## Meilah Daf 15a

###### Meilah 15a:1
[Meilah 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:1)

**קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ**, מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** All items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar join together** to constitute the measure with regard to liability **for misuse** of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one *peruta*. **And** they join together **to** constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one **liable due to** violation of the prohibitions of ***piggul*, or *notar*, or** partaking of the item while **ritually impure.** All items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance join together** to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. **Both** items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar and** items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance join together** to constitute the measure with regard to liability **for misuse.**


###### Meilah 15a:2
[Meilah 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת״ דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה״. ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ עִם קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Now** that **one says that** the mishna **teaches** in the latter clause: **Both** items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar and** items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance** join together, which is a case **where this** one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have **inherent sanctity and that** one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have **sanctity** that inheres in its **value,** and **even so** the mishna **teaches** that they **join together for misuse,** if so, **is** it **necessary** for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar** join together **with** other items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar?**


###### Meilah 15a:3
[Meilah 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:3)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ ״לְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא״, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לָא אִיכָּא הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא פְּלִיג לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the *tanna* to teach the first clause, **because he teaches with regard to** that case: They join together **to** render one **liable due to** violation of the prohibitions of ***piggul*, or *notar*, or** of partaking of the item while **ritually impure.** With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, **as these** *halakhot* **do not** apply to items consecrated for **Temple maintenance.** The concepts of *piggul*, *notar*, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is **due to that** reason that the *tanna* **divides** the first clause from the latter clause.


###### Meilah 15a:4
[Meilah 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְחַוַּורְתָּא, אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה אֶלָּא עַל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת וְעוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִּמְעֹל מַעַל מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:15).


###### Meilah 15a:5
[Meilah 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:5)

קֳדָשִׁים הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳ – יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִית בְּהוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאִית בְּהוּ לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those **consecrated** items **that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse; but** with regard to items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar,** e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they **have** a portion that belongs **to the priests and** other items such as peace offerings also **have** a portion that belongs **to the owners,** they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the *halakhot* of misuse do not apply.


###### Meilah 15a:6
[Meilah 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:6)

תְּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. **We learned** in the mishna: All items **consecrated** to be sacrificed on the **altar join together** to constitute the measure with regard to liability **for misuse,** which is deriving benefit worth one *peruta*. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies **by rabbinic law.**


###### Meilah 15a:7
[Meilah 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:7)

קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of **offerings of the most sacred order that** were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if **one slaughtered them in the south** of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for **misusing them.** Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition **by rabbinic law.**


###### Meilah 15a:8
[Meilah 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:8)

תְּנַן: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מָעַל! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. **We learned** in a mishna (18a): **One who derives benefit from** a blemished **sin offering while it is alive has not** violated the prohibition of **misuse until he** causes one *peruta* worth of **depletion** of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But **when it is dead** it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore **once he derives** one *peruta* worth of **benefit** from a dead sin offering **he is liable for misuse.** The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition **by rabbinic law.**


###### Meilah 15a:9
[Meilah 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:9)

וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And by Torah law** is there **no** liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; **all the fat is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 3:16). The term “all” serves **to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity** as subject **to** the *halakhot* of **misuse.** This is a source from the Torah for the *halakha* that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.


###### Meilah 15a:10
[Meilah 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:10)

מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וְהָא קְרָא קָא נָסֵיב לַהּ! אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition **by rabbinic law.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** the *tanna* **cites a verse** as the source for this *halakha*, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is **a mere support,** but it is not the actual source for the *halakha*.


###### Meilah 15a:11
[Meilah 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:11)

וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֲפִילּוּ כִּי מֵתוּ נָמֵי, לָא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ אַשְׁפָּה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, לָאו אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t Ulla say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Sacrificial** animals **that died** without being sacrificed **are excluded from** the potential **of misuse by Torah law?** The Gemara clarifies the objection: **To what** is Rabbi Yoḥanan referring? **If we say** that he is referring **to** items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance,** then **even when they are dead** they are also subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, as even if you say that this can **be** considered **only** like a case **where one consecrated a garbage** heap **to** the **Temple maintenance, isn’t that** also **subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property?


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

אֶלָּא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! מִי אִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan must be referring to dead animals that had been **consecrated** for sacrifice on the **altar,** and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse **by Torah law.** The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, **are** animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar **subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse** by Torah law?


###### Meilah 15a:13
[Meilah 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/15a:13)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָא אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מֵהַאי קְרָא קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לָא שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannai’s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse by Torah law. As **the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse:** “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15), **we learn** that items **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance** are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. But **we do not learn** from this verse that animals consecrated for the **altar** are subject to the *halakhot* of misuse. Instead, that *halakha* is derived from the verse: “And if a man eat of the sacred items through error” (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): “All the fat is the Lord’s.”