The Eddie B. Sit Edition presents an audio series on the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on *Masechet Meilah*. This *masechet* has been dedicated by one of our loyal members, Mr. Chaim Dana, may Hashem protect and revive him, for a complete recovery of Refael Chaim ben Simcha. May his healing, both of body and soul, be swift and forthcoming, and let it be His will, and we say Amen. Today's study, *Daf Yud Aleph*, is dedicated in memory of Avraham ben Ester and Yosef ben Sabot. May the spirit of Hashem rest upon them in Gan Eden.
We begin with the new *mishnah* on Yud Aleph Amud Bet. The *mishnah* states: “The offspring of a *chatat* (sin offering) must die.” This refers to cases where the law mandates that the animal must be left to die due to its status as unfit for sacrifice. The *velad chatat*, the child of a *chatat*, is not suitable for offering, and similarly, a *temurah* of a *chatat* is also considered dead. A *temurah* cannot be brought to the altar because it is a result of an *issur* (prohibition), and thus, a *chatat* cannot be offered if it has been made through an *issur*.
Furthermore, if a *chatat* has no owners, as in the case where its owners have died, there is no *kapparah* (atonement) for such a sacrifice. The *mishnah* continues, stating that if a *chatat* has passed its year, it is no longer suitable for offering. If it was lost and later found with a blemish, it is also disqualified for sacrifice. If the owners have already achieved *kapparah* with another animal, then the original *chatat* is to be left to die. All these cases illustrate that these *chatat* are classified as *chatat hametot* (dead *chatat*).
Next, we examine additional laws that apply to these animals. Aside from those designated as dead, these animals cannot effect a *temurah* because they are not fit for a *korban* (sacrifice). Furthermore, the Rabbis have decreed that one should not derive benefit from these animals. However, there is no *me'ilah* (misuse of consecrated property) because they are not fit for offering, unlike *kodshei Hashem* (sacred property), which is subject to *me'ilah*. The *mishnah* clarifies that if the owners have not yet achieved *kapparah*, and they find the *chatat*, it is also not considered dead. Instead, it may graze until it becomes blemished, and they can sell it. The proceeds can then be used to acquire another animal, thus allowing for *temurah* and *me'ilah* because the value can be used for another *korban*.
Returning to the *mishnah*, we see that it lists three cases: the offspring of a *chatat*, the *temurah* of a *chatat*, and a *chatat* whose owners have died. These are established as cases of *chatat metot*, which will always die, irrespective of whether the owners achieved *kapparah* or not. For the first three cases, the ruling is conclusive; they are classified as dead *chatat* regardless of the owners' status.
In contrast, the last two cases involve either a *chatat* that has passed its year or one that was lost and found to be blemished. Even if it is found whole before the owners have achieved *kapparah*, it is still not dead; it may graze until it becomes blemished. The *mishnah* emphasizes that the distinction between the first three cases and the last two is critical because the latter depends on whether the animal was found before or after *kapparah* was achieved.
Now, let us clarify the *mishnah*’s implications. The offspring of a *chatat* and the *temurah* of a *chatat* are not suitable for *kapparah*. If they are not designated for that purpose from the outset, they cannot fulfill the role of a *chatat*. Similarly, if a *chatat* has died, there is no atonement for the deceased owners. The *mishnah* concludes that if the owners have achieved *kapparah* with another animal, the original *chatat* must die.
Next, we explore a new *mishnah*: “One who designates money for his *nazir* offerings.” Here, the individual sets aside money for the three offerings required of a *nazir*: a *chatat*, an *olah*, and a *shelamim*. If he designates the money without specifying which amount is for which offering, the ruling is that there is no *me'ilah* on the money. This is because the money could be used for the *shelamim*, which are less sacred and not subject to *me'ilah* until the blood is sprinkled. Thus, since the money was not explicitly designated for the more sacred offerings, it is exempt from *me'ilah*.
If the *nazir* dies before bringing his offerings, the money designated for his *nazir* status must be allocated to *olah* offerings, as these are not for atonement. If the money was designated explicitly for each offering, the money for the *chatat* is to be discarded into the Dead Sea, as the animal itself must die. As learned previously, there is no *me'ilah* with a dead *chatat*, as it is not fit for the altar. The money for the *olah* can be used to bring a *korban olah*, and there will be *me'ilah* on that money as well.
Continuing with the *mishnah*, the money for the *shelamim* can be used for a *shelamim* of *nedavah*, and there will be no *me'ilah* associated with that, as it is less sacred. This *shelamim* is only eaten for one day due to the *nazir*’s status, and it does not require bread, as it is not designated for the *nazir* specifically.
Next, the *gemara* discusses a case where one designates money for birds, either for a *chatat* or *olah*. The ruling is similar: if the money is not designated for a specific offering, there is no *me'ilah*. This is because the birds may not be fit for offering yet, and thus the money is exempt from *me'ilah*. The *gemara* concludes that the money must be fit for the offerings according to the Torah's specifications.
Finally, we turn to the discussion of *me'ilah* concerning blood and wine used in offerings. Rabbi Shimon states that blood is lenient at first but becomes stringent later, while wine is stringent initially and lenient at the end. The *gemara* elaborates on this, explaining that before the blood is sprinkled, there is no *me'ilah*, but once it is sprinkled and flows out of the altar, it is subject to *me'ilah*. In contrast, for wine, before it is poured on the altar, it is subject to *me'ilah*, but once it reaches the *shitin*, it is not.
In summary, the discussions in this *masechet* highlight the intricate laws surrounding offerings, their status, and the implications of *me'ilah*. Each case is carefully considered, emphasizing the importance of intention and designation in the realm of sacred offerings. As we delve into these laws, we gain a deeper understanding of the balance between holiness and practical application in our service to Hashem.