Playback Rate
Meilah 1:2
Meilah1: 2
בָּשָׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת, לֹא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ, כָּךְ הוּא פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ? וְאִם פָּטַר דָּמָהּ אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִן הַמְּעִילָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטוֹר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ.
[Regarding] meat of kodshei kodashim that went out [of the Courtyard] before the throwing of the blood [on the Altar], R’ Eliezer says: It is subject to me’ilah, and one is not liable on its account for piggul, nossar, or tamei. R’ Akiva says: It is not subject to me’ilah, [and] indeed one is liable on its account for piggul, nossar, or tamei.
R’ Akiva said: Why, [in the case of] one who designated his chatas-offering and it was then lost, and he then designated ano- ther in its place, and afterward the first one was found, and both are now standing, is it not [so] that just as its blood exempts its meat [from me’ilah], so too, does [its blood] exempt the meat of its companion? Now, if its blood exempts the meat of its companion from me’ilah, it is logical that it should exempt its own meat [from me’ilah].
Suggestions

