Meilah 3:4-5

📖 Mishna

Mishna 3:4

משנה ג:ד

Hebrew:

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:

English:

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.

קלאוד על המשנה:

This mishna addresses three distinct topics unified by the theme of items in a liminal sacred state — not fully eligible for sacrifice yet still possessing some degree of sanctity.

The first case concerns the ashes removed from the inner altar (where the ketoret/incense was burned) and the spent wicks of the menorah. These are byproducts of sacred service. Once removed, they occupy a gray zone: they are no longer being used for their sacred purpose, yet they originated from consecrated items. The Tanna Kamma rules that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but there is no me’ilah liability if one does. However, if someone proactively consecrates these ashes anew, full me’ilah applies — demonstrating that a fresh act of consecration can elevate even spent materials back to full sacred status.

The second case involves doves and pigeons outside their window of fitness. Turtledoves (torim) are only valid once mature, while young pigeons (benei yonah) are only valid while young. When these birds are outside their valid time, the Tanna Kamma rules no me’ilah applies to either category. Rabbi Shimon disagrees regarding immature doves: since they will eventually become fit, they retain their sanctity and me’ilah applies. But old pigeons, which can never again become fit, lose their effective consecration. This dispute reflects a fundamental question about whether potential future fitness sustains sanctity.

Key Terms:

• דִּשּׁוּן (Dishun) = Ash removal — the daily cleaning of ashes from the altar and the menorah wicks
• מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי (Mizbe’ach HaPenimi) = The inner altar — the golden altar inside the Sanctuary where incense was burned
• תּוֹרִים (Torim) = Turtledoves — a species of bird used for offerings, valid only once they reach maturity
• בְּנֵי יוֹנָה (Benei Yonah) = Young pigeons — a species used for offerings, valid only while still young, before their neck feathers turn golden

Mishna 3:5

משנה ג:ה

Hebrew:

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:

English:

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.

קלאוד על המשנה:

This mishna draws a crucial distinction between two categories of consecration: items consecrated for the altar (kodshei mizbe’ach) and items consecrated for Temple maintenance (kodshei bedek habayit). The practical difference is whether the sanctity extends to products of the animal — specifically, milk and eggs.

For altar sacrifices, the milk of a consecrated female animal and the eggs of consecrated doves are not subject to me’ilah (though benefit is prohibited ab initio). The reasoning is that these products are not themselves offered on the altar — only the animal’s body and specified fats are sacrificed. The products are therefore considered separate from the consecrated entity itself.

However, when an animal is consecrated for Temple maintenance (bedek habayit), the situation changes entirely. A hen consecrated for Temple maintenance is valued as an economic unit — its worth includes its capacity to produce eggs. Similarly, a donkey’s value includes its milk production. Since the entire economic value of the animal belongs to the Temple treasury, me’ilah applies to the animal and all its products alike. This distinction underscores that kodshei mizbe’ach consecration targets the specific sacrificial use of the animal, while kodshei bedek habayit consecration targets the animal’s full monetary value.

Key Terms:

• קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ (Kodshei Mizbe’ach) = Items consecrated for the altar — animals or goods designated to be offered as sacrifices
• קָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת (Kodshei Bedek HaBayit) = Items consecrated for Temple maintenance — property donated for Temple upkeep and repairs, valued monetarily
• חֲלֵב הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין (Chalev HaMukdashin) = Milk of sacrificial animals — a product of the animal that is not itself brought on the altar
• גִּדּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ (Gidulei Hekdesh) = Products/growths of consecrated property — offspring, produce, or byproducts of sacred items

⚖️ Halacha

Practical Law from this Mishna

The Rambam codifies these laws in Hilkhot Me’ilah 4:11-13. He rules that the ashes of the inner altar and menorah wicks are not subject to me’ilah after removal, following the Tanna Kamma. Regarding doves and pigeons outside their valid time, the Rambam rules in accordance with the Tanna Kamma that neither category is subject to me’ilah, though one may not benefit from them ab initio. On the distinction between altar and maintenance consecration, the Rambam rules in Hilkhot Me’ilah 5:15 that milk and eggs of altar sacrifices are not subject to me’ilah, but for items consecrated for bedek habayit, me’ilah extends to all products. This reflects the principle that altar consecration is purpose-specific while maintenance consecration encompasses full economic value.

Note: These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt. Shulchan Aruch typically does not codify these laws.

🖼️ Visuals

Infographics for this mishna coming soon.