Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

Meilah 3:4 - 3:5

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, December 11, 2031 is Meilah 3:4 - 3:5

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Meilah Perek 3 Mishnah 4

מעילה פרק ג׳ משנה ד׳

4
With regard to the removal of ash from the inner altar to the place where the ashes lifted from the outer altar are deposited, and similarly with regard to the wicks of the Candelabrum, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio; but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse. In the case of one who consecrates anew the ash that has been removed, he is liable for misusing it. With regard to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, as they are too young, and pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, as they are too old, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio; but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse. mishna The previous mishna teaches that one may not derive benefit from doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived and from pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, but one who derived benefit from them is not liable for their misuse. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this ruling and says: With regard to doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived, one is liable for misusing them. With regard to pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, one may not derive benefit ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse.
דִּשּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ דִּשּׁוּן בַּתְּחִלָּה, מוֹעֲלִים בּוֹ. תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן, לֹא נֶהֱנִים וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין:
ד׳
ברטנורא

דשון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה – their ashes [of the incense] and the remnants of the wicks of the Menorah he would remove [from the inner altar] and place them near the outer altar, the place where he places there the removal of the ashes from altar of the outer altar, and after he took them out to there, they are not available for benefit nor do the laws of sacrilege apply, for in these, it is not written (Leviticus 6:3): “and place them beside the altar” as with the ashes of the incense of the burnt-offering.

המקדיש דשון בתחילה מועלים בו – this is what he said: a person who dedicates the monetary value of he ashes, at the outside, prior to his removing it to the Temple courtyard, the laws of sacrilege apply, as for example, that he said, “the monetary value of the ashes is upon me,” and afterwards he removed it outside and another person came and benefitted from the ashes, even though its commandment had already been performed, nevertheless, the laws of sacrilege apply, for since he benefitted from it and there is what is missing from the ashes, again, one cannot estimate how much they were worth when it is being evaluated, and is found that he is causing loss to that which is dedicated and because of this, he immediately commits sacrilege when he benefits from it.

תורין – when he sanctified them (i.e., the turtledoves) prior to their maturation and the pigeons after their maturation.

לא נהנין ולא מועלים – and this is not similar to lacking time (i.e., an offering cannot be made because its time to be offered has not yet arrived) for an animal/cattle which is holy prior to its appropriate time and it he offered it after his time, for an animal/cattle because this legal status required might easily have been attained because it is considered that it has sanctity when it possesses a defect in order to need redemption, it also has sanctify even when it is not at the appropriate time, but birds which one cannot say about them this regarding this legal status, for the defect does not invalidate the birds and they don’t have redemption, for redemption is only mentioned regarding cattle, that is so that theey don’t have the sanctity of being offered too early.

תורין שלא הגיע זמנן מועלין בהן – since later on they are appropriate, they have the application of the laws of sacrilege now. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

דשון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה. הדשן שלהם ושירי הפתילות של מנורה, היה מוציא ומניחן אצל המזבח החיצון, מקום שמניח שם תרומת הדשן של מזבח החיצון. ואחר שהוציא שם לא נהנין ולא מועלים, דבהני לא כתיב ושמו אצל המזבח כמו בדשון מזבח העולה:

המקדיש דשון בתחילה מועלים בו. הכי קאמר, המקדיש דמי דשון, בתחלה קודם שהוציאו לעזרה יש בו מעילה. כגון דאמר דמי דשון עלי ואח״כ הוציאו לחוץ ובא אחר ונהנה מן הדשון, אע״פ שכבר נעשית מצותו, אפ״ה מועלים בו, דכיון דנהנה ממנה וחסר מן הדשן, שוב ליכא לשער כמה היו דמיו כשנתערך זה, ונמצא זה מפסיד להקדש, משום הכי מועל בו לאלתר כשנהנה ממנו:

תורין. שהקדישן קודם זמנן, ובני יונה שעבר זמנן:

לא נהנין ולא מועלים. ולא דמו למחוסר זמן בבהמה שהוא קדוש קודם זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו, דבהמה מגו דחשיבא דאית בה קדושה כשהיא בעלת מום להיות צריכה פדיון, אית בה נמי קדושה אפילו כשהיא מחוסר זמן, אבל עופות דליכא למימר בהו האי מגו, שהרי אין המום פוסל בעופות ולית בהו פדיון, שלא נאמר פדיון אלא בבהמה, הכי נמי אין בהן קדושת מחוסר זמן:

תורין שלא הגיע זמנן מועלין בהן. כיון דלקמן מחזו, אית בהו מעילה השתא. ואין הלכה כר׳ שמעון:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Meilah Perek 3 Mishnah 5

מעילה פרק ג׳ משנה ה׳

5
With regard to the milk of sacrificial animals and the eggs of sacrificial doves, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them after the fact he is not liable for their misuse. In what case is this statement, that if one derived benefit from the eggs or milk of sacrificial animals, he is not liable for their misuse, said? It is stated in the case of sacrificial animals offered on the altar, as their eggs and milk are not brought to the altar and therefore they are considered distinct from the offerings themselves. But this is not the halakha in the case of animals that are not sacrificed and are consecrated only for Temple maintenance. For example, if one consecrated a hen he is liable for misusing it and for misusing its egg; if one consecrated a donkey he is liable for misusing it and for misusing its milk, as the animal and its milk, and likewise the hen and its eggs, are both consecrated for Temple maintenance and are deemed a single unit.
חֲלֵב הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִים. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, הִקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגֹלֶת, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ וּבְבֵיצָתָהּ. חֲמוֹר, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ וּבַחֲלָבָהּ:
ה׳
ברטנורא

במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח – since milk and eggs are not appropriate for the altar, therefore they are not available for benefit and the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them.

אבל בקדשי בדק הבית – that is so that the laws of sacrilege apply to them, since they are the sanctify of money, and are appropriate for the repair of the Temple house. But in the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 12b) it explains that this Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: When is this said? When they sanctified the things of the body to the altar, but if their monetary value is dedicated for the altar, such as if he said, “the value of this bird,” or “the value of this animal is dedicated to the Temple” to bring from them a burnt offering, it is made as if one dedicated them for the repair of the Temple house, for certainly the dedication of the monetary value of the altar, the laws of religious sacrilege apply to the eggs and the milk.

במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח. הואיל וחלב וביצים אינן ראויין למזבח, הלכך לא נהנין ולא מועלים:

אבל בקדשי בדק הבית. הכי נמי דמועלים בהן, הואיל וקדושת דמים הן, ראויין הן לבדק הבית. ובגמרא מפרש דמתניתין חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, במה דברים אמורים, כשהקדישן קדושת הגוף למזבח, אבל הקדישן קדושת דמים לגבי מזבח כגון שאמר דמי עוף זה או דמי בהמה זו הקדש להביא מהם עולה, נעשה כמי שהקדישן לבדק הבית, דודאי בקדושת דמים דמזבח אית בה מעילה בביצים ובחלב:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר