Mishnah Meilah 1:1-2

Sugya Map

• Issue: Liability for me'ilah (misuse of consecrated items) when Kodshei Kodashim are disqualified before zerikat ha'dam (blood sprinkling).
• Nafka Mina(s): Whether a korban me'ilah is required, and if so, whether it is de'Oraita or de'Rabanan. Also, the applicability of issurei piggul, notar, and tumah.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Meilah 1:1-2; Rambam, Peirush HaMishnayot ad loc.; Tosafot Yom Tov ad loc.; Rambam, Hilchot Meilah 3:1.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah opens:

"קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום מועלין בהן" ^[Mishnah Meilah 1:1:1] "רבי יהושע אומר כל שיש לו שעת היתר לכהנים אין מועלין בו וכל שאין לו שעת היתר לכהנים מועלין בו" ^[Mishnah Meilah 1:1:2] The pivotal dispute: "בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא חוץ לקלעים קודם זריקת הדם רבי אליעזר אומר מועלין בו ואינו חייב עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא רבי עקיבא אומר אין מועלין בו וחייב עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא" ^[Mishnah Meilah 1:1:2] Note the dikduk: R' Eliezer's "אינו חייב עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא" implies the zerikah was utterly ineffective to grant hetter l'kohanim, thus it remains Kodshei H' and me'ilah applies. R' Akiva's "וחייב עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא" indicates the zerikah did effect hetter, shifting its status to Kodshei Kohanim, even if pasul for consumption.

Readings

Rambam, Peirush HaMishnayot

Rambam states unequivocally that for Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south, one is liable for me'ilah דבר תורה ^[Rambam, Peirush HaMishnayot, Meilah 1:1 s.v. "קדשי קדשים"]. He clarifies the Mishnah aims to teach this despite the korban being pasul like a neveilah.

Tosafot Yom Tov (citing Kessef Mishneh)

T'Y highlights a tension: while Rambam's Peirush asserts me'ilah de'Oraita for the initial cases, his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Meilah 3:1) seems to imply de'Rabanan for psulim that "עלו ירדו" (ascended to the altar, then descended as unfit). The Kessef Mishneh explains the Mishneh Torah follows R' Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:2 that such psulim are only de'Rabanan for me'ilah ^[Tosafot Yom Tov, Meilah 1:1:2 s.v. "ששחטן בדרום מועלין בהן"].

Friction

The most striking kushya emerges from the Rambam's own corpus. How can his Peirush HaMishnayot explicitly declare me'ilah for "ששחטן בדרום" as de'Oraita, while his Mishneh Torah implies de'Rabanan for cases like sh'chita ba'darom which are generally understood as "עלו ירדו"?

Terutz: The Kessef Mishneh resolves this by noting that the Mishneh Torah adopts the Gemara's interpretation that R' Yehoshua (Zevachim 9:2) holds that "כל הני אם עלו ירדו", meaning these psulim are not considered to have fully achieved their kedusha for me'ilah purposes, rendering the liability de'Rabanan. The Peirush, perhaps, reflects a more direct, initial reading of the Mishnah's text before incorporating the nuanced halachic distinctions gleaned from the Gemara and later Amoraic discussions. This suggests a methodological shift or development in the Rambam's thought process from pure textual exegesis to halacha le'maaseh.

Intertext

• Zevachim 9:2: The source for the principle of "עלו ירדו" (if they went up, they come down), which is critical for determining the de'Oraita/de'Rabanan status of me'ilah for many disqualified korbanot.
• Vayikra 19:7: The pasuk from which issurei piggul and notar are derived, and which, according to Rashi (cited by T'Y, Meilah 1:1:6), mekish (equates) these with yotzei regarding me'ilah liability.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah generally dictates psak. Thus, for many kodshim disqualified before zerikah (like sh'chita ba'darom), the me'ilah liability would likely be de'Rabanan, requiring a monetary payment rather than a full korban me'ilah in all circumstances. This distinction is crucial for the practical application of korbanot law.

Takeaway

The efficacy of avodah on a disqualified korban is a deep halachic debate, with implications for me'ilah and other issurim. The Rambam's internal tension highlights the rigorous process of moving from Mishnah to Halacha.