Mishnah Meilah

1 The most holy sacrifices that were slaughtered on the south side of the altar, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or slaughtered on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and their blood sprinkled during the night or slaughtered during the night and their blood sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered with the intention of eating the flesh beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. Rabbi Joshua gave a general rule: whatever was at some point permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever was never permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. What was at some point permitted to the priests? Sacrifices which remained overnight or became impure or were taken out of the Temple Court. What was never permitted to the priests? Sacrifices that were slaughtered with the intention of eating its flesh beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or the blood of which was received by disqualified people and they sprinkled it.

2 If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out of the Temple court before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of transgressing with it the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of transgressing with it the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and later the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, do you not agree that just as the sprinkling of the blood of the one exempts its own flesh from the laws of sacrilege so it exempts the flesh of the other one? If the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

3 If the innards of sacrifices that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out of the Temple court before the blood was sprinkled. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of transgressing with them the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of transgressing with them the laws of notar, piggul and defilement.

4 The act of sprinkling the blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a strict effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a strict effect. How does this work? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh. After the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh. For both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. So with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a strict effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a strict effect. How does this work? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh. After the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh. For both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. So with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a strict effect.

1 The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication. Once its neck has been pinched, it can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

2 The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication. Once its neck has been pinched, it can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been squeezed out onto the walls of the altar it is subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege applies to it until the ashes have been removed from the altar to the place of the ashes.

3 The law of sacrilege applies to the bulls which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered, they can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes as long as the flesh has not been charred.

4 The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication. When it is slaughtered, it can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to its flesh until the ashes have been removed from the altar to the place of the ashes.

5 The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, the asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered, they can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

6 The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication. Once they have formed a crust in the oven they can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the festival offerings can then be slaughtered. Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled the loaves are subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.

7 The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication. Once it has formed a crust in the oven it can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged on the table of the Sanctuary. Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

8 The law of sacrilege applies to menahot grain offerings from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel of service they can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once the handful has been offered they are subject to the law of piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.

9 The law of sacrilege applies to the handful of a minhah, the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they can be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to the laws of notar and defilement, but the law of piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else that makes it permissible for the altar or for the use of the priests is not subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else that makes it permissible becomes subject to the laws of notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

1 The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. If a hatat has passed its first year or was lost and found blemished, and the owners obtained atonement later, through another animal, it is left to die, and it does not make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

2 If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money for his nazirite offerings, unspecified money must go to the fund for voluntary offerings. If the money was specified: The money designated for the hatats must be taken to the Dead Sea. It may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they must bring an olah. The law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they must bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

3 Rabbi Ishmael says: the law relating to blood is lenient at the beginning before it is offered and strict at the end. the law relating to libations is strict at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they have flowed down into the shitin.

4 The ashes of the inner altar and of the wicks of the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtledoves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon said: turtledoves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.

5 The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of consecrated turtledoves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege. When does this apply? To things dedicated for the altar. But for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or if one dedicated a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege.

6 Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege. How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dovecote full of pigeons, a tree full of fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dovecote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it later bore fruit or a field and it later produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property. The young of cattle set aside as tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others may make donations for this purpose. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others may make donations for this purpose. Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, and a cow may not eat the vetch belonging to the Temple.

7 If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them. The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. When it has left the field it may be used. The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege. The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.

8 One may not derive benefit from a nest built on top of a dedicated tree, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. A nest on top of an asherah, one flicks it off with a reed. If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it. If the treasurers of the Temple bought trees, the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege but not the chips and not the fallen leaves.

1 Things dedicated for the altar combine with one another with regard to the law of sacrilege, and to make one liable for them for the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. Things dedicated for Temple repair combine with one another. Things dedicated for the altar combine with things dedicated for Temple repair with regard to the law of sacrilege.

2 Five things in an olah combine with one another: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine and the oil. And six in a todah: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil and the bread. Terumah, terumah of the tithe, terumah of the tithe separated from demai, hallah and firstfruits combine with one another to make up the size required to make other things forbidden and to be liable for the payment of a fifth.

3 All kinds of piggul can combine with one another and all kinds of notar can combine with one another. All kinds of carrion can combine with one another. All kinds of sheratzim can combine with one another. The blood of a sheretz and its flesh can combine with one another. Rabbi Joshua gave a general rule: all things that are alike both in terms of duration of impurity and in terms of their minimum measure can combine with one another. Things that are alike in terms of duration of impurity but not in terms of minimum measure, in terms of minimum measure but not in terms of duration of impurity, or if they are alike neither in terms of duration of impurity nor in terms of measure, cannot combine with one another.

4 Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they belong to two different categories. Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to cause impurity, not even in terms of the more lenient of the two grades of defilement. Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to cause impurity according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.

5 All kinds of food can combine with one another: To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit, to make up the food for two meals to form an eruv, to make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food, to make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat, and the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter of a log in order to render the body unfit, to make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

6 Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine. Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, and leather and matting combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason? Because these are all susceptible to the impurity caused by sitting.

1 If someone derived a perutah’s worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate through use, the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has deteriorated. And anything that does not deteriorate through use, the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he benefited from it. How is this so? If a woman put a necklace around her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it to the value of a perutah. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or chopped wood with an ax, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if those objects have deteriorated. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If he did so after it died, he is liable as soon as he benefited from it.

2 If one derived half a perutah’s worth of benefit and impaired the value of the used article by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah’s worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he has not committed sacrilege, until he benefits by a perutah’s worth and reduces the same thing’s value by a perutah.

3 One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and sacred vessels. How so? If one rode on an animal and then another person came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it. Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another person came and drank and yet another came and drank. Or if one plucked wool of a hatat, then another person came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has already been committed with it.

4 If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his friend is not guilty. If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives under it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah. If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his friend is not guilty. If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “The bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.”

5 The portion a person has eaten himself and what he has given his friend to eat, or the portion he has used himself and what he has given to his friend to use, or the portion he has eaten himself and what he has given his friend to use, or the portion he has used himself and what he has given his friend to eat can combine with one another even after a long time.

1 If an agent has carried out his instructions, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his instructions, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. How so? If he the employer said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “Give liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. If he the employer said to him, “Bring me something from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him from one of these places even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.

2 One who has sent a deaf person who cannot speak, a mentally incompetent person or a minor: If they carried out their instructions the employer is guilty. If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty. If one sent someone legally competent and remembers that the money belongs to Temple property before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it. What should he do? He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this.” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money’s worth.

3 If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Buy me lamps for half a perutah and wicks for the other half,” and he went and bought wicks for the whole perutah or lamps for the whole perutah. Or if he said to him, “Spend it all on lamps or all on wicks,” and he went and bought lamps for half a perutah and wicks for the other half, neither is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Buy lamps for half a perutah from one place and wicks for half a perutah from another,” and he went and bought the lamps from the place where the wicks were to be bought and the wicks from the place where the lamps were to be bought, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.

4 If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Buy me an etrog with them,” and he bought an etrog for one perutah and a pomegranate for the other, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he bought him a shirt for three silver selas and a cloak for the other three, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

5 One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it. And therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege. If the money was deposited with a private person, he may not use it in either case, and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a moneychanger.

6 If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag is dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag is dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending and is liable only when he has spent all that was in the bag.