Meilah 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

As Rav Huna said in the name of Ze'eira

One who lets blood from a consecrated animal while

it is alive: that blood is

forbidden for benefit, and one commits misuse with it

by Torah law, as will be explained. And since this is so, there is a rabbinic prohibition of misuse with it even at the end, after it has flowed into the Kidron Valley.

Although we learned [11a] that at first one does not commit misuse with blood, that applies specifically after the animal has been slaughtered, when the blood is fit to effect atonement and was excluded by exegeses of the verses . By contrast, in the case of the blood of an animal while it is alive, when the blood is not yet fit to effect atonement, one does commit misuse with it. Therefore, the Gemara discusses the matter.

The Gemara returns to the actual matter.

We learned above:

Rav Huna said in the name of Ze'eira: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal

is forbidden to benefit from it, and one commits misuse

with it .

And we raise an objection: Rav Hamnuna objected from what we learned in the following Mishna: the milk of consecrated animals,

And we challenge this:

Rav Mesharsheya raises an objection

from what we learned in the following Mishna:

The milk of consecrated animals,

milk that was milked from a female animal consecrated with the sanctity of an offering,

and the eggs of turtledoves,

eggs laid by a turtledove consecrated as an offering,

may not be benefited from, and one does not commit misuse with them,

as will be explained.

The difficulty is: What distinguishes blood from milk ? Just as one does not commit misuse with milk, so too with blood; why, then, does one commit misuse with it?

And we resolve the difficulty:

He said to him:

There is a distinction between milk and blood.

When we say,

what I said applies only

with regard to blood, since

the animal

cannot survive without blood;

therefore, it is considered part of the animal itself, and one commits misuse with it.

But milk, since the animal survives

without milk,

does not!

One does not commit misuse with it, since the milk is not part of the animal’s body.

Rav Mesharsheya challenges this distinction.

Rav Mesharsheya raises an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

Dung [

animal excrement that has turned into manure]

and excrement,

the excrement of a consecrated animal ,

that is in the courtyard

of the Temple treasury,

may not be benefited from, and one does not commit misuse with them, and their monetary value

the animal does not exist

shall fall into the chamber,

as will be explained.

The difficulty is:

Why

does one not commit misuse? After all,

this too does not sustain [

survive]

the animal does not survive

without excrement; how does this differ from blood?

And we resolve the difficulty:

They said:

Is it comparable?!

Can excrement be compared to blood?!

There, excrement, it comes to the animal from the outside,

as it enters from outside, through eating non-sacred food.

This one leaves,

the excrement exits,

and another comes,

and other excrement enters it; therefore, it is not truly part of the animal’s body.

To the exclusion of

as opposed to

blood, which is from its body,

and was created with it and is part of its body; therefore, one commits misuse with it .

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita.

It teaches:

We learned: The dung and excrement in the courtyard

may not be benefited from, and one does not commit misuse with them, and their monetary value goes to the chamber.

And this beraita

supports him:

It is support

for Rabbi Elazar.

As Rabbi Elazar said: Wherever the Sages said: “

Sacred and not sacred,”

meaning, “one may not benefit from it and does not commit misuse with it,”

its monetary value shall fall into the chamber,

meaning , the treasurers are obligated to deal with it and sell it, and its monetary value goes to the repair of the Temple.

The beraita likewise says concerning excrement and dung: “one may not benefit from them and does not commit misuse with them.” Who would benefit from them, and what should be done with them? “Their monetary value shall fall into the chamber.”

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with the law of “one may not benefit from it and does not commit misuse with it.”

The milk of consecrated animals,

that was milked from a consecrated animal,

and

likewise

the eggs of turtledoves

that are consecrated,

may not be benefited from ,

it is forbidden to benefit from them,

and one does not commit misuse,

since they are not fit for the altar .

In what case is this statement said,

that one does not commit misuse?

With regard to animals consecrated for the altar,

which were consecrated to be offered themselves. Therefore, the intention of the person consecrating was directed only to the offering itself, and not to its milk or eggs .

But with regard to property consecrated for the repair of the Temple,

if he

consecrated a hen

for the repair of the Temple,

one commits misuse with it and with its egg,

and likewise if he consecrated a

she-ass,

one commits misuse with it and with its milk,

since it is fit to be sold and its monetary value used for the repair of the Temple.

Gemara:

The Mishna distinguished between property possessing the sanctity of the altar and property possessing monetary sanctity.

The Gemara discusses the case of property possessing the sanctity of the altar when he consecrated it with monetary sanctity; that is, for example, when he consecrated an animal with monetary sanctity for the needs of the altar, so that it would be sold and its monetary value used to purchase requirements for the altar.

Apparently, the wording of the Mishna indicates that even when he consecrated it with monetary sanctity for the needs of the altar, one does not commit misuse with it, and its sanctity is governed by the law of the sanctity of the altar. The Gemara raises the following difficulty:

Rather,

is it to be said:

With regard to the altar, when he consecrated it with monetary sanctity, is there no misuse?!

Why should it have the sanctity of the altar, when it itself is not offered?

And we resolve the difficulty:

Rav Pappa said: The Mishna is incomplete,

the Mishna is missing a clause,

and this is what it teaches:

In what case is this statement said,

that one does not commit misuse?

When he consecrated

an animal or turtledoves with

intrinsic sanctity for the altar,

so that it itself would be offered upon the altar.

But

if he

consecrated it,

the animal or turtledoves, with

monetary sanctity for the altar,

since it possesses only monetary sanctity,

it is treated as one who consecrated it for the repair of the Temple,

for the needs of repairing the walls, courtyards, and Temple vessels.

And with monetary sanctity, one does commit misuse, as the Mishna states later:

If one consecrated a hen, one commits misuse with it and with its egg; a she-ass, one commits misuse with it and with its milk.

Mishna:

This Mishna appears in tractate Bava Batra [79a], and here it is explained according to Tosafot here and according to the commentary of the Rashbam there.

Any

object that a person consecrated,

that is fit for the altar

but not for the repair of the Temple,

such as unblemished oxen, sheep, and goats, which one is forbidden to consecrate for the repair of the Temple , and likewise turtledoves, pigeons, fine flour, frankincense, wine, and oil. None of these is fit to be incorporated into a building. Or, anything fit

for the repair of the Temple but not for the altar,

such as gold, silver, precious stones, and the like. Or even anything that is fit

neither for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple,

such as milk, cheese, fish sauce, refuse, herbs, and the like, whose law is that they are sold, and their monetary value is used to purchase requirements for the altar or for the repair of the Temple, according to the purpose for which the person consecrated them,

one commits misuse with it .

As will be explained .