Meilah 11a — 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 one, and the first was found, but he cannot sacrifice it because its year passed or because it is blemished, and since he did not reject it actively and did not sacrifice another in its place,

it shall graze until it becomes unfit,

until a blemish occurs in it,

and it shall be sold [and when it was found blemished, it is sold immediately ],

and he shall bring

with its money

an animal

other

for his sin-offering.

And

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

they effect substitution,

as explained in tractate Temura [21], that an offering designated to graze effects substitution.

And there is me'ila with regard to it,

because it is consecrated with sanctity of monetary value.

Gemara:

The Gemara clarifies:

What is different about the first clause, that it does not distinguish, and what is different about the latter clause, that it does distinguish —

that is, why did the Mishna teach them in two clauses, the first three and afterward the last two, and why were all five not taught together ? And we answer: Because

the first clause was decisive for him—

the law is conclusive, and they always die, even if they did not achieve atonement through another one—whereas

the latter clause was not decisive for him: it is not certain that they die, but only if they achieved atonement through another one. Since their laws are not identical, the Mishna therefore divided them into two clauses.

And we raise a difficulty: Why was the Mishna taught here?

But he already taught it [

it ]

was it not already taught

alongside,

there in tractate

Temura?

And we answer:

The tanna taught it there

there it was taught

because of

the law of

substitution, and incidentally it also taught the law of me'ila.

The tanna taught it here because of misuse, and incidentally it also taught the law of exchange.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to discuss consecrated objects with regard to which there is no me'ila. Our Mishna was taught in tractate Nazir [24b] and cited in tractate Menahot [4b], and it is interpreted here according to Rashi’s commentary there.

A nazirite, at the completion of his naziriteship in a state of 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 “unassigned,” that is, he did not specify which money was for the sin-offering, which for the burnt-offering, and which for the peace-offering, from all that money

one may not benefit,

it is prohibited to benefit from it because it contains the money for a burnt-offering, from which it is prohibited to benefit,

and there is no me'ila:

one who benefits from it has not committed me'ila, and does not pay an additional fifth, and does not bring a guilt-offering for me'ila,

because all of it is fit to become peace-offerings,

for with every coin among them he can bring a peace-offering, and with peace-offerings there is no me'ila, in accordance with the law of lesser sanctity offerings before the sprinkling of the blood, as explained.

Above [7b].

If the nazirite died

before he brought his offerings,

and he had unspecified money, it shall fall

the money

to free-will offerings,

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

And if he had

specified money,

for a sin-offering, for a burnt-offering, and for a peace-offering,

the value of the sin-offering shall go to the Dead Sea,

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

may not be used,

it is rabbinically forbidden to derive benefit from it,

and one does not commit misuse

and if one derived benefit from it, one did not commit misuse, as explained above [3a], that one does not commit misuse with money that goes to the Dead Sea, since it goes to destruction and is not sacred property of the Most High.

And from

the value of the burnt-offering, they shall bring

his heirs

a burnt-offering ,

and one commits misuse with it,

with the money, by Torah law .

And from

the value of the peace-offering, they shall bring a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day,

according to the law of a nazirite’s peace-offerings [and not like other peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night].

And it does not require bread,

like other peace-offerings of a nazirite, because it is said concerning the nazirite’s bread [Numbers 6], “And he shall place it upon the palms of the nazirite”; and since he has died, there is no nazirite here .

Gemara:

We learned: One who sets aside money for his naziriteship—one may not derive benefit from it, and one does not commit misuse with it, because all of it is not fit to be brought as peace-offerings.

It follows that money set aside for an offering, when it is unspecified, if this money is fit to bring from it something with which one does not commit misuse, one does not commit misuse with it even with money designated for something with which one does commit misuse. And concerning this law, Rish Lakish objected.

Rish Lakish objected to it: And let him teach also

why did the tanna of the Mishna not add another law similar to this:

One who sets aside money for his pair of birds [“A pair” is turtledoves and pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, brought by a woman after childbirth, a person with scale disease, a man with a flux, a woman with a flux, a nazirite, and others. Turtledoves are fit only when they are mature, when they have already become yellow, whereas pigeons are fit only when they are young],

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

One may not derive benefit, and one does not commit misuse

with this money,

because it is fit to bring turtledoves whose time has not yet arrived

and he will wait for them until their time arrives,

and pigeons whose time has passed ,

and concerning these we learned [on page 11b] that one does not commit misuse with them,

And why did the Mishna not state 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 when one sets aside money for his naziriteship,

the Torah said: With the money

if it is

unspecified, “

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

bring

from it

peace-offerings”;

therefore, the Mishna said that the money is designated for peace-offerings. But when one sets aside money for his pair of birds, did

the Torah say: “

Bring turtledoves whose time has not arrived,” which are not

fit for the altar

at all?!

Therefore, it is not applicable to say that the money is “designated” for something with which one does not commit misuse. And since they are most-holy offerings, one commits misuse with their money.

Mishna:

The Mishna discusses the blood of offerings: when one does not commit misuse with it, and likewise the wine of libations. And it continues the preceding Mishnayot, in which we learned the law of sacred things with which one does not commit misuse.

The Gemara brings expositions of the verses that one does not commit misuse with blood. However, the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from it at the end—that is, after it went out to the Kidron Valley.

And thus we learned in tractate Yoma [58b]: “The remainder of the blood [of the inner sin-offerings]—he would pour it upon the western base of the outer altar. And [the remainder of the blood] of [offerings brought upon] the outer altar—he would pour it upon the southern base. These and those [the blood of the outer and inner offerings poured upon the base of the altar of the burnt-offering would trickle and fall from the base of the altar onto the floor] would mix in the channel [the conduit in the Temple courtyard that goes out to the Kidron Valley] and go out to the Kidron Valley. And they were sold [the blood] to gardeners [owners of gardens, to fertilize their fields with it], and one commits misuse with it [it is forbidden to derive benefit from it without paying the treasurers of the sacred property].

That is, the Sages decreed a prohibition of misuse upon one who derives benefit 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 come with offerings, whether there is misuse with them.

Rabbi Shimon

says: The blood is lenient at its beginning and stringent at its end,

as will be explained.

The libations are stringent at their beginning and lenient at their end ,

as will be explained.

How so?

Blood, at its beginning,

immediately after the slaughter of the offering ,

one does not commit misuse with it ,

there is no law of misuse with it, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Once it went out to the Kidron Valley, one commits misuse with it .

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

The libations, at their beginning,

from the time they are sanctified until they are poured,

one commits misuse with them,

because they are sacred property of the Most High.

Once they descended into the channels [

a perforation was in the altar, through which the libations descended into the “channels,” that is, the foundations of the altar, which are hollow and extremely deep ],

one does not commit misuse with them,

because there is no need of the Most High in them at all , and their mitzva has already been performed . And the Gemara will explain how it is possible to derive benefit from them, since they are beneath the altar.

Gemara:

The discussion concerning “there is nothing whose mitzva has been performed and with which one commits misuse”

We learned in our Mishna that one does not commit misuse by Torah law with blood, but only rabbinically after it has gone out to the Kidron Valley. The Gemara derives from expositions of the verses that one does not commit misuse with blood.

This discussion appears in tractate Yoma [there] and in other places in the Talmud, and will be explained according to Rashi’s commentary there.

The Sages taught: One commits misuse with blood. These are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say: One does not commit misuse.

And the Gemara explains

They disagree only

whether one commits misuse at the end

by rabbinic ordinance ,

and according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, one does commit misuse, as the Mishna said,

but by Torah law, one does not commit misuse.

From where are these words derived,

from where do we know that one does not commit misuse with blood by Torah law?

Ulla said: The verse says,

the Torah said in the section concerning blood [Leviticus 17], “

And I have given it to you,”

and we derive:

It is yours,

the blood is yours, like your ordinary property, with which there is no misuse. It is proven that it is not sacred property of the Most High .

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The Torah said in that verse, “And I have given it to you to atone

” and we expound:

I gave it for atonement

for the blood, by way of the sprinkling of consecrated offerings,

and not for the

law of

meila

, and there is no status of consecrated offerings in it with regard to meila. The Almighty said: I gave the blood to you for your sake, in order to atone for you, and not so that it should be called Mine, so that one could commit meila with it

.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Scripture says [there]: “

For the blood—it is in the soul—that it atones

,” and we expound: “it” implies that it shall remain as it is:

it is before atonement; it is after atonement

—its law is always equal.

Just as after atonement

, after he has given the blood-presentations,

there is no meila in it

, since its mitzva has already been performed, and there is no further need of it for the sake of the Most High, and it is not “from the sacred property of the Lord,”

so before atonement, there is no meila in it

.

так и до искупления за неё не совершают меила

.

And we object:

And

why should we expound this way? Although the Torah said that its law is always equal,

say

that it is possible to say the opposite:

Just as before atonement there is meila

, because there is a need for it on high,

so after atonement there is meila?

И мы отвечаем:

And we answer:

Is there anything whose mitzva has been performed and in which there is meila?!

For its mitzva has already been performed, and it is no longer “from the sacred property of the Lord.” Therefore, necessarily, you cannot expound it this way; rather, just as after atonement there is no meila, so before atonement there is no meila . And we are astonished:

What, not

?! Is there not something whose mitzva has been performed and one does commit meila with it?!