daf 5a

או היתר זריקה שנינו או היתר אכילה שנינו חזקיה אמר היתר שחיטה שנינו ר' יוחנן אמר היתר אכילה שנינו

א"ר זירא לא דייקא מתני' דלא כחזקיה ודלא כרבי יוחנן

תנן שלנה ושנטמאת ושיצאת לאו דלן דם וקתני אין מועלין בו

וש"מ היתר זריקה שנינו

לא דלן בשר אבל דם איזדריק מש"ה קתני אין מועלין בו

תנן ואיזו היא שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר לכהנים שנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה

ה"ד אילימא דזרקוהו פסולין וקבלוהו פסולין ל"ל עד דאיכא תרתי

אלא לאו דקבלוהו פסולין וזרקוהו כשרים וקתני מועלין בו

ש"מ היתר זריקה שנינו

מתקיף לה רב יוסף ואי ס"ד איכא לפלוגי הכי הא דתנן התם

חטאת פסולה אין דמה טעון כיבוס בין שהיתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה ובין שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה

אי זו היא שהיתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה שלנה ושנטמאת או שיצאה

איזוהי שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר שנשחטה חוץ למקומה חוץ לזמנה ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה

היכי דמי אילימא דקבלוהו פסולין וזרקו פסולין הוא דאין דמה טעון כיבוס הא קבלוהו וזרקו כשרים דמה טעון כיבוס

קרי כאן (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר יזה מדמה ולא שכבר הוזה אלא לאו דוקא

or ‘permitted for sprinkling’,1 or ‘permitted for consumption’?2 Hezekiah said: It means ‘permitted at the time of slaughtering’. R. Johanan said: It means ‘permitted for consumption’. Said R. Zera: Our Mishnah cannot be made to correspond either with the view of Hezekiah or that of R. Johanan. For we have learnt: THAT WHICH REMAINED OVERNIGHT OR BECAME DEFlled OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. Now, does this not mean that the blood remained overnight,3 and yet it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply, [a statement which] proves that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant? — No, it means that the flesh remained overnight, but the blood had been sprinkled, and for this reason it states that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply. We have learnt: WHICH IS THAT WHICH HAS AT NO TIME BEEN PERMITTED TO THE PRIESTS? THAT WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED WHILE PURPOSING AN ACT BEYOND ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR THE BLOOD OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNFIT AND THEY SPRINKLED IT. How is [the last instance] to be understood? Shall I say that the blood was received by unfit [priests] and sprinkled by unfit [priests]? Why is it necessary to have this twofold [disqualification]?4 You must then understand it that the blood was received by the unfit and sprinkled by the fit,5 and it states that [in this case] the Law of Sacrilege applies.6 This would prove that ‘permitted for sprinkling’ is meant. To this R. Joseph demurred: Should you say that a distinction of this character can be made. how [would you explain] that which we have learnt elsewhere:7 ‘The blood of a disqualified sin-offering need not be washed off8 [if splashed upon a cloth], no matter whether the offering had at one time been fit for use and then became disqualified. or had at no time [been fit for use]. Which is that which had at one time been fit for use, but became disqualified? That9 which remained overnight or became defiled or was brought outside the Temple Court. Which is that which had at no time been fit for use? That which was slaughtered [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time or outside the proper place, or the blood of which was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it’. Now, how is this to be understood? Shall I say that [the blood] was received by the unfit, and was sprinkled by the unfit [and thus infer that only in this case] need the blood not be washed off; if, however, it was received and sprinkled by the fit, the blood has to be washed off? [But this could not be!] Apply here the verse: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof . . . ,10 but not of that which has already been sprinkled. You must then say [that the text of the Mishnah there] is not meant to be taken precisely [so as to exclude other instances] priests. time permissible to the priests.