Me`ilah - Chapter 3

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.