Study Meilah folio 10B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ מנא הני מילי? דתנו רבנן: יכול אין חייבין משום טומאה אלא בדבר שיש לו מתירין?
Talmud: The Mishnah teaches that one is liable for the prohibition of notar and the prohibition of eating an item while ritually impure, both with regard to items that have permitting factors and items that do not have permitting factors. The Talmud asks: From where are these matters derived? The Talmud answers that this is as A baraita states: One might have thought that one is liable due to partaking of sacrificial food in a state of ritual impurity only with regard to an item that has permitting factors.
ודין הוא: ומה פיגול שהוא בידיעה אחת, וקרבנו קבוע, ולא הותר מכללו – אין חייבין אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין,
The baraita continues: And this is a logical inference: If with regard to piggul, which renders one who eats it unwittingly liable through one awareness, i.e., for one to be liable to bring a sin offering it is enough for him to become aware after the fact that he had sinned unwittingly, and its offering for one who eats it unwittingly is fixed, and there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted, i.e., it is never permitted to eat piggul, and yet one is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of piggul only for an item that has permitting factors, the same should certainly apply to ritual impurity.
טומאה, שהיא בשתי ידיעות, וקרבנו עולה ויורד, והותרה מכללה – אינו דין שלא יהא חייב אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין?!
The Talmud elaborates: Then with regard to ritual impurity, where one is liable only in a case of two awarenesses, i.e., one is liable only if he was aware of his impurity before eating the meat, and then forgot and ate, and afterward again became aware of his impurity; and its offering to atone for this transgression is a sliding-scale offering, which varies according to the offender’s financial status; and there are circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted to the community, as communal offerings are sacrificed in the Temple in a state of impurity, under certain circumstances; is it not right that one should be liable for violating the prohibition of partaking of the meat while ritually impure only for an item that has permitting factors?