Meilah 12b — the Talmud in English

For Rav Huna said in the name of Ze'ira

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 upon it a rabbinic violation of misuse also at the end, after its departure into the Kidron Valley.

Although we learned [11a] that with blood at the beginning one does not commit misuse, that is specifically after the slaughter of the animal, when the blood is fit for atonement and was excluded by expositions of the verses . This is not so with the blood of an animal while it is alive, for the blood is still not fit for atonement; one does commit misuse with it. And therefore the Gemara discusses this matter.

The body of the matter,

we learned above:

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

it is forbidden for benefit, 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,

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 that was consecrated as an offering,

one may not benefit from them and one does not commit misuse with them,

as will be explained.

And it is difficult: 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 answer: He said to him: There is a distinction between milk and blood. When we say this, what I said applies only

as will be explained.

The difficulty is: How does blood differ from milk? Just as one is not liable for misuse of milk, so too one should not be liable for misuse of blood. Why, then, is one liable for misuse of it?

with regard to blood, for

the animal

cannot exist without blood

; therefore it is considered like the body of the animal, and one commits misuse with it.

But milk, which sustains it,

the animal exists

without milk—no!

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

Rav Mesharsheya raises an objection to this distinction.

Rav Mesharsheya objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

the manure [the droppings of an animal that have become manure]

and the excrement, the droppings of a consecrated animal ,

that are in the courtyard

of the Temple treasury,

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

shall fall into the chamber,

as will be explained.

And it is difficult:

Why

does one not commit misuse? Surely

this too does not sustain [

exist ],

the animal does not exist

without excrement,

so how does it differ from blood?

And we answer:

They said: Is it comparable!?

Can excrement be compared with blood?!

There, excrement, it comes to it from the world,

for it comes to it from outside, that is, from eating non-sacred food.

When this one goes,

the excrement leaves,

another comes,

and other excrement comes to it; therefore it is not actually part of the body of the animal,

They said: Is there really a comparison?!

Can excrement truly be compared with blood?!

to exclude

in contrast to

blood, which is from its body,

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

another one comes,

and other excrement enters it. Therefore, the excrement is not actually part of the animal’s body.

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita.

It teaches:

we learned: The manure and the excrement that are in the courtyard

one may not benefit from them and one does not commit misuse with them, and their value shall go to the chamber. And this beraita

supports him, it is support for Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Elazar said: Wherever the Sages said: “ consecrated and not consecrated,” that is, “one may not benefit from it and one does not commit misuse with it,”

its value shall go to the chamber,

that is ,

the treasurers are obligated to take care of it and sell it, and its value will reach the Temple treasury for repairs.

This beraita

supports

the position of

And so the beraita said concerning excrement and manure: “One may not benefit from them and one does not commit misuse,” and who would benefit from them, and what should be done with them? “Their value shall go to the chamber.”

Mishna:

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

The milk of consecrated animals,

that was milked from a consecrated animal,

and also the eggs of turtledoves that are consecrated, one may not benefit from them , it is forbidden to benefit from them, and one does not commit misuse,

since they are not fit for the altar .

In what case are these words said, that one does not commit misuse? With offerings of the altar, which were consecrated to be sacrificed themselves; therefore, the consecrator’s intention was only concerning the offering itself, not its milk and eggs , But with offerings for the repair of the Temple, if one 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 the money brought for the repair of the Temple.

The Mishna continues the law of “one may not benefit from it, but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse.”

Milk of consecrated animals,

milk taken 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,

but one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse,

since they are not fit for the altar .

Gemara:

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

The Gemara discusses: “With offerings of the altar, when he consecrated it with monetary sanctity,” that is, for example, one consecrated an animal with monetary sanctity for the needs of the altar, to sell it and purchase with its money the needs of the altar.

And apparently the wording of the Mishna indicates

that even when one consecrated with monetary sanctity for the needs of the altar, one does not commit misuse with them, and their sanctity is like the sanctity of the altar. And concerning this the Gemara wonders:

Rather,

is it to be said:

Regarding the altar, when he consecrated it with monetary sanctity, does it not have misuse?!

Why should it have the sanctity of the altar? After all, it itself is not sacrificed?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: The Mishna is deficient,

the Mishna is missing words,

and this is what it teaches

and this is how it was taught: In what case are these words said, that one does not commit misuse? When he consecrated an animal or turtledoves with the sanctity of the body for the altar, and it itself will be sacrificed upon the altar, But, if he consecrated it, the animal or the turtledoves, with monetary sanctity for the altar, since it possesses only monetary sanctity, it becomes as though he consecrated it for the repair of the Temple, for the needs of repairing the walls, courtyards, and vessels of the Temple. And with monetary sanctity, one commits misuse, as the Mishna says afterward: If he 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 was brought in tractate Bava Batra [79a], and here it is interpreted according to the Tosafot here and according to the commentary of the Rashbam there. Every thing that a person consecrated, that is fit for the altar and not for the repair of the Temple, such as unblemished oxen, lambs, and goats, which it is forbidden to consecrate for the repair of the Temple , and likewise turtledoves, young pigeons, fine flour, frankincense, wine, and oil. None of all these is fit to be sunk into a building. Or anything that is fit for the repair of the Temple and 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 with their value the needs of the altar or the needs of the repair of the Temple are purchased, according to what the consecrator consecrated, one commits misuse with it . As will be explained .

Rather,

can it really be said:

With regard to the altar, if one consecrated an item with monetary sanctity, it is not subject to misuse?!

Why should it have the sanctity of an offering designated for the altar, when the item itself is not offered?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: The Mishna is incomplete,

and is missing a clause,

and this is what it teaches:

In what case does this statement apply

that one is not liable for misuse?

When one consecrated

an animal or turtledoves with

intrinsic sanctity for the altar,

so that the item itself would be offered on the altar.

But

if one

consecrated it,

the animal or turtledoves, with

monetary sanctity for the altar,

since it possesses only monetary sanctity,

it is treated as though he had consecrated it for the repair and maintenance of the Temple,

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

In the case of monetary sanctity, one is liable for misuse, as the Mishna states below:

If one consecrated a hen, one is liable for misuse of it and of its egg; a she-ass, one is liable for misuse of it and of its milk.

Mishna:

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

Any

item that a person consecrated,

that is fit for the altar ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column position")

but not for the repair and maintenance of the Temple,

such as an unblemished ox, lamb, or goat, which one may not consecrate for the repair and maintenance 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, any item fit

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

such as gold, silver, precious stones, and the like. Or even anything not fit

either for the altar or for the repair and maintenance of the Temple,

such as milk, cheese, fish brine, refuse, plants, and the like, whose law is that they are sold, and their proceeds are used to purchase requirements for the altar or for the repair and maintenance of the Temple, according to the intention of the person who consecrated them,

one who benefits from it is liable for misuse .

As will be explained .