Meilah 3:2-3
משנה מעילה ג:ב-ג
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 3
📖 Mishna
Mishna 3:2
משנה ג:ב
Hebrew:
הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לָבֹא כֻלָּן שְׁלָמִים. מֵת, הָיוּ סְתוּמִים, יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיוּ מְפֹרָשִׁים, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְ��וּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִים וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה, יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וּדְמֵי שְׁלָמִים, יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לָחֶם:
English:
In the case of a nazirite who designated money for the three offerings he is obligated to bring upon completion of his naziriteship, a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering, but he did not specify which money was designated for which offering, since it is not clear what the money is intended for, one may not derive benefit from the money ab initio, but if he derived benefit from the money he is not liable for its misuse. This is due to the fact that all the money is fit for purchase of the peace offering, for which one is liable for misuse only after its blood is sprinkled, and therefore there is no liability for its misuse. If the nazirite died and he had undesignated funds, meaning he did not specify which money was for each of the three offerings, all the money will be allocated for purchase of communal gift offerings. If the nazirite died and he had specified money, the money specified for purchase of the sin offering shall go to the Dead Sea for disposal, because one may not derive benefit ab initio from the money of a sin offering whose owner has died. But if it was not disposed of, and one derived benefit from the money, he is not liable for its misuse. With the money specified for purchase of the burnt offering, one shall bring a gift burnt offering, and one is liable for misusing the funds. With the money specified for purchase of the peace offering, one shall bring a gift peace offering. Although it is a gift offering, the restrictions of the peace offering of the naziriteship apply, and therefore it is eaten for one day and that same night, not the standard two days and one night of a regular peace offering. And nevertheless the peace offering does not require the bringing of the loaves that accompany the peace offering of naziriteship, as it is written with regard to the loaves: “And shall place them on the hands of the nazirite” (Numbers 6:19), and in this case the nazirite is dead.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna addresses the status of money that a nazirite set aside for the three offerings he must bring at the conclusion of his naziriteship: a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering. The key variable is whether the money was designated for specific offerings or left unspecified. When the money is unspecified (setumim), the entire sum could theoretically be used to purchase peace offerings, which only become subject to me’ilah after the blood is sprinkled. Therefore, before that point, there is no me’ilah liability, though deriving benefit is still prohibited ab initio.
The more complex scenario arises when the nazirite dies after designating the money. If the funds were unspecified, they go to the Temple treasury as nedavah (voluntary communal offerings). If the funds were specified, each category follows its own rules: money for the sin offering goes to the Dead Sea (since a sin offering whose owner died cannot be offered), money for the burnt offering is used to purchase a burnt offering (and me’ilah applies), and money for the peace offering purchases a peace offering with modified rules — eaten for one day only, and without the accompanying loaves, since the loaves require placement on the nazirite’s hands, and the nazirite is dead.
This mishna illustrates how the laws of me’ilah interact with the unique halakhic status of a nazirite’s obligations. It also demonstrates the broader principle that the intended purpose of consecrated funds determines their halakhic treatment, even after the owner’s death.
Key Terms:
- נזירות (Nezirut) = Naziriteship — a vow of abstinence that includes prohibitions against wine, haircuts, and corpse impurity, culminating in three offerings
- סְתוּמִים (Setumim) = Undesignated funds — money set aside for offerings without specifying which portion is for which sacrifice
- מְפֹרָשִׁים (Mefurashim) = Designated funds — money explicitly earmarked for a specific offering
- יָם הַמֶּלַח (Yam HaMelach) = The Dead Sea — where money for invalid sin offerings is disposed of, rendering it permanently inaccessible
Mishna 3:3
משנה ג:ג
Hebrew:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, הַדָּם, קַל בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְחָמוּר בְּסוֹפוֹ, וְהַנְּסָכִים, חֹמֶר בִּתְחִלָּתָן וְקַל בְּסוֹפָן. הַדָּם, בַּתְּחִלָּה אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בּוֹ. יָצָא לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן, מוֹעֲלִים בּוֹ. הַנְּסָכִים, בַּתְּחִלָּה מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן. יָצְאוּ לַשִּׁיתִין, אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶם:
English:
Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to misuse of the blood of offerings that is to be sprinkled on the altar, the halakha is lenient with regard to the status of the blood at the outset and stringent at its conclusion. With regard to misuse of the wine of the libations that accompany the offerings, the halakha is stringent with regard to the status of the wine at their outset and lenient at their conclusion. The mishna explains: With regard to blood, at its outset, before it is sprinkled on the altar, one is not liable for misusing it; but once its remainder has been poured on the base of the altar and it emerges via the canal that runs through the Temple to the Kidron Valley at the foot of the Temple Mount, one is liable for misusing it. With regard to libations, at their outset, from the moment they were consecrated, one is liable for misusing them, but once they have descended to the drainpipes built into the altar and which extend beneath it, through which the libations flowed out of the Temple, one is no longer liable for misusing them, as their mitzva was fulfilled and therefore their sanctity has ceased.
קלאוד על המשנה:
Rabbi Shimon (the English translation attributes the mishna to Rabbi Yishmael, but the Hebrew text reads Rabbi Shimon) presents a striking symmetry between blood and libations. Blood begins with no me’ilah liability — it has not yet fulfilled its purpose — but once it is poured out at the base of the altar and exits through the Kidron Valley, me’ilah applies. Libations, conversely, are subject to me’ilah from the moment of consecration, but once they flow down through the shitin (drainage pipes beneath the altar), their mitzvah is complete and me’ilah no longer applies.
The underlying logic is that me’ilah tracks the concept of “benefit from hekdesh.” Blood before sprinkling is not considered a completed sacred item — it is merely a means to an act of service. But once the blood exits the Temple through the Kidron, it is now waste from a sacred process, and deriving benefit from sacred refuse is prohibited. Libations, by contrast, are fully sacred from consecration onward, but once poured, they have served their purpose and their sanctity dissipates.
This mishna reveals a deeper principle: the status of me’ilah is not static but shifts depending on where an item is in its lifecycle of sacred service. The same substance can move from prohibited to permitted, or from permitted to prohibited, based on whether its mitzvah has been fulfilled.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיתִין (Shitin) = Drainage pipes — channels beneath the altar through which libation wine flowed out of the Temple
- נַחַל קִדְרוֹן (Nachal Kidron) = Kidron Valley — the valley east of the Temple Mount where blood and other Temple waste exited
- נְסָכִים (Nesakhim) = Libations — wine (and sometimes water) poured on the altar as part of the sacrificial service
- קַל בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְחָמוּר בְּסוֹפוֹ (Kal biTchilato v’Chamur b’Sofo) = Lenient at its outset and stringent at its conclusion — Rabbi Shimon’s characterization of blood’s me’ilah status