## Meilah Daf 12a

###### Meilah 12a:1
[Meilah 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:1)

מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that the ashes of **the external altar** are subject to misuse, **as it is written in** the context of those ashes: **“And he shall put it beside the altar”** (Leviticus 6:3). This teaches that these ashes must be interred, despite the fact that their mitzva has been performed by its removal, and therefore they are subject to misuse. But **from where do we** derive that the ashes of **the inner altar** are also subject to misuse?


###### Meilah 12a:2
[Meilah 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ״ – אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said** in response: It is derived from the fact **that the verse states** with regard to a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering: **“And he shall take away its crop with its feathers,** and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes” (Leviticus 1:16), referring to the location for the placement of the removed ashes. **If** this verse **is not needed for** the **matter of the external altar,** as that *halakha* is already derived from the phrase: “And he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), **apply it** to the **matter of** the ashes of **the inner altar,** teaching that these ashes must also be placed there.


###### Meilah 12a:3
[Meilah 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:3)

אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְלִקְבּוֹעַ לוֹ מָקוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this conclusion: One can **say** that **this and that,** i.e., both verses cited above, are stated **with regard to** the ashes that are on **the external altar, and** the additional verse is necessary **to fix its place,** i.e., that it should be put on the east part, which is mentioned only in Leviticus 1:16. If so, there is no source for the placement of the ashes of the inner altar.


###### Meilah 12a:4
[Meilah 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:4)

אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. מַאי ״הַדָּשֶׁן״? דַּאֲפִילּוּ מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** that both verses are referring to the external altar, and the sole purpose of Leviticus 1:16 is to fix its place, **let** that **verse** merely **state:** “And he shall take away its crop with its feathers and cast it **beside the altar,”** and it would be understood that the two verses are referring to the same place, as the identical phrase “beside the altar” appears in the other verse. **What** is the reason for the additional phrase “in the place of **the ashes”?** It teaches **that even** the ashes of the **inner altar** are placed there.


###### Meilah 12a:5
[Meilah 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:5)

מְנוֹרָה מְנָלַן? ״דָּשֶׁן״, ״הַדָּשֶׁן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the ashes of the **Candelabrum** are also placed to the east of the altar? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the definite article in: “The ashes,” as the verse could have said **“ashes”** and instead it said **“the ashes.”** This addition serves to include the ashes of the Candelabrum.


###### Meilah 12a:6
[Meilah 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The previous mishna teaches that one may not derive benefit from doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived and from pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, but one who derived benefit from them is not liable for their misuse. **Rabbi Shimon** disagrees with this ruling and **says:** With regard to **doves whose time** of fitness for sacrifice **has not arrived,** one is liable for **misusing them.** With regard to **pigeons whose time** of fitness for sacrifice **has passed,** one **may not derive benefit** *ab initio*, **but** if one derived benefit from them he is **not** liable for their **misuse.**


###### Meilah 12a:7
[Meilah 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְאַחַר זְמַן, וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** This and the preceding mishna indicate that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to whether or not doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived are subject to misuse. The Gemara clarifies their opinions: **Granted,** one can understand the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as** he himself **teaches** his **reason** in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 112b). **As Rabbi Shimon would say:** In the case of **any** sacrificial animal **that is fit to** be sacrificed **after** the passage of **time,** e.g., doves that will be fit for sacrifice when they mature, if **one consecrated it before its time** of fitness and slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard, **that** person is **in** violation of **a prohibition but there is no** liability to receive ***karet* for it.**


###### Meilah 12a:8
[Meilah 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:8)

אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן: מַאי שְׁנָא מִמְּחוּסַּר זְמַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** according to the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived are not subject to misuse, in **what** way **is** this case **different from** an animal **whose time has not yet** arrived, and yet it can be consecrated? An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed together with the other animals (see *Bekhorot* 56a). Why is the case of the young doves any different?


###### Meilah 12a:9
[Meilah 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:9)

אָמְרִי: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבַּעַל מוּם, דְּבַר פִּדְיוֹן הוּא. אֲבָל הָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּאֵין מוּם פּוֹסֵל בְּעוֹפוֹת – אֵין לָעוֹפוֹת פִּדְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis would **say** in response that the cases are not comparable. An animal **whose time has not yet** arrived can indeed be consecrated, **just as is** the *halakha* **with regard to a blemished** animal, **which** can be consecrated, although only to the degree **that** it **is subject to redemption. But** in the case of **these birds, since a blemish does not render birds unfit, there is no** possibility of **redemption for** blemished **birds.** Therefore, one cannot compare the case of animal, which is subject to redemption, to the case of a bird whose time has not yet arrived.


###### Meilah 12a:10
[Meilah 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:10)

אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ, יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial** animals **that died** without being sacrificed **are excluded from** the *halakhot* of **misuse by Torah law.** This is because they are no longer fit to be sacrificed, and therefore are no longer in the category of: “The sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). They cannot be redeemed either, since one may not redeem sacrificial animals merely in order to feed them to the dogs.


###### Meilah 12a:11
[Meilah 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:11)

יָתֵיב עוּלָּא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן שָׁמַע לָךְ וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבָּךְ?! וְכִי קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Ulla was sitting** in the study hall **and he recited this *halakha*** in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. **Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher,** with regard to this opinion, that such offerings are not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law? After all, **to where has** the **sanctity that was** inherent **in them** until they died **gone?**


###### Meilah 12a:12
[Meilah 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיקְשֵׁי מַתְנִיתִין: ״תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין״, הָכָא נָמֵי נֵימָא: קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said to** Rav Ḥisda: According to your reasoning, **the mishna** itself **should present a difficulty,** as it teaches: 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. Here too,** one can **say: To where has** the **sanctity that was** inherent **in** the pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed **gone?** Why are they no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse?


###### Meilah 12a:13
[Meilah 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ דְּאִיכָּא מְעִילָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וְקַשְׁיָא לִי: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא אִית בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף אִית בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to** Ulla in response: I agree that both the sacrificial animals that died and the pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed are not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law. **I** also **concede to you that** in the case of sacrificial animals that died and doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived **there is** a prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property **by rabbinic law.** Accordingly, I am no longer troubled by the question of where the sanctity has gone. **But** there is another matter that is **difficult for me: Is there anything where initially,** when it was consecrated, it is **not subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse, and ultimately** it is **subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse** by rabbinic law, such as these doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived?


###### Meilah 12a:14
[Meilah 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:14)

וְלָא? וְהָא אִיכָּא דָּם, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לֵית בַּהּ מְעִילָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה, דִּתְנַן: דָּם, בַּתְּחִלָּה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, יָצָא לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it so that there is **no** instance of an item that is initially not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, and in the end is subject to the *halakhot* of misuse? **But there is** the case of **blood, which initially** is **not subject** to the *halakhot* of **misuse, and ultimately** it is **subject** to the *halakhot* of **misuse. As we learned** in the mishna (11a): With regard to **blood, at** its **outset,** before it is sprinkled on the altar, one is **not** liable for **misusing it,** but once 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.**


###### Meilah 12a:15
[Meilah 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/12a:15)

אָמְרִי: הָתָם נָמֵי אִיכָּא מְעִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: This is not a proof, as **there too,** in the case of blood **it is** subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse initially.**