Meilah 9b — the Talmud in English

, meitivi,

the Gemara brings a Mishna to raise an objection against Rav, from what we learned in tractate Zevachim [85b]: The wool on the heads of sheep, the hair in the beards of goats, the bones, sinews, horns, and hooves—when they are attached [to the flesh]—go up [to the altar for burning] together with the flesh of the burnt-offering. But if they separated from the flesh, they do not go up.

And we further learned there [86a]:

“And all of them,”

the bones, sinews, and so forth, whether attached to the flesh or whether they separated,

“that fell away” [

if they fell away]

“from upon the altar”

to the ground,

“he shall not return”

there is no need to return them .

“And likewise, a coal that fell away from upon the altar, he shall not return.”

And one should infer: When a coal fell away

from upon the altar, it is that he shall not return it

, but

whereas if it is still

upon the altar, he shall return

the coal.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that there is a requirement concerning the removal of the ashes,

it is satisfactory:

it is understood why he must return the coal, because the Torah said, “And he shall remove the ashes ”; therefore he should return it in order to fulfill the mitzva of removal,

but according to Rav, it is difficult:

why must he return it? It has already been burned, become a coal, and its mitzva has been completed ? And we answer:

Rav could say to you: A coal is different,

therefore he should return it in order to complete its burning, because

there is in it

substance,

actual substance, and it is still fit for burning. It is not comparable to ash, which has no substance, and once it has become ash, and the removal of the ashes has already been performed, there is no obligation to return it, and there is no misuse of it.

Some say that he stated it in this direction,

there is one who transmitted this tradition

in this direction,

to this side. That is, this Mishna proves Rav’s words, and it is a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan:

One should infer:

The reason,

the entire reason that he is obligated to return it when it fell away while it is still upon the altar, is

because

it is

a coal that has substance,

and its burning has not been completed.

But,

whereas if it had already become

ash, which has no substance,

and its burning had been completed,

even

when it fell away while it was still

upon [

on top of]

the altar, there is no misuse of it.

Granted, according to Rav,

who holds that after the removal of the ashes has been performed there is no misuse,

it is satisfactory.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that until it has been removed outside the camp there is still misuse of it,

it is difficult:

why should they not return it? Its mitzva has still not been completed!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you:

We should not infer specifically a coal, but rather

the same law applies: even ash

should be returned, because the ashes have still not been removed,

and this is the reason that it teaches “a coal”—but

it comes to inform us,

the Mishna comes to inform us of a novel point,

that even a coal, which has substance

and its burning has not been completed,

when it fell away from upon the altar

to the ground,

he shall not return it.

Where should that money—the principal and the additional fifth—be given? The Gemara discusses this.

The discussion of payments for misuse

One who benefits from consecrated property pays the principal and a fifth, in addition to the obligation to bring a guilt-offering.

Those monies—the principal and the fifth—to where are they given? The Gemara discusses this. The Torah said in the section of misuse [Leviticus 5]: “And he shall pay for that in which he sinned from the consecrated property, and he shall add its fifth to it,” and the Sages expounded: “He shall pay from the consecrated property”—he shall pay it to the Temple treasury [Torat Kohanim]. That is, if he benefited from consecrated property for the repair of the Temple, he shall pay for the repair of the Temple; and if he benefited from consecrated property of the altar, he shall pay for consecrated property of the altar, and to that consecrated property. And “the sanctity within it belongs to that consecrated property.”

It was stated: One who benefits from the flesh of most holy offerings before the blood is sprinkled, and

from

the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity after the blood is sprinkled,

and became obligated in the principal and a fifth,

Rav said:

The money corresponding to

what he benefited from shall fall for free-will offerings,

that is, to purchase burnt-offerings, which are sacrificed when the altar is idle [“summer of the altar”], and the hides shall be given to the priests.

And

whereas

Levi said:

They shall not bring burnt-offerings from them, since the hides belong to the priests, but

he shall bring

from the money

something that is entirely for the altar,

that is, incense.

It was taught:

We learned a beraita in accordance with him, in accordance with

Rav;

and a beraita was taught in accordance with Levi .

It was taught in accordance with Levi: “This misuse—where does it go?”

Students

learning before the Sages

say: He shall bring something that is entirely for the altar.

And the Gemara explains:

What is that?

What is the thing that is entirely for the altar?

Incense .

from part of the money he set aside to purchase a sin-offering, and from money designated for a guilt-offering, If he comes to make payment before his sin-offering has been sacrificed, adds the payment for the misuse to the money remaining for his sin-offering, and brings his sin-offering, a substantial sin-offering, and similarly, if he comes to make payment before his guilt-offering has been sacrificed, he adds the money and brings his guilt-offering.

It was taught in accordance with Rav: “One who benefits from the money of a sin-offering”

from some of the money that he set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering,

or from the money of a guilt-offering,

his sin-offering had already been sacrificed , what should he do with that money? He cannot combine it with the money for his sin-offering.

If he comes to pay

before his sin-offering was sacrificed,

he shall give the payment for the misuse to the owner of the offering, and he

shall add

the payment for the misuse to the remaining money of the sin-offering that he has,

and he shall bring his sin-offering,

a substantial sin-offering,

and

so too, if he comes to pay

before his guilt-offering was sacrificed, he shall add and bring his guilt-offering.

But if

his sin-offering had already been sacrificed ,

what shall he do with that money? Can he not join it to his sin-offering?

The money shall go

the money

to the Salt Sea,

that is, to a place from which it is impossible to take it out. This is like a sin-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another one, which must die [and it is among the “five sin-offerings that must die” ]; therefore, the money shall go to the Salt Sea , and this is in place of death.

And likewise, if

his guilt-offering has already been brought, they shall fall

those monies

for voluntary offerings.

Explanation: We hold: anything which, if it were a sin-offering, would be subject to death, if it is a guilt-offering, is left to graze until a defect occurs in it, and it is sold, and its proceeds fall for voluntary offerings. Therefore, those monies of misuse shall fall for voluntary offerings. And this means: for the shofar, which is a box in the Temple, and from these monies public offerings were brought .

Thus far the beraita spoke of one who derived benefit from monies set aside for the purpose of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, and their law is that, if the monies can still be joined to the offering, they are joined. But when this is impossible, the monies of a sin-offering go to the Salt Sea, and the monies of a guilt-offering go for voluntary offerings. And the beraita continues to explain the law of one who derives benefit from the animal itself or from the meat:

One who derives benefit from offerings of the highest sanctity before the blood is sprinkled, and from the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity after the blood is sprinkled, the value of what he derived benefit from shall fall for voluntary offerings,

as the words of Rav!

One who derives benefit from

all altar offerings,

shall give the money of the misuse

to the altar .

Offerings of consecrated property for Temple maintenance,

that is, if he derived benefit from consecrated property for Temple maintenance, the money of the misuse shall fall

for Temple maintenance .

Public offerings ,

one who derives benefit from them shall give the money of the misuse

for the public voluntary offering .

And we raise a difficulty:

This itself is difficult,

the beraita is difficult, and there is a contradiction between its first clause and its latter clause,

In the first clause it

teaches

If he came to pay

before his sin-offering had been brought, he shall add and bring his sin-offering.

Once his sin-offering has been brought, they shall go to the Salt Sea.

But

in the latter clause it

teaches: All altar offerings, to the altar,

which implies all offerings, including a sin-offering,

and it makes no difference that the owners achieved atonement,

even if the owners have already achieved atonement,

and it makes no difference where they have not achieved atonement,

if the owners have not yet achieved atonement, they shall fall to the altar, and this means for voluntary offerings.

And now it is difficult:

The first clause is Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement shall die,

whereas the latter clause, which said that the monies do not go to “death”—that is, that they do not go to the Salt Sea, but rather fall for voluntary offerings, despite the fact that the owners have already achieved atonement—is according to the Rabbis .