Gemara Clarity

Me’ilah 4b

מעילה ד׳ ע״ב

Meilah 4b

Learn Me’ilah 4b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Me’ilah 4b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Proofs for רב גידל about unfit sprinkling and מעילה, and רבי יהושע's rule about שעת היתר לכהנים.

Overview

The גמרא tries to prove רב גידל's view that sprinkling the blood in an unfit way does not take a קרבן out of מעילה. First it brings the סיפא of a ברייתא: blood left overnight and then sprinkled is still under מעילה. That case must be about a חטאת, since for an עולה it would be obvious. The גמרא then pulls back, because הלנה is a problem made through action, while פיגול is only a wrong thought. Next it tries a ברייתא saying פיגול of קדשי קדשים has מעילה. The answer that this means before sprinkling seems to fail, because then the ברייתא should have split before and after sprinkling. That proof is also pushed aside, since קדשים קלים may simply be the clearer contrast. The גמרא then turns to רבי יהושע's rule in the משנה: an offering that was once permitted to the כהנים has no מעילה, and one that never was permitted keeps מעילה. The משנה gives examples of each. The amud ends as בר קפרא begins to ask whether this 'permission' means permission from a proper שחיטה, a question that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

וְעוֹד, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא:

And furthermore, as the latter clause teaches:

לָן דָּמָהּ,

If its blood was left overnight,

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּזְרָקוֹ –

even though he later sprinkled it,

מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

one is liable for misuse of it.

The steps (16)

  1. ProofAnother proof from the end of the ברייתא
  2. ProofWhy the ending must be about a חטאת
  3. ConclusionThe ending clearly supports רב גידל
  4. QuestionDoes the beginning also support him?
  5. RejectionEven the latter clause does not clearly support רב גידל
  6. ProofA new proof: פיגול in קדשי קדשים is subject to מעילה
  7. RejectionThe ברייתא may mean before the blood was sprinkled
  8. ChallengeChallenge from the סיפא about קדשים קלים
  9. ChallengeWhy not split before and after sprinkling inside the first case?
  10. ConclusionThe latter clause certainly supports רב גידל
  11. QuestionDoes the first clause support him too?
  12. RejectionEven the latter clause is no proof: קדשים קלים is clear-cut
  13. Statementרבי יהושע's rule: once permitted to the כהנים, no מעילה
  14. StatementWhich offerings had a time of being permitted to the כהנים
  15. StatementExamples of offerings that never had a permitted time
  16. Questionבר קפרא prepares his nephew for a question