Meilah

for Rab said:1 ‘The blood let from a [living] consecrated animal may not be used and is subject to the Law of Sacrilege’. [The above] text states: R. Huna2 said in the name of Rab: ‘The blood let from a [living] consecrated animal may not be used and is subject to the Law of Sacrilege’. R. Hamnuna raised an objection:3 ‘The milk of consecrated cattle and the eggs of turtledoves may not be used, but the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to them’.4 — He replied: The ruling applies only to blood, for one cannot live without blood,5 but not to milk, as one can well live without it. R. Mesharsheya raised an objection: The manure and excrements6 that lie in the courtyard of the Temple may not be used, but are not subject to the Law of Sacrilege. The money thereof [paid in compensation] goes to the Temple Treasury. Now why is this so, since here too there is none who exists without some quantity of digested food [in its body]?7 — I might reply: How can you compare these two things with one another? Excrements come from outside [the body] and when the one [quantity of food] has been excluded [from the body] another will be consumed. Different it is with blood which is part of the body. It states: ‘. . . may not be used, but are subject to the Law of Sacrilege and the money [thereof paid in compensation] goes to the Temple Treasury’. This offers a support of the rule of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Wherever the Sages ruled [that a thing is] sacred yet not sacred [in every respect],8 the money thereof [paid in compensation] goes to the Temple Treasury. MISHNAH. THE MILK OF CONSECRATED ANIMALS AND THE EGGS OF [CONSECRATED] TURTLE-DOVES MAY NOT BE USED, BUT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. THIS HOLDS GOOD ONLY FOR THINGS DEDICATED FOR THE ALTAR, BUT AS TO THINGS DEDICATED FOR TEMPLE REPAIR, IF ONE CONSECRATED [E.G.,] A CHICKEN BOTH IT AND ITS EGGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILECE, OR [IF ONE DEDICATED] A SHE-ASS, BOTH IT AND ITS MILK ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. GEMARA. Does [the restriction to things dedicated for Temple repair] imply that if dedicated [to the altar] for its value [the milk or eggs] will be exempted from the Law of Sacrilege? — Said R. Papa, a clause has been omitted [in the Mishnah] which should read as follows: ‘This holds good only for things dedicated themselves for the altar; but if their value is dedicated for the altar, it is considered as if they have been dedicated for Temple repair. If one consecrated [e.g.], a chicken both it and its eggs are sub ject to the Law of Sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-ass, both it and its milk are subject to the Law of Sacrilege’.9 MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER IS FIT FOR THE ALTAR repaid. therefore not included in the dedication. In the case of sacrifices of a minor degree of holiness the produce is of the same degree of holiness as the animal itself.