Study Meilah folio 9A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire,
The rabbis said in response to the difficulty of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: In general, the terms “remainder” or “leftover” refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: “But that which is left of the meal
Shmuel’s father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a Mishnah (Zevaḥim 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn
Shmuel’s father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that Mishnah teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the Mishnah are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird b
The Talmud returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of R' Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does n