Study Meilah folio 9B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מיתיבי: וכולן, שפקעו מעל גבי המזבח – לא יחזיר, וכן גחלת שפקעה מעל גבי המזבח – לא יחזיר. הא על גבי המזבח – יחזיר.
The Talmud raises an objection to Rav’s explanation from a Mishnah (Zevaḥim 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the Mishnah that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.
בשלמא לרבי יוחנן, ניחא, אלא לרב, קשיא! אמר לך רב: שאני גחלת, דאית ביה מששא.
The Talmud explains the objection: Granted, according to R' Yoḥanan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Talmud answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [meshasha] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.
איכא דאמר לה להך גיסא: טעמא משום גחלת, דאית ביה מששא, הא אפר דלית ביה מששא, אפילו לגבי מזבח – אין מועלין בו. בשלמא לרב, ניחא, אלא לרבי יוחנן, קשיא!
There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The Mishnah indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to R' Yoḥanan it is difficult.