מעילה י״א א:י״ז-י״א ב:ב׳

And if the animal whose year passed was found before the owner achieved atonement, the found animal shall graze until it becomes blemished [shetista’ev], at which point it may not be sacrificed; and it shall be sold and the owner shall purchase another animal with the money received from its sale. The animal that was found blemished may be sold immediately, and the owner shall purchase another animal with the money received from its sale. In both cases, the animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, and one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing it.,GEMARA: The mishna first groups together three cases of sin offerings that are left to die, after which it discusses the other two as another group. The Gemara asks: What is different about the three cases in the first clause that the mishna does not distinguish between whether or not the owner has achieved atonement, and what is different about the latter clause that the mishna does distinguish between cases where the owner has and has not achieved atonement?,The Gemara answers: The three cases of sin offerings discussed in the first clause are absolute, i.e., the halakha is the same whether or not the owner has achieved atonement. By contrast, the cases of the other two sin offerings discussed in the latter clause are not absolute, as their status depends on whether or not their owner achieved atonement by means of another offering.,The Gemara asks: Didn’t the Mishna teach this same halakha verbatim in connection with the topic of substitution, in tractate Temura (21b)? Why is it repeated here? The Gemara answers: It is taught there, in Temura, because it discusses the halakhot of substitution, and it is taught again here in tractate Me’ila because it discusses the halakhot of misuse.,MISHNA: In the case of a nazirite who designated money for the three offerings he is obligated to bring upon completion of his naziriteship, a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering, but he did not specify which money was designated for which offering, since it is not clear what the money is intended for, one may not derive benefit from the money ab initio, but if he derived benefit from the money he is not liable for its misuse. This is due to the fact that all the money is fit for purchase of the peace offering, for which one is liable for misuse only after its blood is sprinkled, and therefore there is no liability for its misuse.,If the nazirite died and he had undesignated funds, meaning he did not specify which money was for each of the three offerings, all the money will be allocated for purchase of communal gift offerings. If the nazirite died and he had specified money, the money specified for purchase of the sin offering shall go to the Dead Sea for disposal, because one may not derive benefit ab initio from the money of a sin offering whose owner has died. But if it was not disposed of, and one derived benefit from the money, he is not liable for its misuse.,With the money specified for purchase of the burnt offering, one shall bring a gift burnt offering, and one is liable for misusing the funds. With the money specified for purchase of the peace offering, one shall bring a gift peace offering. Although it is a gift offering, the restrictions of the peace offering of the naziriteship apply, and therefore it is eaten for one day and that same night, not the standard two days and one night of a regular peace offering. And nevertheless the peace offering does not require the bringing of the loaves that accompany the peace offering of naziriteship, as it is written with regard to the loaves: “And shall place them on the hands of the nazirite” (Numbers 6:19), and in this case the nazirite is dead.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a nazirite designated money for the three offerings that he is obligated to bring upon completion of his naziriteship but did not specify which money was designated for which offering, one who derived benefit from the money is not liable for its misuse, as all the money is fit for purchase of the peace offering. Reish Lakish objects to this: And let the tanna of the mishna also teach a similar halakha with regard to one who was obligated to bring a pair of birds as an offering in a purification ritual, e.g., for a leper or a woman who gave birth, and he designated money for those nests, i.e., the bird offerings, but did not specify which money was for the burnt offering and which was for the sin offering.,Reish Lakish elaborates: Here too, the tanna could have stated that one may not derive benefit from the money ab initio, but if he derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse. This is due to the fact that that all the money is fit for purchase of doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are fit for sacrifice only when they are older; or pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, which are fit only when they are young. Since these are not fit to be sacrificed, one is not liable for misuse.,Rava says in response: This halakha is not included in the mishna because the two cases are not comparable: In the case of the undesignated money, the Torah said to bring a peace offering as one of the obligatory offerings of a nazirite. Since any part of the money may be used to purchase the peace offering, there is no liability for its misuse. By contrast, in the case of one who designated money for bird offerings, did the Torah say to use this money to bring specifically doves whose time of fitness has not arrived? Such birds are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Therefore, it cannot be said this money is intended for a purpose that does not entail liability for misuse.,MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to misuse of the blood of offerings that is to be sprinkled on the altar, the halakha is lenient with regard to the status of the blood at the outset and stringent at its conclusion. With regard to misuse of the wine of the libations that accompany the offerings, the halakha is stringent with regard to the status of the wine at their outset and lenient at their conclusion.,The mishna explains: With regard to blood, at its outset, before it is sprinkled on the altar, one is not liable for misusing it; but once its remainder has been poured on the base of the altar and it emerges via the canal that runs through the Temple to the Kidron Valley at the foot of the Temple Mount, one is liable for misusing it. With regard to libations, at their outset, from the moment they were consecrated, one is liable for misusing them, but once they have descended to the drainpipes built into the altar and which extend beneath it, through which the libations flowed out of the Temple, one is no longer liable for misusing them, as their mitzva was fulfilled and therefore their sanctity has ceased.,GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita relating to the mishna’s ruling that once the remainder of the blood emerged via the canal that runs through the Temple one is liable for its misuse. The Sages taught in a baraita: One is liable for misusing the blood of the offerings after it has emerged via the canal that runs through the Temple to the Kidron Valley. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: One is not liable for misusing the blood.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who says that one is not liable for misusing the blood, despite the fact that it comes from a consecrated offering? Ulla said that blood is not consecrated, because the verse states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that it shall be yours, and it is not the property of the Temple. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael likewise taught that the term “to atone” teaches that God says: I gave it for atonement, and not for the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.,Rabbi Yoḥanan says this halakha is derived from a different phrase, as the verse states: “For it is the blood that atones by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11). The word “is” teaches that the blood remains as it is, retaining the same status before atonement as after atonement: Just as after atonement it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has been performed, so too, before atonement it is not subject to misuse of consecrated property.,The Gemara asks: But if the basis for this halakha is that the status of blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say the opposite, that its status after atonement should be like its status before atonement: Just as before atonement it is subject to misuse of consecrated property, so too, after atonement it is subject to misuse of consecrated property.,The Gemara rejects this contention with a rhetorical question: Is there anything whose mitzva has been performed and it is still subject to misuse of consecrated property? The Gemara challenges this assumption: Why not? Why not say this; is there really no precedent for such a suggestion? But there is the instance of the removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar, whose mitzva has been performed and nevertheless it is still subject to misuse of consecrated property.,The Gemara answers: The removal of the ashes cannot serve as a model for other halakhot whose mitzva has been performed, because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the limbs of the scapegoat of Yom Kippur after it was pushed off the cliff are both subject to the prohibition of misuse even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they are two cases that share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.,The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the one who said that one may not derive benefit from the limbs of the scapegoat, as this is a second verse indicating that an item can be subject to the halakha of misuse even after its mitzva has been performed. But according to the one who said that one may derive benefit from the limbs of the scapegoat, and they are not subject to the halakha of misuse, what can be said to explain why it is not possible to derive this halakha from the removal of the ashes? According to that opinion, this is not a case of two verses that come as one.,The Gemara explains: Even according to that opinion, the removal of the ashes cannot serve as a model for other halakhot whose mitzva has been performed, because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect.,The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the sacred place, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are unfit for further use, and they require interment. According to their opinion, the answer given by the Gemara works out well.,But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that these priestly vestments, which are the same as those required by an ordinary priest throughout the year, are permitted for use by an ordinary priest and do not require interment, which means that misuse of consecrated property does not apply to them, what can be said to explain why it is not possible to derive the halakha from the removal of the ashes, since it is a lone instance and therefore should serve as a general source for other cases?,The Gemara responds: Even so, the removal of the ashes cannot serve as a model for other halakhot whose mitzva has been performed, because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken, a ritual performed in certain cases of murder where the perpetrator is not identified, are two verses that come as one that do not teach their common aspect, as they are both subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property even after their mitzva has been performed.,The Gemara challenges this reply: This answer works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to other cases, but according to the one who said that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect to other cases, what is there to say?,The Gemara explains: Two exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies only to them. There, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “The one whose neck was broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6), and the definite article indicates that this halakha should not be extended to other cases.,And there, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it next to the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that it alone is subject to the prohibition of misuse despite the fact that this is after the fulfillment of its mitzva. The verse emphasizes that this halakha applies to “it,” the ashes, but not to anything else. It is derived from these exclusions that specifically in the case of these, yes, there is misuse after the fulfillment of the mitzva, but with regard to other matters there is no misuse after fulfillment of the mitzva.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to libations, at their outset, from the moment they were consecrated, one is liable for misusing them, but once they have descended to the drainpipes built into the altar one is no longer liable for their misuse. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok.,As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok says: There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar west of the ramp. Once in seventy years young priests would descend there to the drainpipes built into the altar and bring out from there the congealed wine left over from the libations that had accumulated over time, which resembled round cakes of dried and pressed figs. And they would burn it in sanctity in the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7). This teaches that just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too, its burning must be in sanctity.,Before addressing the issue of whether or not the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok, the Gemara first analyzes the derivation stated at the end of the baraita: From where is this halakha of burning inferred? After all, the verse it cites is referring to pouring, not burning. Ravina said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between an expression of sanctity written with regard to libations and sanctity written with regard to leftover offerings. It is written here, with regard to libations: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation” (Numbers 28:7), and it is written there, with regard to leftover offerings: “You shall burn the leftovers in fire; they are not to be eaten, because it is sanctified” (Exodus 29:34).,This teaches that just as the burning of leftover offerings must be in sanctity, so too, the burning of these congealed libations must also be in sanctity. After the Gemara has clarified the baraita itself, it returns to the issue of whether or not the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok. It is clear from the baraita that he maintains that even after the libations descend into the drainpipes that are built into the altar, they retain their sanctity and are therefore burned, which apparently contradicts the opinion of the mishna.,The Gemara rejects this claim: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok, as it can be claimed that the mishna is referring to the specific case where some of the libations were collected in the space between the ramp and the altar and did not reach the bottom of the drainpipes. In such a situation, the libations are not subject to misuse and there is no requirement of burning, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok. By contrast, the tanna of the mishna agrees that libations that reached the bottom of the drainpipes are thereby consecrated, and therefore they are subject to misuse and there is a requirement of burning.,There are those who say a different version of this discussion. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok, and it is referring to the specific case where some of the libations were collected in the space between the ramp and the altar and did not reach the bottom of the drainpipes. In such an instance the libations are not subject to misuse and there is no requirement of burning. One can infer that libations that reached the bottom of the drainpipes are thereby consecrated, and are subject to misuse and must be burned.,The Gemara rejects this claim. The Sages say in response: No; this is not the correct explanation. Rather, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok concedes that even libations that reached the bottom of the drainpipes are not subject to misuse, as by Torah law they are not consecrated. And his ruling that they must be burned applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok cites a verse in support of this halakha that the libations are burned, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, not an actual source for the halakha, and therefore its citation does not prove that this prohibition applies by Torah law.,MISHNA: With regard to the removal of ash from the inner altar to the place where the ashes lifted from the outer altar are deposited, and similarly with regard to the wicks of the Candelabrum, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio; but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse. In the case of one who consecrates anew the ash that has been removed, he is liable for misusing it. With regard to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, as they are too young, and pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, as they are too old, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio; but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the ashes of the inner altar are not subject to misuse once they have been moved to the place where the ashes lifted from the outer altar are deposited. The Gemara asks: Granted