Me`ilah - Chapter 5

See Halachah 13. The consecrated animal should be redeemed, the money given to the Temple treasury, and the animal itself should be offered as a sacrifice. See Hilchot Arachin 5:5.

In this instance, the article should be redeemed and sold. An appropriate animal should then be purchased with the proceeds.

Here, also, the article should be redeemed and an article fit for the appropriate purpose should be acquired.

See Halachah 13.

See Halachah 5.

The latter term excludes animals that are fit to be offered that were consecrated as sacrifices. They may not be redeemed.

The minimum worth of benefit for which one is liable.

This represents a stringency relevant to me’ilah over other prohibitions. With regard to other prohibitions, if there is an interval longer than the time it talces to eat a large portion of bread (loch k’dei achilat p’ras) between them, eating on two separate occasions cannot be combined. With regard to me’ilah, one is liable despite the interval as stated above. See Hilchot Shegagot 9:9.

He remains unaware that he derived benefit from a consecrated article from the first time until the second. If he becomes aware, different laws apply.

Me’ilah 18b derives this concept through techniques of Biblical exegesis.

This term implies that even though he is not held liable, he is forbidden to do so.

Thus separated the earth from the field.

E. g., he took a clod of earth and broke it into small pieces and thus reduced its value. If, however, he does not cause damage, he is not liable. See Chapter 6 for an explanation of this idea.

The Kessel Mishneh interprets the Rambam’s words as meaning “the dust of the field benefits the crops threshed there.” Some indeed maintain there is a printing error in the standard text of the Mishneh Torah. They maintain that instead of sadeh, “field,” the text should read dishah, “threshing.” Rav Yosef Corcus, however, justifies the present version.

He is not liable for deriving benefit, because these objects are attached to the ground. Deriving such benefit is, however, forbidden (Tosefta, Me’ilah 1:12).

The Kessel Mishneh notes that in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:4, the Rambam rules that one who bows down to a building that is already constructed causes it to be forbidden. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily represent a contradiction to these rulings, because the laws applying to the worship of false deities are more stringent.

Chapter 6, Halachah 8; see also Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

Which would rot and be used as fertilizer.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Meilah 3:6), the Rambam explains that these three examples represent an entity fit for sacrifice on the altar (doves), an entity fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple (water, which when mixed with clay produces mortar), and an entity (wastes) that is not fit for either of these purposes.

But instead, had their origin in outside sources (ibid.). See Rav Kappach’s notes to the Commentary of the Mishnah, which explain that the Rambam reversed his thinking regarding this issue. Originally, he followed the view that the prohibition against me’ilah applies in such instances. Afterwards, he changed his position and accepted the opinion that it does not apply.

See Hilchot Shekalim 2:4; 4:8.

Even though underground, the stream flows through the field.

The prohibition does not apply, because such wood is not usually sold and benefit is not usually derived from it.
The Ra’avad follows a different interpretation of that mishnah and hence, does not accept the Rambam’s ruling.

Bava Batra 26b explains that when roots are less than sixteen cubits from the base of a tree, they derive their nurture from the tree. If they are more than sixteen cubits away, the nurture from the tree is minimal and the majority of the nurture is derived from the land. Hence, if the land is consecrated, the roots are considered as the products of consecrated property.

According to the principle explained in the previous note, in such an instance, the roots would not be considered the direct products of the consecrated tree. Nevertheless, since they come from that tree, certain stringencies are in place.

We assume that the fowl took the wood from another tree and not from the consecrated tree [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 3:9)].

Since the eggs and the chicks require the consecrated tree, they are deriving a certain benefit from the tree and therefore it is forbidden to benefit from them. Alternatively, were one permitted to derive benefit from the eggs or chicks, there would be reason to suspect one would climb the consecrated tree and thus benefit from it. Hence, we forbid benefiting from the chicks and eggs (Rav Yosef Corcus).

When the donor consecrated the forest, he consecrated everything that it contains including the nests (ibid.).

The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation, stating that the term refers to leaves that fall that are useful as fertilizer. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 3:9) where he elaborates, explaining that the term refers to a patch in a piece of wood at a point where a branch or stem formerly grew out of the tree.

I.e., since these entities are of little actual value, the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to them.

The reason that the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to servants is that, as in many other halachic contexts, servants are equated with landed property. As stated in Halachah 5, the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to land.

The rationale is that the growth of the new produce is not dependent on the seed alone, but also on the land. Since there are two factors involved and one is permitted, the prohibition does not apply. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumot 11:21; see also Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 6:15.

Needless to say, he must make restitution for the consecrated produce he used and add an additional fifth.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the rationale is that since this produce came from consecrated property that was not redeemed, it cannot be used to pay for the misappropriation of other consecrated property.

Challah is required to be separated only from ordinary dough, not from dough that is consecrated, as stated in Hilchot Bikkurim 6:1-4.
Similarly, he is obligated to separate terumah and the tithes. The Rambam mentions challah, because he is using the wording of his source, the Tosefta, Terumot 8:2.

After wine has been made from crushed grapes, there is still a certain residue of flavor in the dregs. Therefore it was common to pour water over the dregs and let the mixture stand. The water would then receive some of the flavor of the grapes. After the water was drained off and used as a beverage, the process would be repeated. The Rambam is stating that for the first three times that this process is performed, there is a sufficient amount of the grape residue left to prohibit making use of it. In his gloss to Bava Basra 97a, the Rashbam emphasizes that this law applies only when the final product is not one third larger than the amount of water added. If, however, it increased to that extent, it is considered as wine and forbidden (see Hilchot Berachot 8:9).
See also similar, but not identical concepts in Hilchot Terumot 11:13; Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:12; and Hilchot Tuma’at Ochalin 13:17.

For the entire prohibition is a Rabbinic safeguard (Bava Batra, loc. cit.).

More stringent laws are always applied to articles consecrated to the altar.

The hen is not fit to be sacrificed. It must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal from a species that can be offered as a sacrifice.

For they are produced by an entity that is consecrated. Hence, they are also considered as consecrated property.

If the doves are unblemished, this is forbidden. For an animal that is fit to be sacrificed should be consecrated for that purpose alone. Were the doves to be consecrated for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah would not apply to the eggs.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

And thus will no longer be used for Temple service. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:6 which states that the worn out gannents were used to make wicks for the Menorah.

As explained in the notes to Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:11, the priestly garments were consecrated with the stipulation that the priests would derive personal benefit from them. Hence the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this issue between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 45a. Although Eruvin 45b states that in such a situation the halachah should follow Rabbi Yossi’s view, in this situation, the Rambam accepts Rabbi Shimon’s view because it is mentioned in Arachin Sb without qualification.

Thus excluding gentiles. The commentaries note that the Talmud (Zevachim 45a) and the Sifra derives this concept from other sources and question the source for the Rambam’s method of exegesis.

One derived satisfaction from the sound of the Levites’ melodies and chanting (Rav Yosef Corcus).

One took pleasure in the beauty of the Temple (ibid.). The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sound and appearance, because they are without substance.

Because then its mitzvah is completed and once a mitzvah is completed, the prohibition against me'ilah never applies.