Trespass

It is forbidden for an ordinary person to benefit from articles sanctified unto G-d, whether they are entities that are offered on the altar or articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. Anyone who derives a perutah' worth of benefit from an article sanctified unto G-d, is considered as having misappropriated a consecrated article.

The concept of me'ilah, misappropriating consecrated articles, does not apply to sacrificial entities from the sacrifices that are permitted to be eaten, e.g., the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings after their blood was cast on the altar, the two breads after the blood of the two sheep was cast on the altar. This applies even if these or the like are eaten by a non-priest. Since it is permitted for some people to benefit from them, anyone who benefits from them is not considered to have misappropriated consecrated articles. Even if they were disqualified and prohibited to be eaten, since there is a time when they are permitted to be eaten, one is not liable for me'ilah.

Anyone who purposely misappropriates consecrated articles is liable for lashes and must pay the value he decreased the value of the sacred articles. The warning against me'ilah is derived from Deuteronomy 12:17: "You may not partake of the tithes of your grain... your pledges... in your outlying cities." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against one who partakes of the meat of a burnt-offering for it must be offered entirely to G-d. The same applies to all other consecrated articles that are dedicated to G-d alone, whether something consecrated for the altar or for the improvement of the Temple. If one derives a perutah's worth of benefit, he is liable for lashes. If he misappropriated a consecrated article unknowingly, he must make restitution for the benefit he received and add a fifth. Also, he must bring a ram worth two selaim and have it sacrificed as a guilt-offering. This brings atonement for him and it is called: "the guilt-offering for misappropriation,] as Leviticus 5:15-16 states "And he sinned inadvertently, misappropriating what was consecrated unto G-d and he shall bring his guilt-offering... and he should make restitution for what he misappropriated from the consecrated articles, adding a fifth." Paying the principal with the additional fifth and bringing the sacrifice is a positive commandment.

Payment of the principal and bringing the guilt-offering are essential for the atonement; payment of the additional fifth is not essential. This is derived from the prooftext that speaks of: "the ram of the asham." Our Sages interpreted the term asham as referring to the principal and stated: The ram and the payment of the principal are fundamental requirements. The additional fifth is not a fundamental requirement.

If the person brought the guilt-offering before he made restitution for the principal, he did not fulfill his obligation. If one is in doubt whether he derived benefit from a consecrated article or not, he is exempt from making restitution and bringing a sacrifice. The additional fifth is considered as a consecrated article itself. If one benefits from it, he should add a fifth to the fifth. We have already explained several times that the fifth is one fourth of the principal so that the principal and the fifth will be five units.

There are articles for which one is not liable for me'ilah according to Scriptural Law, but from which it is forbidden to benefit according to Rabbinic decree. A person who derives benefit from them must only make restitution for the principal. He need not add a fifth, nor must he bring a guilt-offering.

All of the sacrifices offered on the altar - whether sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - are forbidden to be shorn and it is forbidden to perform work with them, as Deuteronomy 15:19 states: "Do not perform work with the firstborn of your oxen and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep." The same applies to all other sacrificial animals. One who shears an ox or works with a sheep is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. One who pulls out hair is not considered as if he shears it. It appears to me that one is not liable unless he shears double the width of a sit. This prohibition should not be more severe than the prohibition against shearing on the Sabbath.

When there is a doubt whether an animal is consecrated, e.g., an animal concerning which there is a question whether it is a firstborn or the like, it is forbidden to shear it or work with it, but one who shears it or works with it, is not liable for lashes.

When a sacrificial animal contracted a physical blemish and it was redeemed as we explained, it is not permitted to shear it or to work with it. The prohibitions are still in effect until it is slaughtered. If it was slaughtered after it was redeemed, it is permitted to partake of it. When does the above apply? When the animal was consecrated before it contracted a permanent blemish or it contracted a temporary blemish before it was consecrated. If, however, one consecrated an animal with a permanent physical blemish as a sacrifice for the altar, it is only forbidden to be shorn and for work to be performed with it according to Rabbinic Law. If it is redeemed, it is like an ordinary animal in all regards and like an ordinary animal, it may be shorn and work may be performed with it. The only exceptions to this principle are a firstborn animal and one separated as the tithes. In these instances, the holiness falls on their physical bodies even if at the outset they have permanent physical blemishes. They are never considered as ordinary animals entirely and it is always forbidden to shear them or perform work with them. It is forbidden to mate an animal that is a firstborn or a sacrificial animal that was disqualified.

It is permitted, even as an initial preference, to pull off hair from a sacrificial animal in order to show a physical blemish to an expert. It is forbidden to benefit from the hair that was pulled off or which fell from a consecrated animal, a firstborn animal, or one designated as the tithes, even after it was redeemed and slaughtered because of its blemish. This is a decree lest the sacrifice of such an animal be delayed, because it does not come to bring about atonement. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from wool which fell from an animal designated as a sin-offering or a guilt-offering after it has been redeemed and slaughtered because of a physical blemish. The rationale is that since these offerings come to bring about atonement, the owners will not delay their sacrifice. There is an unresolved doubt if it is permitted to benefit from wool that was pulled off from a burnt-offering. It is permitted to benefit from any wool that becomes pulled off from sacrificial animals after they have contracted a blemish, for it was not pulled off intentionally. The only exception is the wool of a firstborn animal and one designated as a tithe. In those instances, it is forbidden to benefit from wool even if it was pulled off from such an animal after it contracted a blemish.

When a person slaughters a firstborn or another consecrated animal, he may pull off the wool from either side to make a place for the knife, provided he does not remove the wool from its place.

It is forbidden to shear and perform work with animals consecrated for the improvement of the Temple according to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, they are not forbidden. Therefore one who shears such animals or performs work with them is not liable for lashes. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

When one consecrates a fetus for the altar, it is forbidden to perform work with its mother according to Rabbinic decree. The rationale for this decree is that work weakens the fetus. It is, however, permitted to shear the mother, because this does not harm the fetus. When one consecrates one limb of an animal - whether for the improvement of the Temple or for the altar - there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire animal is forbidden to be sheared or for work to be performed with it. Therefore, if one performs such an activity, he is not liable for lashes.

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.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies whether one consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple, for that purpose, e.g., a stone or a beam, consecrates an article fit for the altar for the improvement of the Temple, e.g., sheep or doves, or consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple for the altar, e.g., a stone or a beam, or he consecrates for either of these purposes an article that is not fit for either of these purposes, e.g., he consecrated chickens, vinegar, brine, or land. This applies even if he consecrated a dungheap filled with fertilizer, dust, or ash. In all these instances, the prohibition against me'ilah applies from the time the entity was consecrated until it was redeemed if it is an article fit to be redeemed.

Any of the articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple and those entities from entities consecrated to the altar for which the prohibition against me'ilah applies may be combined together to reach the minimum measure required for me'ilah. If one derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from all of them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

If one partook of consecrated food and fed a colleague, or derived benefit from a consecrated object and caused a colleague to benefit. His eating and his colleague's benefit or his colleague's eating and his benefit are all combined to make one liable for me'ilah. If a sum of benefit worth a p'rutah is reached, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

A combination making one liable for the prohibition against me'ilah can be made over an extended period of time. What is implied? If one derived benefit from a consecrated article on one day and then derived benefit again after the passage of several years in one continuous state of not knowing, the two events are combined for a p'rutah's worth and he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies only to articles that have been separated from the earth. If, however, one benefits from consecrated earth or from consecrated articles attached to the earth, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah even if blemishes that entity. What is implied? If one plows a consecrated field or sows it, he is exempt. If he takes its earth, derives benefit from it, and damages the earth, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A person who threshes in a consecrated field violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because its dust benefits the field. Thus he has benefited from the dust and damaged the field. Similarly, if one plowed a consecrated field in order to raise dust for grass that was planted there and he took the grass, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A person who dwells in a cave that is consecrated or in the shade of a tree or dovecote that is consecrated does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, even though he benefited. Similarly, when one consecrates a house that was built, a person who dwells in it does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. When, however, a person consecrates wood and stones and builds a house, a person who dwells in it violates the prohibition against me'ilah, as will be explained.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to produce that grows on consecrated property. What is implied? If one consecrated a field and it produced grass or one consecrated a tree and it produced fruit, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If, however, one consecrated an empty cistern and afterwards, it became filled with water, a dungheap and it became filled with waste, or a dovecote and it became filled with doves, since these are not the products of the consecrated articles, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply with regard to them. Similarly, one may not benefit - but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to - waste and dung in a courtyard that was consecrated. What should be done with them? They should be sold and the proceeds given to the Temple treasury. When a spring emerges in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the water that emerges in the field, but one who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the water emerges outside the field, it is permitted to benefit from it. When a willow grows in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. The following rules apply when an ordinary tree is growing next to a consecrated field and its roots emerge in that field. If there are up to sixteen cubits between it and the consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the roots in the field, but one who benefits from them does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the tree was more than sixteen cubits away from the field, one who benefits from the roots violates the prohibition against me'ilah. The converse applies when a consecrated tree is growing next to an ordinary field and its roots emerge in that field. If the roots emerge within sixteen cubits, the prohibition against me'ilah applies with regard to them. If they emerge more than sixteen cubits away, one should not benefit from the roots in the ordinary field, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply with regard to them.

When there is a nest in the top of a consecrated tree that a fowl built from wood and grass and the like, one should not benefit from the nest and the eggs in it together with the chicks that require their mother. One who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When one consecrates a forest, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it in its entirety, the trees and the nests at the tops of the trees or between them.

When the Temple treasurers plant consecrated trees and cut them down, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to those small pieces of wood that were cut off when the trees were cut to size. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the slivers, the sawdust, or to the nivia of the wood, i.e., a hard, round knot in the midst of the wood which resemble a wart, because it will not be useful for work.

When a person consecrates his servant, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to him, nor to his hair, even though his hair is fit to be cut off. The rationale is that the hair is still attached to the servant and as long as it is attached to him, it grows and increases in value.

When a person sows produce that was consecrated, he should redeem it when he sows it. Nevertheless, even if he does not redeem it, the produce that grows from it is not consecrated and the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it. If one derived benefit from other consecrated property, he may not pay the principal and an additional fifth from such produce. One is obligated to separate challah from bread made from such grain.

When water was placed on consecrated grape dregs for the first, second, and third times, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The fourth time, the mixture is permitted. When does the above apply? When the dregs had been consecrated for the Temple's improvement. If they were consecrated for the altar, even from the fourth time onward, they are always forbidden.

When a person consecrates a hen for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs. When a person consecrates a donkey for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its milk. When a person consecrates a dove for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs, as we explained.

When the tunics of the priestly garments have worn out, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, as it does to other consecrated objects. If they are new, since it is permitted to benefit from them, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

The following rules apply to articles consecrated by gentiles. If he consecrated them for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If they were consecrated for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply according to Scriptural Law, for with regard to the sacrifices, Leviticus 1:2 states: "Speak to the children of Israel." It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them according to Rabbinic Law.

With regard to sound, appearance, and fragrance from a consecrated object, it is forbidden to benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply. When does the above apply? When one smelt the fragrance of the incense offering after its cloud ascended. If, however, he smelt the fragrance of the incense offering as its cloud ascends, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

There are different situations in which the prohibition against me'ilah applies. There are some articles from which a person benefits that are not ordinarily damageable, e.g., one who uses a pure golden utensil. There are other articles that are damageable, e.g., garments, and utensils made from silver, copper, iron, and the like. When a person derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from a consecrated substance that is not attached to the ground, if he benefits from an article that is not ordinarily damageable, e.g., he used a consecrated golden utensil, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If he benefits from an article that is damageable, e.g., he wore consecrated garments or chopped with a consecrated axe, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he causes a p'rutah's worth of damage to consecrated property, i.e., the article from which he benefited itself, with the intent to benefit from it even though it causes damage at that time. If he derived a half a p'rutah of benefit and damaged a half a p'rutah or he derived a p'rutah of benefit and damaged a p'rutah's worth of another article, but did not benefit from what he damaged or did not damage the article from which he benefited, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah unless he derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causes a p'rutah's worth of damage to that article while deriving benefit from it. What is implied? A person removed a patch from a consecrated garment and sewed it unto his garment and wore it, deriving a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causing a p'rutah's worth of damage to the garment from which he removed it, without damaging the patch at all. He does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because he derived benefit from one article and damaged another. We already explained, that when a person derives benefit and causes a colleague to derive benefit, the two can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a p'rutah's worth even if there is a long interval between them.

When a person removes wool from unblemished animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, since he derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he did not damage the animals. The animals are comparable to a cup of gold, for the removal of their wool does not prevent them from being offered. If, however, sacrificial animals incurred a physical blemish, since they are designated to be sold and being shorn causes their worth to decrease, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. Nevertheless, one does not violate that prohibition unless he derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit and causes that amount of damage. If one removes wool from a sacrificial animal after it dies, since he derived benefit, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for there is no conception of reducing an animal's value once it has died. In this instance, this prohibition against me'ilah is of Rabbinic origin, as we explained.

When a person misappropriates articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple unintentionally, since he did not act intentionally, the consecrated article loses its holiness. Anyone who benefits from it afterwards is not liable. If one intentionally misappropriates a consecrated article, since he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah, the consecrated article does not lose its holiness. Instead, it remains in its consecrated state. Hence, if another person comes and benefits from it unintentionally, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. When does the above apply? When one misappropriated the article while it was consecrated, used it as if it was an ordinary article, and transferred ownership to another person. If, however, one derived benefit from it and damaged it, but did not transfer ownership to another person, there is the possibility of another person violating the prohibition against me'ilah with it, even though it has already been violated previously.

The concept of a second person violating the prohibition against me'ilah with a consecrated article after someone has already done so applies only with regard to an animal and a utensil. What is implied? One chopped with an axe that was consecrated, derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, and damaged the axe. Then his colleague came, chopped with it, derived benefit, and damaged the axe; both violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. If one drank from a golden goblet and derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, his colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, and then another colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he took the goblet and gave it to his colleague as a present or sold it to him, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. If one rode on a donkey, derived a p'rutah's worth of benefit, and damaged the donkey, his colleague rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, and then another colleague came, rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, sold it to him, or rented it to him, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. Similarly, if he lends out a consecrated axe, he is considered to have misappropriated the amount of satisfaction he received from having lent out the axe. His colleague is permitted to chop with it even as an initial preference. Similar laws apply with regard to an animal.

These laws do not apply to an animal consecrated to the altar. Instead, there is the possibility for several individuals to violate the prohibition against me'ilah, one after the other. What is implied? One removed wool from an animal that is a sin-offering, his colleague came and removed wool, and a third colleague came and removed wool, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. Similarly, if one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, they all violate the prohibition against me'ilah. It appears to me that the laws applying to meal-offerings, offerings of fowl, libations, and sacrificial utensils are the same as those applying to an animal to be offered as a sacrifice, for in all these instances, the very physical person of the entity is consecrated.

When an animal consecrated as a sacrifice of the most sacred order becomes blemished and it is fit to be redeemed, it is considered like an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, whose worth is consecrated. If one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, only the first violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

Our Sages declared that one who takes a consecrated stone or beam intentionally and gives it to a colleague, they both violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If he gives it to the treasurer in whose possession the article was, that person violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the treasurer does not. It appears to me that these concepts were stated only with regard to a person who willfully misappropriates a consecrated object, in which instance the holiness of the consecrated article does not depart. When a person takes a consecrated p'rutah with the conception that it is his own, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he uses it for his own desires or gives it as a present. If he gives it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but his colleague does not. For, with regard to other consecrated articles, one person violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the one following him does not, as we explained. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If he takes a consecrated stone or beam, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because he has not benefited as of yet. If he builds it into his home, he violates that prohibition. If he places it on top of a window in the room without attaching it, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he dwells under it for a p'rutah's worth of benefit, because merely placing it there is not considered as discernible benefit.

If one took a consecrated p'rutah gave it to a bath attendant, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he has not bathed yet, for he benefits in that he could bathe whenever he desires. Similarly, if he gives it to another type of craftsman as payment for his services, he violates the prohibition even though the craftsman has not performed any work.

The following rules apply if one purchased an article with a consecrated p'rutah, but did not draw the article after him. If he purchased it from a gentile, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah; if, from a Jew, he does not violate that prohibition.

When a person spends consecrated money for his own needs with the understanding that they are ordinary funds, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah even though he did not spend the money for ordinary matters. What is implied? A person who brings his sin-offering, guilt-offering, or Paschal sacrifice from consecrated funds or a person who is lacking atonement who brings his atonement offering from consecrated funds violates the prohibition against me'ilah. None of the above violate the prohibition until the blood is cast on the altar. Therefore one who brings meal-offerings, libations, or the bread for a thanksgiving offering does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah even though he violates a transgression. The rationale is that these offerings do not involve casting blood on the altar to atone for the person.

If a person pays his half-shekel from consecrated funds, when money is taken from the collection of funds and even one animal is purchased and its blood is cast on the altar, the person who paid with the half-shekel violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because he has a portion in the animal whose blood was cast.

When a person sets aside his half-shekel and then uses it for his personal needs both he and his colleague violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The following laws apply when one gives a half-shekel to a colleague to donate on the principal's behalf and the agent donates it on his own behalf. If the money for the sacrifices was already set aside, the agent who made the donation violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for the priest who sets aside the money takes also on behalf of the money that will be collected in the future, as we explained in Hilchot Shekalim. Thus it is considered as if this shekel already reached the treasury. Therefore the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If the money was not taken yet, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to money that remains in the chamber.

The following rules apply when a person inadvertently took a consecrated article or consecrated money and gave it to an agent to use as ordinary property or money. If the agent carries out the mission with which he is charged, the principal is considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If the agent did not execute the agency, but instead acted on his own initiative, the agent is the one who violates the prohibition against me'ilah. What is implied? A person told his agent: "Give that meat to the guests," and instead, the agent gave them bread, or he told him to give them bread and he gave them meat. If one told his agent, "Bring me from the window," and he brought him from the closet or he told him to bring from the closet and he brought from the window, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If the agent went and brought from the window as instructed, even though the principal told him: "In my heart, I wanted you to bring from the closet," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for the agent carried out the mission as he charged him. We follow the principle: "Matters in one's heart are not of consequence." Even if the agent was a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally incompetent person, or a minor to whom the laws of agency do not apply, if they carry out the principal's instructions, the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If they do not carry out his instructions, the principal is exempt. If one tells his agent: "Give each one of the guests a piece of meat" and the agent told them: "Take two at a time," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because his instructions were carried out. The agent is exempt, because he is merely adding to the principal's agency. He is not eradicating it. If, however, the agent tells the guests: "Take two at a time on my responsibility," both he and the principal violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the guests take three at a time, they also violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because each one of the individuals involved had performed the agency with which they were charged and added a further matter on his own initiative. Thus the other is also liable, because his instructions were carried out and the agency was not eradicated. And he is liable because of what he added on his own initiative.

When does the above apply? When the pieces of meat were consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. If they were meat from a burnt-offering or the like, only the person who partakes of them violates the prohibition against me'ilah. For he is obligated in another prohibition aside from me'ilah and, with regard to the entire Torah, there is no concept of a prohibition violated through agency except in the case of me'ilah alone and there, provided there is no other prohibition involved with it.

When a person gives a p'rutah of consecrated funds to an agent and tells him: "With half, purchase lamps for me and with half, wicks," and the agent used the entire amount for lamps or for wicks, they are both exempt. This law also applies when he told him to use the entire amount for lamps or for wicks and he used half to purchase lamps and half to purchase wicks. The rationale is that the principal does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because his agency was not completed with regard to a p'rutah's worth of value. The agent does not violate that prohibition, because he did not eradicate his agency for a p'rutah's worth. If, however, one told an agent: "For half a p'rutah, bring me lamps from this-and-this place and for the other half, bring me wicks from that-and-that place," and the agent brought the lamps from the place mentioned for the wicks and the wicks from the place mentioned for the lamps, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

If a principal gave his agent two consecrated p'rutot and told him: "Bring me an esrog" and the agent went and brought him an esrog for a p'rutah and a pomegranate for a p'rutah, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the principal is exempt. The rationale is that the principal sent the agent to purchase an esrog worth two p'rutot for him. Therefore if the esrog which the agent brought the principal that cost one p'rutah is worth two p'rutot, they both violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When a person sent a p'rutah via an agent to purchase a particular article and then, before it reached the domain of the storekeeper, the principal remembered that the p'rutah is consecrated, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because he is acting unknowingly, while the principal has already remembered. As we explained, a person who acts knowingly is not liable for a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah. If the agent also remembered and was conscious that the money was consecrated before it reached the storekeeper, they are both exempt from a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah and the storekeeper is liable when he uses that p'rutah which became mixed with his money, for he is acting unknowingly. If the storekeeper was informed that the p'rutah he was given was consecrated, they are all exempt and the purchase is completed, with the article becoming consecrated.

What should be done in order to preclude the storekeeper from sinning so he will be permitted to use all the money he received? One should take a non-consecrated p'rutah or any non-consecrated utensil and say: "Wherever the consecrated p'rutah is its holiness should be transferred to this." The p'rutah or the utensil become consecrated and the storekeeper is permitted to use all the money he received. Similarly, if a consecrated p'rutah becomes intermingled with all the money in a purse or one said: "A p'rutah in this purse is consecrated," he should transfer its holiness and afterwards, he may use all the coins in the purse. If he used coins from the purse without transferring the holiness of the consecrated coin, he does not definitely violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he used all the coins in the purse.

If a person said: "One of my purses is consecrated" or "One of my oxen is consecrated," the prohibition against me'ilah applies to all of them and to some of them. What should he do? He should bring the largest of the purses or the oxen and say: "If this is consecrated, it should remain consecrated. If not, wherever the consecrated one is, its holiness should be transferred to this one." He may then use the smaller ones.

When a person misappropriates less than a p'rutah's worth of consecrated property, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he must make restitution for the principal, but he need not pay an additional fifth or bring a sacrifice. It appears to me that he is not liable for lashes for misappropriating less than a p'rutah's worth if he acted intentionally.

When a person entrusts consecrated money to a homeowner and the homeowner uses them and spends them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. The rationale is that he does not have permission to use these funds and the owner did not grant him license to.

Different rules apply if he entrusted them to a money-changer or a storekeeper and they were not sealed or tied close with an unusual knot. In these situations, since he is permitted to use them according to law, if he spent them, they are both exempt. The owner of the entrusted article is exempt because he did not tell the storekeeper or the money-changer to use them. And the store-keeper is exempt, because it is as if he used them with permission since they were not tied closed with an unusual knot or sealed.

When a woman brought consecrated money to her husband's domain or her testator consecrated property and then died and the consecrated property fell to her as an inheritance, when her husband spends the money on his personal needs, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

When workers are working in consecrated orchards, even though it was agreed that they would receive food, they should not eat consecrated figs. If they do, they violate the prohibition against me'ilah. Instead, the Temple treasury should give them money to purchase food.

When a person is threshing vetch that is consecrated, he must muzzle the ox. Although Deuteronomy 25:4 states: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is threshing," the latter phrase can be interpreted as "threshing appropriate for it."

The holiness of consecrated property should not be transferred as payment for work, but only on money. What is implied? When a craftsman performs a maneh's worth of work for the Temple treasury, he should not be given a consecrated animal, nor a consecrated garment as payment unless its holiness is first transferred to money. After the article became ordinary property, it can be given to the craftsman as his wages. If the treasurers desire, they may then purchase the animal from the Temple treasury.

When the Temple is being built, consecrated wood and stones should not be taken, nor should the building be built with the intent that it is consecrated. Instead, everything should be built from ordinary property. This is a decree lest one of the workers benefit from the shade of the building or lean on a stone or beam while working. After the building is completed, the holiness of consecrated funds is transferred to the building. If the treasurers need wood for the Temple for that day alone, they may purchase it with consecrated funds, for they are not delaying the matter for days in which instance it would be necessary to take precautions lest one lean on them and thus violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When an agreement is made with workers to build in the Temple and its courtyards, the agreement is made for so-and-so many selaim for so-and-so many cubits, considering a cubit as containing 20 thumbbreadths. When a measurement is made of what they built, it is measured and payment determined, considering a cubit as containing 24 thumbbreadths, so that the workers will not take unfair benefit from the Temple treasury, because they are not exact in measurement.

It is a stipulation of the court that the priests may benefit from consecrated salt and wood while partaking of the sacrifices granted to them as their portion. They may not, however, use the salt of the Temple on their ordinary food.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to salt that is on a limb from a sacrifice to be offered on the altar. It does not, however, apply to salt on the ramp and the top of the altar.

It is fitting for a person to investigate the laws of the holy Torah and to know their ultimate notions according to his ability. And about something which he cannot find a reason nor a rationale, let it not be light in his eyes. And he should 'not break [it] to go up to the Lord, lest He burst forth against him.' And his thought about it should not be like his thought about other common things. Come and see how much the Torah was stringent regarding trespass [of sanctified objects]. And if with wood and stones and dirt and ashes - once the name of the Master of the world is called upon them with mere words - become sanctified and anyone that treats them the way one treats common objects, and even if it was accidental, requires absolution; all the more so regarding the commandments that the Holy One, blessed be He, legislated for us, should one not rebel, if one does not know their reason. And he should not make things up that are not so about G-d, and he should not think about them his thought as with common things. Behold, it is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 19:37), "And you shall guard all of my statutes (chukim) and all of my judgments (mishpatim) and do them." The sages said, "[This is] to give guarding and doing on the statutes, like upon the judgments." And the doing is known, and that is that he do the statutes. And the guarding is that he be careful with them and not imagine that they are less than the judgments. And the judgments are the commandments the reasons for which are revealed and the benefit of doing them in this world is known - for example, the prohibition of theft, murder and honoring father and mother. And the statutes are the commandments the reasons for which are not known. The sages said, "Chukim have I legislated (chakoti) upon you, and you do not have permission to muse about them." And [these are the laws that] the inclination of a person troubles him about, and the nations of the world reply to - for example the prohibition of eating pig meat and milk in meat and the [laws of the] beheaded calf and the red heifer and the scapegoat. And how much did King David anguish from the sectarians and from the gentiles that persecuted him with lying replies that they set up according to the smallness of human knowledge, as it is stated (Psalms 119:69) "The evil ones have forged a lie against me; with my whole heart will I keep Your precepts." And it is stated there about the matter (Psalms 119:86), "All of your commandments are faithful; falsehood pursues me, help me." And all of the sacrifices are included in these statutes. The sages said that because of the service of the sacrifices does the world stand. For through the performance of the statutes and the judgments, the straight ones merit life in the world to come. And the Torah had the command for the statutes come first, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:5), "And you shall keep my statutes and my judgments, that a man should do them and live by them."