💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Tresp… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:33:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4 [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4] 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. [5] 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*. [6] 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. [7] 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*. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10] 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*. [11] 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.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC