Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity until the blood has been cast on the altar. If the blood has been cast on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the fats and organs until they are taken to the ash heap, for they are designated for the altar's pyre. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to an entity that is to be eaten, as explained.

Even if the fats and the organs were brought to the altar before the blood was cast upon it, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the fats and the organs were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply until the blood is cast. If the blood was cast while they were outside and they had not been brought back in, the prohibition against me'ilah does apply, for casting the blood has an effect on the status of a sacrifice, whether it leads to a lenient ruling or a stringent one.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sacrifices of the most sacred order from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast upon the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the portions of them that are to be consumed entirely by the altar's pyre until they are burnt and taken to the ash heap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the portions that are to be eaten, as explained.

What is implied? The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a burnt-offering - both of fowl and of an animal, the handful of meal and the frankincense from a meal-offering, a meal-offering of priests, the chavitin offering of the High Priest, and the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings, from the time they were consecrated until they were taken out to the ash heap after being burnt on the altar.

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the bull and the goats that are burnt from the time they were consecrated until they are burnt - and their burning is complete - in the ash heap and their meat is burnt thoroughly, in their entirety. Before it is burnt thoroughly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it even though it is in the ash heap.

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the red heifer from the time it was consecrated until it was reduced to ash. Even though its status is that of an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, concerning it, Numbers 19:9 states: "It is a sin-offering." It is one of the conditions established by the court that a person does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah with the ashes of the red heifer.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the following: sin-offerings of animals, guilt-offerings, and communal peace-offerings from the time they were consecrated until the blood is cast on the altar. Once the blood is cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to their organs and fats until they are taken to the ash heap. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the meat.

Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to a sin-offering of fowl from the time it is consecrated until its blood is presented on the altar. After its blood was presented, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from its murah and its feathers. If one benefits from them after the blood is presented, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to meal-offerings from the time they were consecrated, even though they have not become consecrated by being placed in a sacred utensil, until the handful of meal is offered on the altar's pyre. Once the handful is offered, the remainder of the offering is permitted to be eaten. If the remainder of the offering becomes disqualified or lacking in substance and then the handful is offered, a question arises. Since offering the handful does not cause the remainder to be permitted to be eaten in such a situation, there is an unresolved doubt if the meal-offering is absolved from the prohibition against me'ilah or not.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the showbread from the time it was consecrated - even though it was not baked - until the bowls of frankincense are offered on the altar's pyre. Once the bowls of frankincense were offered, it is permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the two loaves of Shavuot from the time they were consecrated, even before they were baked, until the blood of the sheep is cast on the altar. After the blood of the sheep was cast, they are permitted to be eaten.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the libations once they have been consecrated. Once they are poured and descend to the shittin,the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies.

As long as the water which is poured as a libation on the Sukkot holiday is in the golden jug, benefit should not be derived from it, but one who benefits is not liable for me'ilah. If it was placed in the pitcher, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it in its entirety, for it is one of the libations.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the log of oil brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at from the time that it was consecrated in a sacred vessel until the blood of the guilt offering was cast on the altar. Once the blood of the guilt-offering was cast, one should not benefit from it until the placements are made from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies. After the placements were made, it is permitted for the priests to partake of the remainder of the oil like the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to any of the blood of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered whether before atonement is attained or after atonement is attained until it flows out to the Kidron River. Once it flows out to the Kidron River, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it because it was sold as fertilizer for gardens and the proceeds of the sale are consecrated. If, however, one lets the blood of a consecrated animal, it is forbidden to benefit from that blood and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to it. Since the animal cannot exist without blood, it is considered as its body.

With regard to the bones, the giddim, the horns, and the hoofs which were separated from sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to those separated before the blood was cast on the altar, but not to those which were separated after the blood was cast.

With regard to the bones of a burnt-offering that were separated before the blood was cast on the altar, once the blood is cast, the prohibition no longer applies. The casting of the blood causes them to be permitted. If they were separated after the blood was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them forever.

When the bones of a burnt-offering fly off the altar before midnight, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. After midnight, that prohibition no longer applies even though they flew off before midnight. The rationale is that since midnight arrived, all of the bones are considered as if they have been consumed by fire and as if they have been reduced to ash.

When a coal flies off the altar - whether before midnight or after midnight - it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to a coal that was consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. It is forbidden to benefit from a flame, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to the ashes of the outer altar, both before the ash is removed from the altar and after it was removed.

With regard to the ashes of the inner altar and the ashes of the Menorah, we may not benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

Whenever there is an animal that was consecrated for a sacrifice of the most sacred order that contracted a disqualifying physical blemish - whether the blemish preceded its consecration or came afterwards - the prohibition against me'ilah applies until it is redeemed. This even applies if the animal is unable to be sacrificed because of a time factor.

A different law applies with regard to turtle-doves whose time to be offered has not arrived and young doves whose time to be offered has passed that were consecrated to be offered on the altar. Even though it is forbidden to benefit from them, one who derives benefit has not violated the prohibition against me'ilah. The rationale is that since they are not fit to be redeemed, they are comparable to sin-offerings consigned to death. Therefore the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

When animals consecrated as sacrifices for the altar die, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to their carcasses according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the prohibition continues to apply according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, if sacrificial animals will become disqualified because of matters that disqualify such animals as we have already explained, the prohibition against me'ilah continues to apply according to Rabbinic decree.

When does the above apply? When there was no time that the sacrificial animal could be eaten by the priests. Different rules apply, however, if animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity which are intended to be eaten had a time when they were permitted and then disqualified and forbidden to be eaten. Since they were permitted at a given time, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to those entities that are fit to be eaten, as we explained.

What is implied? When sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity were disqualified before their blood was presented on the altar according to law, e.g., they were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard even though the blood was received in the north, they were slaughtered in the north, but the blood was received in the south, they were slaughtered during the day and the blood was cast on the altar at night, they were slaughtered at night, but the blood was cast during the day, they were offered with a disqualifying intent concerning time or place, the blood was received by unacceptable persons even though it was cast by acceptable ones, it was cast by unacceptable persons even though it was received by acceptable ones, all of the blood and the meat were taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast, or the blood remained overnight - in all these instances, the principle of me'ilah applies forever, because there was never a time when these offerings were permitted to be eaten.

If, however, the blood reached the altar as commanded, but afterwards the meat or the portions to be offered on the altar remained overnight, or the meat or those portions became impure, or were taken outside the Temple Courtyard, or a portion of the meat was taken outside before the blood was cast, in all these instances and the like, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the remainder of the meat, because there was a time when it was permitted to be eaten, as explained above.

If persons who are unacceptable received a portion of the blood and cast it on the altar and then others who are acceptable to perform Temple service received the remainder of the animal's lifeblood and cast it on the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to the meat. The rationale is that the sacrifice is acceptable, because the unacceptable persons do not cause the remainder of the lifeblood to be considered as remnants unless he is unacceptable due to ritual impurity. In that instance, since he is fit for communal Temple service, he causes the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.

What is implied? If an impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar, even if afterwards an acceptable person received the remainder of the life blood and cast it on the altar, this sacrificial animal never had a time when its meat was permitted and the prohibition of me'ilah applies to the meat in its entirety. The rationale is that this blood is considered as "remnants" and the casting of "remnants" on the altar is not effective.

We have already explained that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity except to the fats and organs after the blood is cast on the altar, provided the casting is effective. If, however, sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity have been disqualified as piggul, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though the blood has been cast. Similarly, if the blood was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to their fats and organs even though it was brought back in and cast on the altar.

It is forbidden to benefit from any of the sin-offerings that are consigned to death, e.g., the offspring of a sin-offering, an animal onto which its holiness was transferred, or the like. If one benefits, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all the sin-offerings which should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish until they are redeemed.

The following laws apply if one set aside his sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside another one instead of it, afterwards, the first one was found, and they are both present. If both of them were slaughtered at the same time and the blood of one of them was cast, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply, neither to the meat whose blood was cast on the altar, nor to the meat of the other even though the second one is not fit to be eaten. The rationale is that if one desires one may cast the blood of this one or the other one. If, however, one slaughtered one after the other, the blood of the first one is not effective with regard to the other, even after it is cast on the altar, for there was no time that it was fit for its meat to be permitted.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to all sin-offerings of fowl or burnt-offerings of fowl that were disqualified because of a deviation in the way they should have been offered or in the place where they were offered. An exception is a burnt-offering of a fowl on which melikah was performed on the lower half of the altar for the sake of a sin-offering. Although it did not fulfill the obligation of the owners, the prohibition of me'ilah does not apply, since he changed its intent, the place where it was offered, and the manner in which it was offered to a type of sacrifice to which the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

When a meal-offering was brought in a manner causing it to be deemed piggul or it was brought with a disqualifying intent regarding the place - and similarly, if the two breads of Shavuot or the showbread were brought in a manner causing them to be deemed piggul or were brought with a disqualifying intent regarding the place, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, because there was never a time when they were permitted to be eaten.

Similarly, if the handful of meal taken from a meal-offering was taken outside the Temple Courtyard or if it remained overnight, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to the remainder, because there was never a time when it was permitted to be eaten.

If, however, the handful became impure and it was offered on the altar's pyre, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the remainder, because the High Priest's forehead plate brings about acceptance for the handful when it becomes impure, but not when it remained overnight or was taken outside the Courtyard.

When the remainder of the meal-offering was taken out or became impure and afterwards, the handful was offered on the altar's pyre, even though the remainder is forbidden to be eaten, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it, for the handful was offered as commanded,

When one benefits from any of the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity before their blood is cast on the altar or from the fats and organs of the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity even after their blood has been cast, one derives benefit from a burnt-offering, or from the handful of meal, the frankincense, a meal-offering brought by priests, or a chavitin offering, the value of the benefit he received should be used for free-will offerings. If he violated the prohibition against me'ilah with regard to a communal offering, the benefit he received should be given to the chamber.

If one benefits from the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order that became impure before the casting of the blood or one benefits from the fats and organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity that became impure even though he brought them to the top of the altar before the casting of the blood, he is exempt.

It is forbidden to benefit from the milk or the eggs of animals or fowl consecrated as sacrifices for the altar, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. For that reason, the offspring of a consecrated animal or the offspring of an animal designated for the tithe-offering should not nurse from its mother, but rather from another animal that is not consecrated. A person may make a gift, saying: "The milk of this unconsecrated animal will be consecrated in order that the offspring of consecrated animals will nurse from it so that they do not die."

If one consecrated the value of an animal or a fowl to the altar, e.g., he said: "The value of this animal is consecrated for an accompanying offering" or "The value of this young dove is consecrated for a peace-offering," they are like entities consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, their milk, and their eggs, as will be explained.

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, turtle-doves, or young doves, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them from the time he set them aside. If he set them aside for peace-offerings, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

When a person consecrated the value of one limb of an animal to the altar, there is an unresolved doubt whether the holiness spreads throughout the entire animal or not. Therefore it should be offered and not redeemed. If it is redeemed, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the money used to redeem it.

When a person sets aside money for the sacrifices to be offered at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If one benefits from it, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because all of the funds are fit to be used to purchase a peace-offering and the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering, except to its fats and organs after the blood has been cast. If he dies, the money should be used for freewill offerings.

If the money was explicitly designated for the particular sacrifices, the money for the sin offering should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. One should not benefit from them, nor does the prohibition against me'ilah apply. The money for the burnt-offering should be used for a burnt-offering and the prohibition against me'ilah applies.

When the person said: "This money is for my sin-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. Similarly, were he to say: "This money is for my burnt-offering and the remainder for my nazirite offering, if he benefited from all the remaining money, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefited only from part of it, he does not violate that prohibition. The rationale is that the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to a peace-offering.

If he set aside money and said: "This is for my burnt-offering; this is for my sin-offering; and this is for my peace-offering," and the money became intermingled, the prohibition against me'ilah applies both whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. What should he do to correct the situation? He should bring three animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on one for a sin-offering, that of the money for the burnt-offering on one for a burnt-offering, and that of the money for the peace-offering on one for a peace-offering.

When one of the individuals obligated to bring a pair of doves separated money and said: "This is for my obligation," the prohibition against me'ilah applies whether he benefited from the entire sum or only a portion of the money. If the person dies, the money should be used for a freewill offering, as explained above with regard to a nazirite. The prohibition against me'ilah applies to it.

When a person sets aside a sin-offering for partaking of forbidden fat and brings it for partaking of blood, he does not secure atonement. Therefore he is not considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If he set aside money for a sin-offering to atone for partaking of forbidden fat and instead purchased a sin-offering to atone for partaking of blood with it inadvertently, he can secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he has violated the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If he did so intentionally, he cannot secure atonement with that offering. Therefore he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When a person sets aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and uses them to purchase two rams as ordinary animals, he has committed me'ilah, for he purchased ordinary animals with money designated for a guilt-offering. He is obligated to pay ten dinarim, i.e., the two selaim and an additional fifth. He should use this money to buy a ram for a guilt-offering and should bring another guilt-offering to atone for his me'ilah. Therefore if one of the two rams that he had purchased is worth two selaim and the other is worth ten dinarim, he should bring the one worth ten [dinarim] as a guilt-offering for the money that he misappropriated and the additional fifth and he should bring the one worth two selaim as a guilt-offering for his violation of the prohibition of me'ilah.

Different rules apply if he purchased one of the rams as a guilt-offering and one as an ordinary animal. If the one purchased as a guilt-offering was worth two selaim, he should bring that for the first guilt-offering for which he was originally liable. Similarly, if the one purchased as an ordinary animal was worth two selaim, he should bring it as a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds, for he misappropriated one sela of the money originally set aside for a guilt-offering. He should pay five dinarim which should be used for a freewill offering.

When one benefits from money set aside for a sin-offering before the sin-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited from and bring his sin-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds.

Similarly, when one benefits from money set aside for a guilt-offering before the guilt-offering is offered, he should add a fifth to the amount he benefited from and bring his guilt-offering with this money. And he should bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation of consecrated funds. The rationale is that the money paid for the misappropriation of animals consecrated to be offered on the altar should be used for such sacrifices. Money paid for the misappropriation of articles consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple should be used for that purpose.

In the instance mentioned above, if he discovered that he committed me'ilah with a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, but he did not set aside the money he misappropriated or he set it aside, but did not include it with the money for his sin-offering, the money he misappropriated and the additional fifth should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea. If he discovered that he committed me'ilah with a portion of the money and afterwards, his sin-offering was sacrificed, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering, for money is not set aside at the outset to be destroyed. In either instance, he must bring a guilt-offering for me'ilah.

Were the above situation to take place with regard to a guilt-offering, whether he discovered that he committed me'ilah before his guilt-offering was offered or afterwards, the money for the misappropriation and its additional fifth should be used for a freewill offering, because it is considered as money left over from a guilt-offering. And he must bring a guilt-offering for me'ilah.

A person who sells an animal designated as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering has done nothing of consequence. According to Scriptural Law, the money should be returned to its original state. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized the purchaser and required that the money be used for a freewill offering. Even if the animal was worth four zuzim and it was sold for five, all of the five should be used for a freewill offering. The prohibition against me'ilah, however, does not apply, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to articles set aside through vows. What is implied? A person said: "This loaf is considered like a sacrifice" or "...consecrated property for me." If he partakes of it, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, even though the loaf is permitted to others. Therefore such an article cannot be redeemed, for it is only considered as consecrated for this person.

If he said: "This loaf is consecrated" or "...a sacrifice," whether he or someone else partakes of it, the prohibition against me'ilah is violated. Therefore it can be redeemed. If an ownerless loaf was before a person and he said: "This loaf is consecrated," should he take it to partake of it, he is considered to have misappropriated its entire value. If he took it to endow it to others, he is considered to have misappropriated the value of giving such a gift.

When a person tells a colleague: "My loaf is considered as consecrated property for you," and then gives it to that colleague, the recipient violates the prohibition against me'ilah when he uses it. The giver does not violate this prohibition, because the article is not forbidden to him. Similar laws apply to all analogous situations applying to other types of vows; the prohibition against me'ilah applies to those forbidden to benefit from them.

All entities forbidden to a person because of a vow can be combined. If he derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit from the combination, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

When a person says: "These plantings are a sacrifice if they are not cut down today" or "This garment is a sacrifice if it is not burnt today," and the day passed without the plantings being cut down or the garment being burnt, they are consecrated and they should be redeemed like other consecrated property. Only afterwards may one benefit from them.

If, however, he says: "These plantings are a sacrifice until they are cut down," he cannot redeem them. For whenever they will be redeemed, they will become consecrated again until they are cut down and once they are cut down, they need not be redeemed, but one may benefit from them immediately.

When does the above apply? When the person who consecrated them redeemed them. If, however, another person redeemed them, they do become ordinary property even though they have not been cut down and they are permitted even to the person who consecrated them.