1but isn’t it taught in a baraita : The verse states: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse excludes those situations where some of its flour was missing, or some of its oil was missing, or some of its frankincense was missing, in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.
2The Sages said in response to the difficulty of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: In general, the terms “remainder” or “leftover” refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: “But that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 2:3). This part of the verse is superfluous, as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.
3Shmuel’s father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a mishna ( Zevaḥim 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. In any event, this mishna teaches: Squeezed out their blood, indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.
4Shmuel’s father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that mishna teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priest’s intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.
5The Gemara returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.
6The Gemara asks: But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, on Zevaḥim 52a, that failure with regard to the remainder of the blood invalidates the offering, and Rav Pappa said: Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference between them is whether or not failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
7MISHNA: One is liable for misusing a bird burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. When the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was squeezed out, 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 as it may not be eaten, one is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned.
8One is liable for misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice 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 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.
9One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice 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 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 not liable for misuse of the hides, but one is liable for misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
10One 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 for sacrifice 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, i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, until they leave to the place of the ashes.
11One is liable for misuse of the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through it being left overnight, and they are rendered eligible to slaughter with them the accompanying offering of the two lambs. Once the blood of the lambs is sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul , and the prohibition of notar , and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point their consumption is permitted.
12One is liable for misuse of the shewbread, which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it formed a crust in the oven it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that it was 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 it is rendered eligible for arrangement upon the Table in the Sanctuary.
13Once the bowls of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week were sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves due to violation of the prohibition of piggul , and the prohibition of notar , and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. But it is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point its consumption is permitted.
14One is liable for misuse of the meal offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were consecrated through placement of the flour in a service vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice 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.
15Once the handful taken from the meal offering was sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the meal offering due to violation of the prohibition of piggul , and the prohibition of notar , and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the remainder of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, but one is liable for misuse of the handful that is sacrificed, until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
16GEMARA: It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to one who derives benefit from the ash of the round heap that is on top of the altar. Rav says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
17The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. When they disagree it is with regard to the halakha after the removal of the ashes, at which point the mitzva has been completed.
18Rav says that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as its mitzva has been performed and completed. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one is liable for misuse, since it is written: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp” (Leviticus 6:3–4). Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: Since taking the ashes outside the Temple also requires the priestly vestments, albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash remains in its consecrated state.
19The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. We learned in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: One is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned. This indicates that the halakhot of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is difficult for the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: The mishna means that one is liable until the ash is fit to be taken out to the place of ashes, i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.