Yoma 59b — the Talmud in English

It is only up to here that they disagree

these tannaim, but

by rabbinic enactment

and concerning payment of the principal to the Temple treasury,

but by Torah law

and becoming liable for it for a fifth, like anyone who misappropriates something consecrated,

there is no misappropriation with them.

From where are these words

that there is no law of misappropriation with them by Torah law?

The verse says

concerning the blood: “And I have given it

to you”

upon the altar to atone for your souls:

it shall be yours,

like your unconsecrated property, with which there is no misappropriation before atonement and all the more so after atonement.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

since it is written:

“to atone”

for your souls,

I gave it for atonement

within the law of consecrated offerings,

and not for misappropriation,

to misappropriate it; it does not have the law of consecrated offerings [Rashi] .

And Rabbi Yohanan said [

see the explanation of his words in the note ]:

the verse says

there: “For the blood

is”

through the soul that makes atonement; and we expound: it shall remain as it is,

before atonement as after atonement.

Just as after atonement there is no misappropriation

for its mitzva has been performed, and there is no misappropriation with it since it is not called “the sacred offerings of the Lord,”

so before atonement there is no misappropriation.

But perhaps

the reverse:

after atonement is like before atonement; just as before atonement there is misappropriation, so after atonement there is misappropriation?

You have no thing whose mitzva has been performed

and like blood that has already been sprinkled upon the altar,

and with which there is misappropriation,

for they are no longer “the sacred offerings of the Lord.”

And we object:

But

is it so that

we have not

found a thing whose mitzva has been performed and with which there is misappropriation?!

But there is the removal of the ashes,

for every day a priest takes up with a shovel and removes the ashes upon the outer altar, a full shovel, and places them on the eastern side of the ramp, as it is written: “And he shall remove the ashes that the fire consumes of the burnt offering upon the altar”—

and it is written afterward: “And he shall place them” beside the altar; this implies that there shall be their burial there, and there they are absorbed in their place. Thus, it is evidently forbidden to derive benefit from them, and since it is forbidden to derive benefit from them on account of their sanctity, there is also misappropriation with them [Rashi]; here, then, you have a thing whose mitzva has been performed and with which there is misappropriation?!