Meilah 5 – Which Step In The Service Permits Misappropriation?

Earlier we quoted a rule (actually stated by Rabbi Yehoshua), that once a strict offering (think burned-offering) has a moment of permissibility to the Kohanim, it is no longer subject to misappropriation. That is easy to understand: if Kohanim had any right in it, then it does not belong solely to God, and the strict laws of misappropriation do not apply any longer. On the other hand, if something went wrong in the sacrificial service, and the meat was not allowed for the Kohanim even for a moment, the laws of misappropriation still apply. Rabbi Yehoshua gave examples of both: if the service was complete, but the meat was left over, became impure, or was taken outside the Temple, the laws of misappropriation do not apply; but if a Kohen had wrong intentions during service, the prohibitions remain.

At which exact moment is the law of misappropriation removed? Bar Kappara said to Bar Padda, “Please ask about the moment of permissibility in the study hall tomorrow, and be ready to discuss the question. Did Rabbi Yehoshuah mean the moment of slaughter, the moment of throwing the blood, or the moment when it can be eaten?” On the next day, Chizkiyah said that it was the moment of slaughter, and Rabbi Yochanan said that it was the moment of eating. In discussing this, the Talmud has to modify its understanding of many rules, and the discussion itself continued through the ages.

Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Discussion

Meilah 4 – Wrong Intention And Misappropriation

The laws of misappropriation for strictly holy sacrifices (such as burned offering) and for lighter holy (such as peace offering) are in some ways completely opposite.

Strict offering, once consecrated, belongs completely to God, and one should not use it. If one does, he commits misappropriation. After it is slaughtered and its blood is thrown on the Altar, the Kohanim eat portions of it, and misappropriation does not apply. By contrast, lighter holy offering belong to God and man, and there is no problem of misappropriation for it. Once it is slaughtered and its blood is thrown, some of its parts go on the Altar, and there is misappropriation for them.

In short, throwing the blood of strict offerings removes the law of misappropriation, but throwing the blood of the offering of lighter holiness brings about the law of misappropriation. All this is true if service was done correctly. If the Kohen had wrong intentions, either to eat the meat later than allowed, or to eat it in the wrong place, throwing the blood does not have the usual effect – so said Rav Gidel in the name of Rav. The Talmud shows multiple disproofs, then multiple proofs for his statement, and does not find a decisive one.

Art: Matheus van Helmont - A Peasant Woman And A Young Man Eating And Drinking At A Table

Meilah 3 – If They Did Put An Invalid Offering On The Altar

The Torah said, “Whatever touches the Altar shall be sanctified.”  This means that if some sacrificial parts were put on the Altar, they may not be taken down, even if they should not be put there in the first place. Basically this applies when the sacrifice was valid when it entered the Courtyard, and the disqualification occurred later, as part of the service.

Earlier we learned that if one slaughtered an offering, such as a burned offering, which must be slaughtered to the North of the Altar, in the South, he invalidated it, and that misappropriation still applies in this case. A related questions was asked: if they put limbs of this invalid offering on the Altar, must they keep them there? If we say that an offering slaughtered at night has to be kept on the Altar, then perhaps one slaughtered in the South of the Courtyard is the same way, and it too has to stay on the Altar. Or perhaps on offering slaughtered in the South is worse, and it is as if choked, not slaughtered at all? Rav Yosef and Rabbah argued this matter out, and Rav Yosef found an incontrovertible proof that once it went up on the Altar, it does not go down.

Art: J. Duvall - Sheep And Lambs On A Hillside

Meilah 2 – What Constitutes Misappropriation

Misappropriation (Meilah) is committed when someone uses Temple property for his own benefit. If that property is designated exclusively as “holies of God,” such as a burned offering, which is burned on the Altar completely, or if it is an object or money of the Temple Treasury, and he derived benefit in the amount of at least one prutah (the smallest coin), then he committed misappropriation. He needs to pay the value of the benefit, add one-fifth, and bring a guilt-offering.

That is true if he committed misappropriation unintentionally. If he did it on purpose, no atonement is available, and he only needs to repay what he used. If he damaged Temple property without deriving any benefit, he is not liable to pay anything (the Torah said “your fellow's property,” not “Temple's property.”) However, the Sages obligated him to repay.

If one brought a holiest offering in a wrong way, such as in the wrong part of the Courtyard, or with wrong intentions, he again committed misappropriation since the offering was never usable by people. However, if the Kohanim were allowed to eat the sacrifice at some point in time, then it is not designated exclusively for the Temple, and one who uses it does not commit misappropriation.

Art: Bartolome Esteban Murillo - Girl With A Coin

Keritot 28 – Which Sacrifice Is The Best?

Rabbi Shimon says, “The mention of lambs precedes that of goats everywhere that they are written together in the Torah. You might think that this is because lambs are superior – to dispel this notion, the Torah puts a she-goat before the lamb for a sin-offering, to tell you that they are equal.”

“The Torah also mentions the father before the mother everywhere that they are written together. You might think that this is because the obligation to honor a father exceeds that of honoring a mother – to dispel this notion, the Torah said that one should revere his mother and his father, to tell you that they are equal.”

The Temple Courtyard cried in anguish four times, the last one when Yissachar the High Priest performed service in silk gloves, putting his honor too high. What happened to him? Once King Yannai and his queen were talking; the king said that goat meat was better, the queen – that lamb meat was better. They asked Yissachar, who told them, “If a goat is better, let it be offered as a daily offering.” As he was talking, he was gesturing arrogantly and irreverently toward the king with his hand, and the king commanded that his right hand be cut off. However, Yissachar gave a bribe, and they severed his left hand. When the king found out, he commanded to cut off his right hand as well.

Rav Yosef said, “Praised be God for cleaning Yissachar in this world, for his reward (Sachar) is coming to him in the World to Come.”

Rav Ashi said, “Did he ever learn the rule of Rabbi Shimon that the goat and the lamb are equal?” Ravina said, "He did not even learn Torah, which states the same."

Torah scholars, on the other hand, increase peace in the world, as said by Isaiah, “And all your sons will be disciples of God, and abundant will be the peace of your sons.”

Art: Sir David Wilkie - The Artist's Parents

Keritot 27 – One Cannot Re-Use A Sin-Offering

If one designated an animal as his sin-offering and then died, his son cannot bring it, even if his son committed exactly the same sin. One may not even bring his sin-offering, which designated to atone for one transgression, for his other, and even if it is exactly the same. Thus, if one designated a sin-offering for forbidden fat he ate last evening, he cannot bring it to another for the forbidden fat he ate today. Why is all this? Because the Torah said, “he shall bring his offering for his transgression,” and two extra words “his” exclude any re-use of a sin-offering.

If a wealthy individual designated money for the purchase of a female lamb as his sin-offering, and then became moderately poor, he can use this money to bring a bird instead. If he became even poorer, he could use the money to bring his flour offering.

The other way around is also true: if we was very poor and designated money for his flour offering, but then prospered to the point of being only moderately poor, he can add funds and bring a bird. If he became wealthy, he can use the money (and add some more) and bring a female lamb.

Art: Jean Bourdichon - The Wealthy Man

Keritot 26 – Misusing Sacrificial Money

If one designated two selah coins for his guilt offering (a ram, which should cost two selah) but instead got a good deal: he bought a ram worth two selah for half-price, and additionally bought another ram, then he can only bring one sacrifice – the one for two selah. The second ram did acquire sanctity, because it was bought with sacrificial money, but cannot be brought, since the owner has already fulfilled his obligation with the first ram. Therefore, the second one is let to graze until it develops a blemish, then it is redeemed, and the money it put into the box called, “the summer of the Altar.” When the Altar had no sacrifices (which usually happened in summer months), this money was used to acquire and bring sacrifices.

If instead of buying sacrifices he bought two rams for regular use, he committed misappropriation. The first ram becomes a guilt-offering for misappropriation, and the second one – a repayment of sacrificial money.

If he used part of the money for a sacrifice, and another part for a ram for regular use, the first rams serves to fulfill his initial guilt-offering obligation, while the second one should be consecrated and offered as a guilt-offering for misappropriation.

Art: Thomas Weaver - Two Prize Border Leicester Rams in a Landscape