Mishnah Meilah 2:5-6

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Meilah 2:5-6 meticulously delineates the precise moments when various korbanot transition between different stages of kedusha and chiyuv, specifically regarding liability for me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) and karet (divine excision) for piggul, notar, and tamei.

• Core Issue: Pinpointing the chatichat zman (moment of transition) from me'ilah liability to karet liability for eating a korban improperly, and establishing the exact termination point of me'ilah liability for different parts of various sacrifices.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • When does me'ilah liability begin and end for different korbanot (e.g., chatat ha'of, olah ha'of, parim nifsarim, se'irim hanisrafim, olah, chatat, asham, shalmei tzibbur, shtei halechem, lechem hapanim, minchot, kometz, levona, ketoret, minchat kohanim)?
  • How does the ultimate destination of a korban's components (e.g., eaten by kohanim, entirely burned on the mizbeach, consumed by owners) affect the duration of its kedusha and me'ilah status?
  • Which korbanot can become piggul? The Mishnah concludes with a critical principle: ein piggul ela b'davar שיש לו מתירים (Mishnah Meilah 2:6).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Meilah 2:5-6 (the core text).
  • Vayikra 5:15-16 (source for me'ilah).
  • Vayikra 6:19 (meat of chatat for kohanim).
  • Vayikra 7:15-18 (laws of notar for shalmim).
  • Vayikra 7:19-21 (laws of tamei for korbanot).
  • Vayikra 7:18 (source for piggul).
  • Mishnah Zevachim 5:6 (parallels the sequence of piggul/notar/tamei).

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah presents a detailed catalogue of korbanot, charting their me'ilah and karet statuses. We will focus on the contrast between chata'at and olah as an entry point.

Mishnah Meilah 2:5: "חטאת ואשם וזבחי שלמי צבור מועלין בהן משהוקדשו. נשחטו הוכשרו ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורין ובלינה. נזרק דמן חייבין עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא, אין מועלין בבשר, אבל מועלין באימורין עד שיצאו לבית הדשן." (One is liable for misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once their blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating them, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. One is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, until they leave to the place of the ashes.)

Mishnah Meilah 2:4 (context from previous mishnah for comparison): "מעילת העולה משהוקדשה... נזרק דמה חייבין עליה משום פיגול ונותר וטמא. ומועלין בבשר עד שיצא לבית הדשן." (One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated... Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is liable for its misuse even when it is in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been completely scorched.)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The crucial distinction lies in the phrases "אין מועלין בבשר" (no me'ilah on the meat) regarding chata'at (M. 2:5) versus "ומועלין בבשר עד שיצא לבית הדשן" (liable for me'ilah on the meat until it leaves to the place of the ashes) regarding olah (M. 2:4). Both are Kadshim Kadshim, yet their me'ilah status on the meat diverges after zrikat damim. This contrast is the heart of the sugya. The Mishnah's careful choice of "בבשר" (on the flesh) versus "באימורין" (on the sacrificial portions) further emphasizes the distinct halachic trajectories of these parts.

Readings

Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Meilah 2:5:1

The Rambam, in his commentary to our Mishnah, directly addresses the phrase "אין מועלין בבשרם" concerning the chatat, asham, and shalmei tzibbur: "אלו שזכר בכאן בקדשי קדשים הרי כמו שבארנו בחמישי מזבחים וכבר הקדמנו בפרק שלפני זה שקדשי קדשים אחר זריקת דמים [אין מועלין] בבשרם ושם נתבאר ג"כ שזבחי שלמי צבור אוכלים אותם הכהנים ולפיכך אין מועלין בבשרם כמו החטאת והאשם." (These Kadshei Kadshim mentioned here are as we explained in the fifth chapter of Zevachim, and we already stated in the previous chapter that Kadshei Kadshim, after the sprinkling of the blood, there is no me'ilah in their meat. And there it was also explained that the communal peace offerings are eaten by the Kohanim, and therefore there is no me'ilah in their meat, like the sin offering and the guilt offering.)

Chiddush: Rambam posits a fundamental principle: for Kadshim Kadshim whose meat is permitted for consumption by the kohanim after zrikat damim, the kedusha that underpins me'ilah liability ceases for that meat. The act of zrika fulfills the primary mitzvah of the korban and transforms the meat's status from strictly kodesh l'Hashem to kodesh that can be consumed by kohanim. This heter achila (permission to eat) effectively terminates the me'ilah status on the meat. He explicitly includes shalmei tzibbur in this category, noting their consumption by kohanim. He references Zevachim 5 and his prior comments in Meilah 1, indicating this is a consistent principle in his understanding of kedusha.

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Meilah 2:5:1

R' Akiva Eiger focuses on the subsequent phrase in the Mishnah: "אבל מועלין באימורין עד שיצאו לבית הדשן." He introduces a crucial distinction regarding the emorim (sacrificial portions): "[אות ב] במשנה אבל מועלין באימורין. ודוקא באימורין דקדשי קדשים. אבל באימורין דקדשים קלים כיון דהעלן על המזבח פקע דין מעילה. כך מבואר במסכתין (דף יו"ד ע"א). עיין בתוס' שם טעמא להא." (In the Mishnah, "but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions." And specifically concerning the emorim of Kadshim Kadshim. But concerning the emorim of Kadshim Kalim, once they are placed upon the altar, the law of me'ilah ceases. This is explained in our tractate (daf 10a). See Tosafot there for the reason for this.)

Chiddush: R' Akiva Eiger's chiddush highlights that the termination point of me'ilah on emorim is not uniform across all korbanot. While emorim of Kadshim Kadshim retain their me'ilah status until they are completely consumed or disposed of (i.e., "עד שיצאו לבית הדשן"), emorim of Kadshim Kalim lose their me'ilah status simply upon being placed on the mizbeach ("כיון דהעלן על המזבח"). This implies that the act of hakrava (bringing to the altar) itself fulfills the kedusha for Kadshim Kalim emorim, whereas for Kadshim Kadshim emorim, the kedusha persists until a more complete stage of consumption/disposal. He refers to Meilah 10a where this distinction is elaborated, indicating a deeper sugya about the nature of kedusha in Kadshim Kalim versus Kadshim Kadshim.

Bartenura, Meilah 2:5:1

The Bartenura echoes Rambam's explanation for the cessation of me'ilah on chatat meat: "אין מועלין בבשר – for there is a period of availability for the Kohanim, for the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering and communal sacrifices of peace-offerings, are consumed by the Kohanim." Chiddush: While not a novel chiddush, Bartenura's concise formulation reinforces the principle that me'ilah on the basar of Kadshim Kadshim (like chatat, asham, shalmei tzibbur) ceases immediately upon zrikat damim because at that point, the meat becomes permitted for kohanim to eat. This heter achila is the critical factor. It's a clear statement that the kedusha of me'ilah is intrinsically linked to the item's non-permitted status for mundane use.

Friction

The most striking kushya arising from a comparative reading of Mishnah 2:4 and 2:5 is the apparent contradiction regarding me'ilah liability on the basar (meat) of Kadshim Kadshim.

The Kushya: Mishnah 2:4 states concerning an Olah (burnt offering), which is Kadshim Kadshim: "נזרק דמה חייבין עליה משום פיגול ונותר וטמא. ומועלין בבשר עד שיצא לבית הדשן." (Once its blood was sprinkled... one is liable for its misuse [on the meat] until it leaves to the place of the ashes). This clearly indicates that me'ilah on the Olah's meat continues after zrikat damim until it is completely consumed by fire or disposed of. However, Mishnah 2:5 states concerning a Chatat (sin offering), also Kadshim Kadshim: "נזרק דמן חייבין עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא, אין מועלין בבשר, אבל מועלין באימורין עד שיצאו לבית הדשן." (Once their blood was sprinkled... one is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, until they leave to the place of the ashes). The phrases are diametrically opposed: "מועלין בבשר" vs. "אין מועלין בבשר." How can the me'ilah status of meat from two different Kadshim Kadshim diverge so sharply at the same stage (zrikat damim)? Why does me'ilah on Olah meat persist, while on Chatat meat it immediately ceases?

The Terutz: The resolution, as hinted by the Rambam and Bartenura, lies in the ultimate destination and intended purpose of the basar of each korban.

1. Olah (burnt offering): The Olah is kulo k'lil l'Hashem (entirely consumed on the altar for God). The basar of an Olah is never permitted for human consumption. Its entire purpose is to be burned on the mizbeach. Therefore, its kedusha as kodesh l'Hashem persists until it has been fully consumed by the altar's fire or disposed of as kodesh that became disqualified, hence "עד שיצא לבית הדשן." Any mundane benefit derived from the meat before this final stage constitutes me'ilah, because the meat has not yet fulfilled its consecrated purpose.
2. Chatat (sin offering): While also Kadshim Kadshim, the Chatat has a different halachic trajectory. After zrikat damim, its basar is hechsher achila (permitted for consumption) by the kohanim (Vayikra 6:19: "הַכֹּל זָכָר בְּכֹהֲנִים יֹאכְלֶנָּה"). The zrika fulfills the central mitzvah of the korban and immediately transforms the meat's status, making it available for its designated purpose: consumption by the kohanim. Once the meat is permitted for consumption by a kohen, it is no longer kodesh in the sense that me'ilah applies. The kedusha of the meat transitions from kodesh l'Hashem (requiring me'ilah atonement for misuse) to kodshei kohanim (sacred to kohanim). While it retains kedusha in other respects (e.g., tamei status, consumption restrictions), the specific kedusha of me'ilah ceases because it has achieved its heter achila by the kohanim.

In essence, me'ilah liability ceases when the kodesh item achieves its heter (permission) for its designated use, whether that be consumption by humans (e.g., kohanim for chatat) or complete consumption by the mizbeach (e.g., olah). The distinction between "אין מועלין בבשר" for chatat and "מועלין בבשר" for olah is thus not a contradiction, but a precise reflection of their differing halachic destinies and the specific kedusha that me'ilah protects.

Intertext

1. Vayikra 6:19 (Hebrew Bible): "וְכָל כֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים תִּהְיֶה" (And every priest who eats from it, it shall be most holy). This verse, or similar ones (e.g., Vayikra 7:6 for asham), directly establishes the kohanim's right to consume the meat of chatat and asham after zrikat damim. This is the textual foundation for the terutz above, explaining why me'ilah on their meat ceases. The permission for kohanim to eat signifies the fulfillment of a stage of kedusha, altering the me'ilah status. The basar is no longer exclusively for HaShem in the sense of me'ilah, but rather for His servants, the kohanim.

2. Mishnah Zevachim 5:6 (Mishnah): "דם שנזרק מחלל, חולין שהוקדשו מחללין. רבי אליעזר אומר חולין שהוקדשו אינן מחללין. דם שנזרק אינו מחלל, דברי ר' מאיר. חטאת העוף מעל בה, נקרבה, אין בה מעילה." (Blood that was sprinkled makes profane [other items], consecrated non-sacred items make profane. Rabbi Eliezer says consecrated non-sacred items do not make profane. Blood that was sprinkled does not make profane, the words of Rabbi Meir. One misused a bird sin offering, it was offered, there is no misuse in it.) This Mishnah, cited by Rambam, is a critical parallel. It describes the sequence of me'ilah for a chatat ha'of (bird sin offering), stating "נקרבה, אין בה מעילה" (it was offered, there is no me'ilah in it). This perfectly aligns with our Mishnah's principle regarding chatat meat: once the korban reaches a certain stage of its avodah (here, keriva, the pinching of the neck and squeezing of the blood), me'ilah liability ceases for the parts designated for consumption. For the chatat ha'of, which is entirely consumed on the altar except for its hide (Vayikra 5:8), the "אין מועלין" applies to the basar once its blood is nimtza (squeezed). The chiddush here is that even for parts that are ultimately burned, if they become hechsher akravah (fit for offering) and that offering takes place, me'ilah can cease. For the chatat ha'of, the basar is burned, yet me'ilah ceases after zrika. This is because its avodah is complete. The distinction here is between basar that is ever permitted to humans (chatat behema) versus basar that becomes hechsher li'kravah (chatat ha'of). Both cases demonstrate me'ilah cessation once the korban reaches its intended, permissible state.

Psak/Practice

The sugya of Mishnah Meilah 2:5-6, and its attendant commentaries, provides a meticulously detailed framework for understanding the lifecycle of kedusha in korbanot. While the laws of korbanot are not currently practiced l'ma'aseh (due to the absence of the Beit HaMikdash), the principles elucidated here have profound implications for meta-psak heuristics and theological understanding.

The primary psak that emerges is the principle that the cessation of me'ilah liability is directly linked to the fulfillment of the korban's primary consecrated purpose or its becoming permitted for its designated consumption. For items like chatat meat, this means zrikat damim renders it permissible for kohanim (Vayikra 6:19), thereby terminating me'ilah. For olah meat, whose purpose is complete consumption on the mizbeach, me'ilah persists until it is fully burned or removed to beit hadeshen. This principle of heter achila (permission for eating) or heter hakravah (permission for offering) as the termination point of me'ilah is a foundational heuristic for discerning the duration of kedusha in various contexts. It implies that kedusha is not a static state but a dynamic one, evolving through stages of avodah and ultimately resolving when the consecrated object achieves its intended sanctified use. This precise halachic calibration of kedusha underscores the rigorous nature of halacha and its sensitivity to the nuanced purpose of each sacred act and object.

Takeaway

The Mishnah Meilah 2:5-6, through its intricate catalogue, teaches that kedusha is not monolithic; its me'ilah dimension is precisely calibrated to the korban's ultimate purpose and the moment it achieves heter achila or heter hakravah. This reveals a deep halachic sensitivity to the stages of sanctification and the fulfillment of divine intent.

---

Footnotes:

1. Mishnah Meilah 2:5.
2. Mishnah Meilah 2:4.
3. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Meilah 2:5:1.
4. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Meilah 2:5:1.
5. Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Meilah 2:5:1.
6. Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Meilah 2:5:1, citing Meilah 10a.
7. Bartenura, Meilah 2:5:1.
8. Mishnah Meilah 2:4.
9. Mishnah Meilah 2:5.
10. Vayikra 6:19.
11. Vayikra 5:15-16.
12. Vayikra 6:19.
13. Mishnah Zevachim 5:6.
14. Vayikra 5:8.