Me`ilah - Chapter 1

Monies and materials were often consecrated for the improvement of the Temple.

A perutah is a small copper coin of minimal value. Anything less is not considered as financially significant in most halachic contexts. See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which deals with this subject.

Offered on Shavuot.

Who is not permitted to partake of these substances.

The prohibition against misappropriating consecrated articles is derived from Leviticus 5:14-16. These verses speak about misappropriating entities “consecrated unto God.” Since the sacrificial entities mentioned in this halachah may be eaten by man, they are not included in this category.

For example, sacrificial meat that was kept overnight or which became impure (Me’ilah 1:1).

Implied by the Rambam’s words - and stated explicitly in his source, Me’ilah, op. cit. - is that if there was no time when a sacrifice was permitted to be eaten, the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated objects does apply to it.

I.e., the process for receiving atonement for misappropriating consecrated articles is stated in the passage from Leviticus cited above. Nevertheless, that passage does not contain a charge explicitly forbidding such an activity. The Rambam is pointing out the source for such a charge in the Torah. The R’avad differs and cites another verse. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s approach.

I.e., all of the meat of the animal is offered on the altar’s pyre.

In Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 1:11 and Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:9, the Rambam rules that there is never an instance when a person receives lashes and is also liable financially. Thus, if the person transgressed voluntarily and is liable for lashes, he is freed of financial responsibility. If, however, he is not liable for lashes, e.g., he was not given a warning, he must make financial restitution (Har HaMoriah, based on Ketubot 32b, 34b)

I.e., one fifth of the new total, as stated in Halachah 5. If the object was worth four zuzim, he must bring five.

The obligation to bring this guilt-offering is also mentioned in Hilchot Shegagot 9:8.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 118) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 127) count the process for receiving atonement for prohibition against misappropriating consecrated articles as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam does not speak of bringing the guilt-offering as part of this mitzvah.

Bava Kama 111a.

I.e., the guilt-offering.

The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam’s wording does not follow the wording of his apparent source, Bava Kama, op. cit. Nevertheless, the difference between the two is merely semantic. Both agree on the halachic ramifications (Rav Yosef Corcus). See also the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:13.

There is a difference of opinion in the Mishnah (Keritot 5:2) concerning whether one is obligated to bring a conditional guilt-offering when he is in doubt whether he violated one of these trangressions. The Rambam accepts the opinion of the Sages who maintain that one is liable for a conditional guilt-offering only when he is in doubt whether he violated a transgression for which he would be liable for a sin-offering.

Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Terumo! 10:26; Hilchot Ma’aserot 5:1. See also Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5.

Several of these articles are mentioned in the third chapter of the tractate of Me’ilah.

For this is required only when the transgression is of Scriptural origin.

With regard to animals consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, see Halachah 12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 113-114) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 483-484) include these two commandments among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., needless to say one is liable for working with an ox and shearing a sheep. The Rambam (based on Bechorot 25a) is emphasizing that even when one performs an activity that provides little benefit, one can be liable.

See Halachah 10.

See the notes to Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:12 which cites the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4) which differentiates between “the width of a sit” and “the full length of a sit.” As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:7, “the width of a sit” is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three handbreadths.

See Hilchot Shabbat, op. cit..

For lashes are not given unless a prohibition has definitely been violated.

Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 1:10.

I.e., even though it was redeemed, it does not become ordinary property entirely.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach, op. cit., it is actually forbidden to consecrate such an animal as a sacrifice. According to Scriptural Law, the sanctity of a sacrificial animal is not imparted to it. See also the conclusion of Chapter 2 which focuses on an apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s rulings.

This leniency is granted because, as stated above, the sanctity of a sacrificial animal was never imparted to them.

Their consecration is not dependent on man’s activity, but comes from above, as it were.

For this is considered as benefiting from the animal which, like performing work, is forbidden. There is an added forbidden dimension to mating such an animal. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Kilayim 9:11: “When an animal has been sanctified, but disqualified [due to a blemish, and then redeemed] even though it is one animal, the Torah considers it as two bodies.... Accordingly, a person who... mates such an ox is liable for lashes because of the prohibition against [mating] mixed species.”

One may not, however, use a shearing tool, lest it appear that he is shearing [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 3:3; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 308:3)].

When an animal contracts a physical blemish, an expert must be consulted to determine whether the blemish is permanent in nature. The hair may be removed to clear the area so that he will be able to see the blemish without any impediment.

This refers to an animal consecrated as a peace-offering or a thanksgiving-offering. The other types of offerings are mentioned in the continuation of the halachah. As evident from the conclusion of the halachah, we are speaking about hair that fell off or was removed before the animal contracted a blemish.

When an animal contracts a physical blemish, an expert must be consulted to determine whether the blemish is permanent in nature. The hair may be removed to clear the area so that he will be able to see the blemish without any impediment. The removal of the hair is permitted even as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah].

Hence the owner will be in no rush to offer it.

For it can be assumed that they will hasten to bring the sacrifice to attain atonement

Bechorot 24b debates this matter without reaching a resolution. On one hand, the primary reason for bringing a burnt-offering is not to attain atonement. Nevertheless, this sacrifice is the means to attain atonement for failing to observe a positive commandment.

If, however, it was pulled off intentionally, it is forbidden to benefit from it.

For the bodies of these sacrificial animals are consecrated even after they have contracted a disqualifying blemish.

But not cut off with a utensil (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

But instead, leaves it hanging with the animal’s other wool, so that it will not appear that he is making a blemish on the animal (Rashi, Bechorot 24b).

The punishment given for violating the decrees of our Sages.

Since the mother was not consecrated, there is no prohibition in benefiting from it. The only difficulty is benefiting from the fetus that was consecrated.

Temurah 11b.

It is acceptable by all that these activities may not be performed with the limb that was consecrated.

Nevertheless, as an initial preference, it is forbidden to perform either of these activities.