Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Misappropriation of Items Sanctified for the Altar
Laws of Worship of God
Sources
A
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…
Meilah 11b:18
The Gemara answers: A red
heifer is different, as it is not subject to
the prohibition against
shearing
a consecrated animal because it does not have wool, and that is why it is permitted to cut the tops of its hairs. The Gemara raises a difficulty:
But isn’t it taught
in a
baraita
: The verse states:
“You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock”
(Deuteronomy 15:19).
I have
derived
only
that a firstborn
ox
may not be used
for labor and
that a firstborn
sheep
may not…
Bekhorot 25a:9-10
MISHNA:
Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says:
Since it is prohibited by Torah law to shear a firstborn, as it states: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19),
one who is slaughtering a firstborn,
and must clear hair or wool from the area of the neck in order to facilitate proper slaughter,
clears space
by uprooting the hair
with a cleaver [
bekofitz
] from here and from there,
on either side of the neck, although he thereby
plucks
out
the hair…
Bekhorot 24b:5-8
The
baraita
continues: One
might
have thought that
just as the ram and guilt-offering,
i.e., payment,
preclude
his achieving atonement,
so too,
payment of the additional
one-fifth
of the value
precludes
his achieving it. Therefore,
the verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,”
which teaches that
the ram and guilt-offering,
i.e., payment,
preclude
his achieving atonement
with regard to consecrated
property…
Bava Kamma 111a:18
The Gemara inquires:
What
practical difference
is there between
misuse
by Torah law
and misuse
by rabbinic law?
The Gemara explains that those who misuse
by Torah law
must
pay
an additional
one-fifth
to the Temple treasury, over and above the principal. By contrast, misuse
by rabbinic law
does
not
render one obligated to pay the additional one-fifth. The Gemara asks:
And is there
a concept of
misuse
of consecrated property
by rabbinic law?
The Gemara answers:
Yes
there is…
Meilah 2b:6-3a:6
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…
Meilah 11a:10-11b:1
The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion.
As it is taught
in a
baraita
: With regard to the
log
of oil of a leper,
one who derives benefit
from it
is liable for
misusing
consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel,
until the blood
of the leper’s guilt offering
is sprinkled.
At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it…
Zevachim 44a:20
MISHNA:
A coal
that one borrowed from another on the Festival is
as the feet of the owner,
and it may be carried on the Festival to any place where its owner may walk. Since it has substance, it is associated with its owner.
But a flame
that one lit from another’s flame may be taken
anywhere,
as it has no substance. This essential difference between a coal and a flame has additional halakhic ramifications: If one uses
a coal of consecrated property
for a non-consecrated purpose, he is liable for
misuse
of consecrated property…
Beitzah 39a:4
And
Rabbi Yoḥanan
said to him
in response:
You do not have a matter
of an invalid sprinkling
that renders
the remaining blood
leftovers except
for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering
beyond its
designated
time or outside its
designated
area.
In these instances it is considered a significant sprinkling,
since
this sprinkling with improper intent
effects acceptance,
i.e., it is considered a valid sprinkling
with regard to
rendering the meat of the offering
piggul
.
…
Meilah 5b:6-6b:8
§ The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the
halakhot
of misuse.
Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear
that one is
liable for misuse
by Torah law
only for
items
consecrated
for
Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason?
The reason is
that the verse states: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord,
then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels…
Meilah 15a:4
It is forbidden for an ordinary person to benefit from articles sanctified unto God, whether they are entities that are offered on the altar or articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. Anyone who derives a
perutah'
worth of benefit from an article sanctified unto God, is considered as having misappropriated a consecrated article. The concept of
me'ilah
, misappropriating consecrated articles, does not apply to sacrificial entities from the sacrifices that are permitted to be eaten, e.g…
Mishneh Torah, Trespass 1-4
§ One of the
halakhot
of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It
was stated
that there is a dispute between
amora’im
with regard to this money: In the case of
one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood
on the altar,
or
who derives benefit from
sacrificial portions,
such as the fats
of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood…
Meilah 9b:5-10a:6
The Sages taught
in a
baraita
:
One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb
or
for his Festival peace-offering
for the fourteenth of Nisan and takes money from them for their share,
the money in his hand
that he took for them
is non-sacred. And one who sells his burnt-offering
or
peace-offerings
to another person
has not done anything;
the sale is completely invalid,
and any money
he receives for the transaction
should go
to the Temple fund to be used
for
the purchase of public
free-will offerings
…
Pesachim 89b:14
MISHNA:
If
the handful became ritually impure and
despite this the priest
sacrificed it, the frontplate
worn by the High Priest
effects acceptance
of the meal offering, and the remainder is eaten by the priests. If the handful
left
its designated area
and
despite this the priest then
sacrificed it, the frontplate does not effect acceptance.
The reason is
that the frontplate effects acceptance for
offerings sacrificed when
ritually impure and does not effect acceptance for
offerings
that leave
their designated areas…
Menachot 25a:1
Rava raises
another
dilemma:
According to Rabbi Yosei, if one
consecrated a limb
with the intention of selling it and purchasing an offering with
its payment, what is
the
halakha
as
to
whether the entire animal
is imbued with inherent sanctity? Does
one
say
that
since it is imbued with sanctity
that inheres in its
value, it is likewise imbued with inherent sanctity, and
then furthermore, from the fact
that he consecrated one limb he has consecrated the entire
animal?
Or perhaps
one
says
a claim using the…
Temurah 11b:12
And it is taught
in a
baraita
in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working
these uncertain animal firstborns, they are
forbidden,
just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the
tanna
of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.
Nedarim 19a:3
When
on his way to Kafrei, Rabba
came to
the city of
Sura
and related the incident to the Sages there.
Rav Hamnuna said to him:
The resolution to your dilemma
is
found in the following
mishna
(
Teharot
4:12): If there is
uncertainty
with regard to
firstborns, whether a human firstborn or an animal firstborn, whether
with regard to
kosher
animals
or non-kosher
animals, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey,
the burden of proof rests upon the claimant…
Bava Metzia 6b:2
MISHNA:
One is
liable for
misusing a bird burnt offering from
the moment
that it was consecrated.
When the nape of its neck
was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification
for sacrifice
through
contact with
one who immersed
in a ritual bath
that day, and through
contact with
one who has not yet
brought
an atonement
offering,
and through
its blood being
left overnight.
Once
its blood was squeezed out, one is liable
to receive
karet
for
eating
it…
Meilah 9a:7-16
The Gemara explains: The
halakha
with regard to such animals is
that initially,
when they are unblemished,
they are subject
to the
halakhot
of
misuse,
i.e., if one benefited from them he has misused consecrated items.
And
likewise
shearing
them and performing
labor
with them
is prohibited.
Once these animals have developed a blemish and
one has redeemed them,
the prohibition against
misuse
of consecrated items
does not apply to them…
Kiddushin 13b:14
§ The mishna teaches that
consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect on all
items. This emphasis indicates that it takes effect even on items that one might otherwise have thought are not consecrated. The Gemara asks:
What
does the mishna mean
to add
by this emphasis?
Ravina said:
It means
to add shavings and fallen leaves
of a tree that was consecrated for Temple maintenance. The mishna further teaches that
one
is liable for
misuse
of items consecrated for Temple maintenance and for
their by-products…
Temurah 31b:18-21
Laws of Worship of God
דיני עבודת השם
Definition and Prohibition of Idolatry
Laws of Objects of Foreign Worship
Laws of Dissociation from Idolatry and its Worshippers
Gentile Practices of the Body and Clothing
Laws of the Shekel-coin Contribution
Laws of Gifts to the Priesthood
Additional Gifts to the Priesthood
Laws of Temple Workers
Laws of Building the Temple and its Furnishings
The Temple Building
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
