Me`ilah - Chapter 2

The Mishneh LiMelech emphasizes that even though the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply, it is forbidden to benefit from these sacrifices according to Scriptural Law.

I.e., even after the sacrificial animals were reduced to ash, the prohibition against me’ilah applies to their ashes until the ashes are removed from the altar. Once they are taken to the ashheap, the mitzvah associated with them is completed and the prohibition against me’ilah no longer applies [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 2:4)].

Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

In which instance, they should never be taken down from the altar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:12).

In which instance, the meat is still acceptable to a certain degree (see ibid. 1:32).

As in the case of the meat of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, to which the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply once the blood has been cast on the altar.

As in the instance of the fats and organs mentioned in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh).

All of the entities mentioned in this halachah are burnt entirely on the altar.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16; Hilchat Shegagot 12:1.

We have strayed from the literal translation of the term used by the Rambam (borrowed from Me’ilah 2:3). In his commentary to that Mishnah, he explains that the root of the Hebrew term is toch, meaning “inside” or “hollow.” The intent is that the meat be consumed by the flames “until it is hollow..., i.e., like a sponge. This occurs to the meat after its burning is completed.”

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, for the prohibition against me'ilah also applies to articles consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
He explains that it is possible to explain that the intent is that a red heifer is neither consecrated to the altar, nor dedicated to the improvement of the Temple. Hence, one might think that the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to it.

And thus the prohibition against me’ilah does apply to it.

Menachot 51b-52a [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:7)] explains that according to Scriptural Law, the prohibition against me’ilah applies only to the flesh of the red heifer, but not to its ashes.
Originally, the Sages saw that the ashes were not being given the proper respect (the priests would apply them to their wounds). Hence, they ordained that the prohibition should also apply to them.
Nevertheless, afterwards, because of this ordinance, the people would refrain from having the ashes sprinkled upon them unless they were definitely impure. The proliferation of instances of questionable impurity created difficulties. Hence, they rescinded their decree and returned the issue to its Scriptural status.

Menachot 51b-52a [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:7)] explains that according to Scriptural Law, the prohibition against me’ilah applies only to the flesh of the red heifer, but not to its ashes. Originally, the Sages saw that the ashes were not being given the proper respect (the priests would apply them to their wounds). Hence, they ordained that the prohibition should also apply to them. Nevertheless, afterwards, because of this ordinance, the people would refrain from having the ashes sprinkled upon them unless they were definitely impure. The proliferation of instances of questionable impurity created difficulties. Hence, they rescinded their decree and returned the issue to its Scriptural status.

See Halachah 2.

The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 14:7).

They should be buried (Kessef Mishneh).

At which time, their consecration takes on a different level of severity (see Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 13:12).

This is equivalent to offering the blood of an animal sacrifice.

And at that time, the prohibition of me’ilah no longer applies.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:20.

As discussed in Menachot 12a. The Sages there speak of an offering whose substance has been reduced. The Rambam, however, concludes that the same difference of opinion would apply in all situations where the meal-offering was disqualified. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 9, where an apparent contradiction to this ruling is raised and a resolution is offered.

For this offering, this is equivalent to offering the blood of an animal sacrifice.

As explained in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11, the term refers to “two holes in the southwest corner [of the Altar], resembling two thin nostrils.”

As stated in Hilchot Temidin UMusafin 10:6-7, a golden jug that was not a sacrificial vessel was filled with the water for the libation and left overnight. On the morrow, the water was placed in the pitcher used for the libation.

For it was drawn for a sacrificial purpose.

Since it was not placed in a sacred utensil, it was not consecrated.

Which was a sacred utensil.

I.e., even if the pitcher contains more than the required measure, the prohibition against me’ilah applies to all of the water (Me’ilah 13b).

Tzara’at is a skin affliction resembling, but not analogous to, leprosy that is visited on a person for undesirable speech (see the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at). After a person’s affliction is purified, he must undergo a purification process which includes bringing several sacrifices including a guilt-offering and a log of oil (see Leviticus, ch.14). As stated in Hilchat Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2, after the blood of the guilt-offering is cast on the altar, some of the oil is poured into the hands of a priest and sprinkled seven times toward the Holy of Holies. Then a small amount of the oil is placed on the ear, thumb, and large toe of the person being purified.

For there is still service to be performed with it.

For the primary service permitting the oil has been performed.
Significantly, in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:3, the Rambam writes that one who partakes of the oil before the placements are made is liable for lashes like one who partakes of the sacrifices before their blood was cast on the altar.

By casting the blood on the altar.

A small river outside the Temple Mount, into which the blood poured on the altar would flow through a drainage channel (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11).

The Ra’avad comments on the Rambam’s ruling, stating that from Yoma 59b, it appears that the prohibition against me’ilah is Rabbinic, not Scriptural, in origin. This issue was obviously a matter which the Rambam himself debated at length. As Rav Kappach relates in his notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 3:3), the Rambam changed his commentary to this mishnah several times. Originally, he wrote (and this is the version in the standard printed text of his Commentary): “The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon who maintains that the prohibition against me’ilah applies after atonement.” In his later version, he wrote: “The words of Rabbi Shimon here are correct and there are no conflicting views.” And in his final version, he added: “Perhaps Rabbi Shimon differs with regard to the blood that flowed out to the Kidron River. He maintains that the prohibition against me’ilah applies according to Scriptural Law. The Sages maintain that the prohibition against me’ilah applies only according to Rabbinic Law. Accordingly, the words of Rabbi Shimon would be superseded.” Thus, his final conception concurs with that of the Ra’avad.

As a cure for that animal's illness.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the prohibition against me.’ilah applies only with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order. According to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to benefit from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, but the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply.

I.e., it is not considered as merely an ancillary aspect of the animal, but as part of its substance.

This is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews (Commentary to the Mishnah, Zevachim 3:4).

Even though they are not fit to be eaten.

This refers to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings; i.e., sacrifices of the most sacred order whose meat is eaten afterwards.

Since the bones were separated before the blood was cast on the altar, they should not be offered on the altar afterwards. They are considered as distinct entities and there is no activity that will cause them to be permitted (Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 86a).

Once the blood has been cast on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to any of the portions of the animal that are not offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).

Implied is that before the blood is cast on the altar, the prohibition does apply.

For the bones that are separated before the blood is cast on the altar are not fit to be offered on the altar’s pyre. And the casting of the blood causes them to be permitted like the casting of the blood of a sin-offering causes its meat to be permitted (Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 86a).

And thus were not together with the animal when it was offered on the altar’s pyre.

Since they were separated, they should not be offered on the altar in their own right. Hence they remain forbidden, because there is no further act that will cause them to be permitted.

I.e., because of the heat of the altar, the bones being burnt there fly up in the air and then fall to the ground [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:6)].

The Mishnah (Zevachim, toe. cit.) speaks of limbs that fly off the altar. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam equates bones with limbs. This equation is, however, questioned, because the limbs of a burnt-offering should be returned to the altar. Hence, the prohibition against me’ilah can be applied to them. The bones, however, should not be returned to the altar. Hence, it is questionable why the prohibition against me’ilah should be applied to them. Indeed, the Har HaMoriah maintains that there is a printing error in the text and it should read “the limbs of a burnt-offering.”

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:3.

Me’ilah 9b explains that Zevachim, loc. cit., states that such a coal should not be returned to the altar. Accordingly, the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply. Nevertheless, just as it is forbidden to benefit from the ashes of the altar even after they have been taken out of Jerusalem (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:15), so too, it is forbidden to benefit from such a coal (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Because it has no substance (Rashi, Beitzah 39a).

Generally, we follow the principle that the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply once the mitzvah associated with a particular substance has been completed. Nevertheless, since there is still a mitzvah associated with the ash until it is deposited outside of Jerusalem (see the conclusion of ch. 2 of Hilchot Temidin UMusafin), the prohibition against me’ilah is still relevant. Once it is placed down outside Jerusalem, the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to it. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to benefit from it.

Based on Rashi (Me’ilah 11 b), it appears that this refers to ash once it was removed from the inner altar and the Menorah. While the ash is in these sacred utensils, that prohibition applies. Tosafot and Rav vadiah of Bartenura offer a more stringent view.

This refers to animals in the first week of their lives or an animal whose mother was slaughtered on that day (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:9).

As will be explained in the following chapter.