Meilah 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

And

with regard to these last two,

if the owners had not yet achieved atonement,

that is, they did not wish to achieve atonement through another offering, and the first was found but cannot be sacrificed because its year had passed or because it is blemished, and since they did not actively reject it and did not sacrifice another in its place,

it shall be left to pasture until it becomes blemished,

until it develops a blemish,

and it shall be sold [in the case of one found blemished, it is sold immediately ]

and it shall be sold [in the case of one found blemished, it is sold immediately ]

and he shall bring

with its monetary value

an animal

other

for his sin offering.

And

since they are consecrated with sanctity of monetary value, and their monetary value is destined to be sacrificed, therefore:

they effect temura,

as explained in tractate Temura [21], that an offering designated to be left to pasture effects temura.

And one does commit meila with it,

because it is consecrated with sanctity of monetary value.

Gemara:

The Gemara clarifies:

What is different about the first clause, where no distinction is made, and what is different about the latter clause, where a distinction is made —

that is, why did the Mishna teach these laws in two clauses, the first three and then the last two, and why were all five not taught together ? We answer: Because

the first clause is definitive,

the law is decisive, and they must always die, even if the owners did not achieve atonement through another offering, whereas

the latter clause is not definitive: it is not certain that they must die, but only if the owners achieved atonement through another offering. Since their laws are not identical, the Mishna divided them into two clauses.

the latter clause is not definitive: it is not certain that they must die, but only if the owners achieved atonement through another offering. Since their laws are not identical, the Mishna divided them into two clauses.

We object: Why was the Mishna taught here?

But it was already taught

there—

was it not already taught

in

that place, in tractate

Temura?

We answer:

The tanna taught it there

there,

because of

the law of

temura, and incidentally taught the law of meila as well.

temura, and incidentally taught the law of meila as well.

The tanna taught it here because of meila, and incidentally taught the law of temura as well.

The tanna taught it here because of meila, and incidentally taught the law of temura as well.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to discuss consecrated offerings with which one does not commit meila. Our Mishna was taught in tractate Nazir [24b] and cited in tractate Menahot [4b], and here it is explained according to Rashi’s commentary there.

A nazirite, upon completing his naziriteship in a state of ritual purity, brings three offerings: a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering.

One who separates money for his naziriteship,

and the money was “unspecified,” meaning that he did not designate some of it for the sin offering, some for the burnt offering, and some for the peace offering, from all that money

one may not derive benefit,

it is prohibited to derive benefit from it because it includes the value of the burnt offering, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit,

but one does not commit meila,

one who derives benefit from it has not committed meila and does not pay an additional fifth, and does not bring a meila guilt offering,

because all of it is fit to be used for peace offerings,

since with each coin among them he could bring a peace offering, and with peace offerings one does not commit meila, as is the law with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity before the blood is sprinkled, as explained.

Above [7b].

If

the nazirite died before bringing his offerings,

and he had unspecified money, it shall fall

the money

to the voluntary-offering fund,

to the collection boxes, which were boxes in the Temple where money for voluntary offerings was placed , and it is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that unspecified money belonging to a nazirite who died falls to the voluntary-offering fund .

And if he had

specified money,

for a sin-offering, an olah, and a shelamim,

the money designated for the sin-offering shall go to the Dead Sea,

just as if he had set aside a sin-offering and died, it must die, as explained in the preceding Mishna; so too, the money designated for a sin-offering goes to the Dead Sea. That money

may not be used for benefit,

as benefiting from it is rabbinically prohibited,

but there is no misuse of consecrated property,

and if one benefited from it, he has not committed misuse of consecrated property, as explained above [3a]: There is no misuse of consecrated property involving money that goes to the Dead Sea, since it is destined to be lost and is not consecrated to the Most High.

And from

the money designated for an olah, they shall bring

his heirs

an olah ,

and there is misuse of consecrated property involving it,

the money, by Torah law .

And from

the money designated for a shelamim, they shall bring a shelamim, and it is eaten for one day,

as is the law of the nazirite’s shelamim [and not like other shelamim offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night].

And it does not require loaves,

like other nazirite shelamim offerings, because it is stated concerning the nazirite’s loaves [Numbers 6]: “And he shall place it on the palms of the nazirite”; and since the nazirite has died, there is no nazirite here .

Gemara: We learned: One who sets aside money for his naziriteship may not use it for benefit, but there is no misuse of consecrated property involving it, because all of it is fit to be used to bring shelamim offerings. This implies that when money is set aside for an offering and remains unspecified, if this money is fit to be used to bring something that does not involve misuse of consecrated property, then there is no misuse of consecrated property involving the money even when it is designated for something that does involve misuse of consecrated property. Concerning this halakha, Reish Lakish raised an objection.

Reish Lakish raised an objection: And let the tanna also teach

Why did the tanna of the Mishna not add another halakha similar to this:

One who sets aside money for his pair of birds [A “pair” is a turtledove and a pigeon, one for a sin-offering and one for an olah, brought by a woman after childbirth, a metzora, a zav, a zava, a nazirite, and others. Turtledoves are fit only when they are mature, once they have already become yellow, whereas pigeons are fit only when they are young],

Pochemu tan nay, sostavivshii Mishnu, ne dobavil eshche odno podobnoe pravilo:

«Tot, kto otdelil den'gi dlya svoei pary ptits» [«Par a» — eto gorlinitsa i golub' — odna ptitsa na zhertvu khatat i odna na olah. Takuyu par u prinosyat zhenshchina posle rodov, metsora, zav, zava, nazir i drugie. Gorlinitsy pri godny dlya zhertvennika tol'ko v zre lom vozraste, kogda oni uzhe pozhelteli, togda kak golubi pri godny tol'ko v molodom vozraste].

May not be used for benefit, and there is no misuse of consecrated property

involving this money, because it is fit to be used to bring turtledoves that have not yet reached the required age and one can wait until they reach the required age,

and pigeons whose required age has passed ,

and concerning them we learned [on page 11b] that there is no misuse of consecrated property,

And why did the Mishna not teach the law of one who sets aside money for his pair of birds ?

And we answer:

Rava said:

One who sets aside money for his pair of birds is not comparable to one who sets aside money for his naziriteship, because with regard to one who sets aside money for his naziriteship,

the Torah said: With the money

that is

unspecified, “

bring

from it

shelamim offerings”; therefore, the Mishna stated that the money is designated for shelamim offerings. But with regard to one who sets aside money for his pair of birds, did the

Torah say: “

Bring turtledoves that have not yet reached the required age,” which are not

fit for the altar at all?!

Therefore, it is not applicable to say that the money is “designated” for something that does not involve misuse of consecrated property. And since it is most holy property, misuse of consecrated property applies to the money.

Mishna:

The Mishna discusses the blood of offerings: when there is no misuse of consecrated property involving it, and likewise the wine of libations. It continues the preceding Mishnayot, in which we learned the law of consecrated items that do not involve misuse of consecrated property.

The Gemara cites expositions of the verses establishing that there is no misuse of consecrated property involving blood. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited benefiting from it at the end, that is, after it has flowed out to the Kidron Valley.

And so we learned in tractate Yoma [58b]: “The remnants of the blood [of the inner sin-offerings] were poured upon the western base of the outer altar. And [the remnants of the blood] of [offerings sacrificed upon] the outer altar were poured upon the southern base. These and those [the blood of the outer and inner offerings that was poured upon the base of the altar of the olah, flowed and fell from the base of the altar onto the floor] mingled in the channel [the conduit in the Temple courtyard leading to the Kidron Valley] and flowed out to the Kidron Valley. And [the blood] was sold to gardeners [owners of gardens, to use it as fertilizer for their fields], and there is misuse of consecrated property involving it [it is forbidden to benefit from it without paying the Temple treasurers].”

That is, the Sages instituted a prohibition of misuse of consecrated property for one who benefits from the blood—for example, if he fertilized his garden with it without purchasing it from the treasurer . The Mishna also discusses the wine libations that accompany offerings, whether misuse of consecrated property applies to them. Rabbi Shimon says: The blood is lenient at first and stringent at the end, as will be explained. The libations are stringent at first and lenient at the end , as will be explained. How so? The blood, at first,

immediately after the offering is slaughtered ,

does not involve misuse of consecrated property ,

there is no law of misuse of consecrated property concerning it, as the Gemara will explain.

Once it has flowed out to the Kidron Valley, misuse of consecrated property applies to it .

The libations, at first, from the time they are consecrated until they are poured,

Mishna takzhe rassmatrivaet vino vozliyan ii, prinosimoe vmeste so zhertvami, i vopros, nakladyvaetsya li za nego zakon me'ila.

Rabbi Shimon

govorit: «Krov' vnachale legka, a v kontse tyazhela»,

kak budet obyasneno.

«Vino vozliyanii vnachale tyazhelo, a v kontse legko»,

kak budet obyasneno.

involve misuse of consecrated property,

because they are property consecrated to the Most High.

Once they have descended into the channels [a perforation in the altar through which the libations descend into the “channels,” namely, the foundations of the altar, which are hollow and extremely deep ],

there is no misuse of consecrated property involving them,

because they serve no purpose of the Most High

and their mitzva has already been performed .

The Gemara will explain how it is possible to benefit from them, since they are beneath the altar. Gemara: The discussion concerning the principle that there is nothing whose mitzva has been performed and misuse of consecrated property still applies to it We learned in our Mishna that, by Torah law, there is no misuse of consecrated property involving blood; rather, the Sages prohibited it after it flowed out to the Kidron Valley. The Gemara derives from expositions of the verses that there is no misuse of consecrated property involving blood. This discussion appears in tractate Yoma [there] and elsewhere in the Talmud, and it will be explained according to Rashi’s commentary there. The Sages taught: There is misuse of consecrated property involving blood. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. And the Sages say: There is no misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara explains

They disagree only to this extent,

whether misuse of consecrated property applies at the end

by rabbinic law ,

and according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon it does apply, as the Mishna said;

but by Torah law, there is no misuse of consecrated property.

zhertvennike bylo otverstie, cherez kotoroe vino vozliyanii spuskalos' v «shittin», to est' v osnovaniya zhertvennika, kotorye byli ochen' glubokimi i polymi],

za nego zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya,

tak kak ono uzhe ne nuzhno dlya sluzheniya Vsevyshnemu, i zapoved' s nim uzhe vypolnena. V Gemare budet obyasneno, kak voobshche mozhno pol'zovat'sya etim vinom, ved' ono nakhoditsya pod zhertvennikom.

Gemara:

Razdel o tom, chto za veshch', zapoved' s kotoroi uzhe vypolnena, zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya

V nashei Mishne uchitsya, chto po zakonu Tory za krov' zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya, a po postanovleniyu mudretsov — posle togo, kak ona vytekla v potok Kidron. Gemara vyvodit iz tolkovanii stikhov, chto za krov' zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya.

Etot razdel privoditsya v traktate Yoma [tam] i v drugikh mestakh Talmuda; zdes' on obyasnyaetsya v sootvetstvii s kommentariem Rashi tam.

Mudretsy uchili: «Za krov' nakladyvaetsya zakon me'ila. Takovo mnenie Rabbi Meira i Rabbi Shimona».

«A mudretsy govoryat: “Za krov' zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya”».

I Gemara obyasnyaet

Do etogo mesta oni sporyat tol'ko o tom,

From where are these matters,

from where do we know that by Torah law there is no misuse of consecrated property involving blood?

Ulla said: The verse states,

The Torah says in the passage concerning blood [Leviticus 17], “

And I have given it to you,” and we expound: It is yours, the blood is yours, like your non-sacred property, which does not involve misuse of consecrated property. It follows that it is not property consecrated to the Most High .

Otkuda izvestno, chto po zakonu Tory za krov' zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya?

Ulla skazal: Tora skazala

v razdele o krovi [Vayikra 17]:

«I ya dal ee vam».

I my tolkuem eto tak:

«Ona vasha»

— krov' prinadlezhit vam tak zhe, kak prinadlezhat vam obychnye veshchi, za kotorye zakon me'ila ne nakladyvaetsya. Iz etogo vidno, chto krov' ne yavlyaetsya svyatost'yu Vsevyshnego.

.