Meilah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2. The first chapter of Masechet Meilah traces the line between meat that still belongs to Hashem, where the laws of meilah apply, and meat that has already passed into the hands of the kohanim, where they do not. Our mishnah takes up a case in which the korban was disqualified before the zerikah, and it becomes the arena for a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva.
Reviewing yotzei
Mishnah 1 presented the pesul of yotzei, a korban that departs from the location assigned to it. Blood and eimurin (the fats and organs designated for burning on the mizbeach) are ruined the moment they pass outside the Azarah. With the flesh, the border shifts according to the korban's class: kodshei kodashim may be consumed only within the Azarah itself, so carrying such meat past its walls invalidates it at once, while kodashim kalim, whose eating extends throughout Yerushalayim, are invalidated only upon crossing the city limits. And once this pesul has settled on the meat, restoring it to where it belongs undoes nothing; it may never be eaten.
We also learned there that when yotzei occurs after the zerikah, the meat is no longer subject to meilah. The reasoning is a matter of ownership. The zerikah permits the meat to the kohanim, and at that instant it leaves the domain of kodshei Hashem. Only afterward does the disqualification arrive. So someone who later misuses that meat is not taking property that belongs to Hashem, and where there is no property of Hashem there is no meilah.
Our mishnah asks about the reverse sequence: meat of kodshei kodashim that was carried out of the courtyard before the zerikah, and was then brought back inside, after which the blood was sprinkled. Does that zerikah accomplish anything, given that the meat was already ruined and can never be eaten by the kohanim?
The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer
The case: "Basar kodshei kodashim", flesh belonging to the stricter class of offerings, "sheyatzah lifnei zerikat hadam", which was taken outside before the avodah of sprinkling was performed, and was thereby ruined as yotzei. The flesh is then brought back in, and only afterwards is the blood applied to the mizbeach. Rabbi Eliezer rules "mo'alin bo": meilah still applies here. The flesh was already unfit when the blood was sprinkled, so that avodah transferred nothing to the kohanim; ownership remained with Hashem, exactly the situation the opening mishnah laid out.
Rabbi Eliezer continues: "Ve'ein chayavin alav", there is no liability for this flesh, "mishum piggul, notar vetamei", on the counts of piggul, notar or tumah, even where the facts of one of those prohibitions are present. Piggul arises when a kohen, in the course of the avodah, intends that some part of the service be carried out beyond its allotted time, and one who eats such meat incurs karet. Notar is flesh that outlasted the deadline for its consumption, and it too carries karet. The third case is meat rendered tamei through contact with impurity, and eating it likewise brings karet. Rabbi Eliezer's principle is that none of these three can fasten onto an offering already spoiled from another direction. The sprinkling here achieved nothing, since the flesh had been taken out of the place where it had to remain; the kohanim had no permission to eat it in any case, it being yotzei. Meat ruined beforehand cannot subsequently acquire the status of piggul, notar or tamei, and so karet on those grounds never enters the picture.
The opinion of Rabbi Akiva
Rabbi Akiva's verdict runs the other way: "ein mo'alin bo". Flesh of the higher class of offerings that was removed from the Azarah prior to the sprinkling, returned, and then had its blood placed on the mizbeach is exempt from the laws of meilah. To his mind the avodah of zerikah did not go to waste. True, it cannot render this flesh edible to the kohanim, since an independent pesul bars them. Yet it does accomplish this much: the flesh ceases to be Hashem's property, and once that is so, meilah has nothing left to attach to.
Consequently, "Aval chayavin alav", one is indeed liable for it, "mishum piggul, notar vetamei". Because the sprinkling ranks as a genuine zerikah, those three prohibitions take effect, and whoever eats this flesh under any of those conditions incurs karet.
Rabbi Akiva's proof
Rabbi Akiva anchors his view in a familiar scenario. "Amar Rabbi Akiva, vaharei hamafrish chatato ve'avdah": someone sets aside an animal to serve as his chatat, and the animal goes missing. "Vehefrish acheret tachteha": he sets aside a substitute for it. "Ve'achar kach nimtzeit harishonah": the original then turns up. "Vaharei sheteihem omdot": the two of them are now on hand. Each was shechted, and the blood of each was gathered into its own vessel, so that either quantity of blood is suitable for placing on the mizbeach.
"Lo kesheim shedamah poteir", just as one animal's own blood, when applied to the mizbeach, frees "et besarah", its own flesh, from meilah, as happens with every korban in the kodshei kodashim class after its zerikah, "kach hu poteir", so it equally frees "et besar chavertah", the flesh of its partner chatat. Since both had been shechted and either one's blood could have served for the avodah, halachah treats them as one offering, and a single application of blood withdraws the flesh of both animals from Hashem's ownership. Two animals, one zerikah, and both are released.
"Ve'im patar damah", and if one animal's blood exempted "et besar chavertah", the partner's flesh, "min hame'ilah", from the laws of meilah, notwithstanding that this partner's flesh is now pasul and will never reach the table of the kohanim, "din hu sheyiftor et besarah": then logic compels that placing an animal's own blood on the mizbeach certainly exempts that animal's own flesh, even where that flesh was invalidated as yotzei by being carried beyond the Azarah.
Set the two situations side by side. With the lost chatat, the flesh of the second animal turns pasul the instant the first animal's blood reaches the mizbeach, and it was never available to the kohanim for eating at any stage. Even so, halachah exempts it from meilah, and for one reason only: a zerikah was performed with the other animal. That single act pulled both of them out from under the laws of meilah. Our mishnah, by contrast, deals with one animal whose flesh was invalidated by yotzei before its blood was sprinkled and was then restored to the Azarah. If a partner's zerikah can lift pasul flesh out of meilah, how much more should an animal's own zerikah do so for its own flesh, even though the kohanim may not eat it. Such is Rabbi Akiva's reasoning: yotzei permanently closes the door on eating, while the zerikah that follows closes the door on meilah.