Study Meilah folio 5B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If so, one can say that so too the Mishnah here is not exact, and therefore one cannot infer from it that the halakhot of misuse apply only when those who were unfit for Temple service collected the blood. Rather, the halakhot of misuse are in effect even if those who collected the blood were fit a
Rather, one must say that only one Mishnah is imprecise, i.e., the one in Zevaḥim with regard to the blood of a sin offering, and actually the Mishnah here with regard to misuse of consecrated property is precise, and therefore one can infer that the meaning of the phrase: A period of fitness, is
And as for the Mishnah in Zevaḥim, which speaks of those who are unfit for collecting the blood despite the fact that the same halakha applies if those who are fit collected it, this is what it teaches us: That if those who are unfit for Temple service collected some of the blood, it renders the blo
And consequently, it teaches with regard to a case where the blood was collected in two vessels, that even though the priest who was unfit collected the blood and sprinkled it, and a priest who was fit subsequently collected the blood and sprinkled it, the sprinkling of the fit priest is considered
The Talmud objects: But didn’t Reish Lakish ask R' Yoḥanan: In the case of an individual unfit for Temple service who sprinkled the blood, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining blood? Does the fact that he sprinkled some of the blood render the remaining blood leftovers?