Yoma 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

The tanna'im disagree only

with regard to this

by rabbinic ordinance

and concerning payment of the principal to the Temple treasury;

but by Torah law

and with regard to becoming liable for the additional one-fifth payment, as is the case with anyone who misuses consecrated property,

there is no misuse of them.

From where are these words

that there is no law of misuse of consecrated property with regard to them by Torah law?

The verse says

with regard to the blood: “I have given it

to you”

upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls:

It shall be yours

like your non-consecrated property, with regard to which there is no misuse before atonement and all the more so after atonement.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

Since it is written:

“To effect atonement”

for your souls,

I gave it for atonement

as part of the laws of sacrificial offerings,

and not for misuse

—to misuse it, it does not have the status of sacrificial property [Rashi] .

And Rabbi Yohanan said [see the explanation of his words in the note ]:

see the explanation of his words in the note ]:

The verse says

there: “For the blood

—it

effects atonement through the soul”; and we derive: It shall remain as it is,

before atonement as after atonement.

Just as after atonement there is no misuse

since its mitzva has been performed and there is no misuse of it, as it is no longer called “the sacred property of the Lord,”

so too, before atonement there is no misuse.

But perhaps

the opposite is true:

After atonement is like before atonement: Just as before atonement there is misuse, so too, after atonement there is misuse?

There is no thing whose mitzva has been performed

such as blood that has already been sprinkled upon the altar,

and with regard to which there is misuse,

for it is no longer “the sacred property of the Lord.”

We challenge this:

And

is it really the case that

we have not

found something whose mitzva has been performed and with regard to which there is misuse?!

But there is the removal of the ashes:

Every day, a priest takes ashes in a coal pan and removes the ashes from the outer altar, filling the pan, and places them on the eastern side of the ramp, as it is written: “And he shall remove the ashes to which the fire consumes the burnt offering upon the altar”—

and it is written afterward: “And he shall place it” beside the altar, implying that there its burial is to be, and there it is absorbed in its place. Evidently, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and since it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because of its sanctity, there is also misuse with regard to it [Rashi]. Here, then, is something whose mitzva has been performed and with regard to which there is misuse?!