Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Kodashim · 185 sections

1.1.1
קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום – even though that their law is to be slaughtered in the north [part of the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), do not say that is like the one that is strangled (see Talmud Meilah 2a) for they were like Holy Things that died when they left the realm of religious sacrilege according to the Written Torah, that it comes to tell us that Holy Things/sacrifices that died are not worthy at all. But the south [part of the Temple courtyard] assuming that it is not appropriate for the Holy of Holies but is appropriate for offerings of lesser sanctity, therefore, they commit religious sacrilege with them, but a person who benefits from them the equivalent of a perutah/penny brings the sacrifice for religious sacrilege. But not only that they were slaughtered in the south and their blood was received In the north that one commits religious sacrilege because the essence of Divine service in the north is [according to law], and from the received tradition and onward, it is the commandment of the priesthood, but even if they were slaughtered in the north and the received their blood in the south, even though tha t the essence of the Divine service is in the south not according to the law, even so, they commit religious sacrilege through them.
1.1.2
וזרק דמו בלילה – even though that night is not the time of offering [of the sacrifice), one commits religious sacrilege with them
1.1.3
בלילה וזרק דמן ביום – his all the more so that one is committing religious sacrilege, because he sprinkled [the blood] during the day, which is the essence of Divine service. But it is taught “this but one doesn’t have to state that.”
1.1.4
או ששחטן – [slaughtered them] in the north , and he thought about eating them outside of their time which is פיגול/an offering disqualified by improper intention which is punishable by extirpation/כרת , or outside of their place which is disqualified which does not have [punishment of] extirpation, one commits religious sacrilege through them.
1.1.5
כלל אמר ר' יהושע כל שהיה לה שעת היתר לכהנים – even though it once again became disqualified and they are not permitted to eat them, nevertheless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with them.
1.1.6
שלנה – after sprinkling, or that it became defiled or that went outside of the courtyard after the sprinkling [of the blood], even though that it is not appropriate for the Kohanim, since it had one hour of availability to [for use[ prior to being left overnight, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it, for we don’t call it “God’s holy things,” for it was appropriate for the Kohanim.
1.1.7
ושקבלו פסולים וזרקו את דמה (the blood of which disqualified men have received or tossed) – the ineligible had received its blood, even though that those that sprinkled/tossed it were fit, or that those who sprinkled it were disqualified, even though who received it were fit. But if after the disqualified had received the blood and sprinkled it, the fit [priests] returned and received the rest of the lifeblood (i.e., the last blood that exits before the animal is dead -which is about one-fourth of a LOG – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1 ) and sprinkled it, thereby the sprinkling by the fit is makes inappropriate use of sacred property, but permits the meat to the Kohanim, there isn’t religious sacrilege. And these words refer to the rest of the disqualified, other than those who are ritually impure, but someone ritually impure who received the blood and sprinkled it, even though the fit returned and received the rest of the lifeblood [of the animal] and sprinkled it, the meat did not have a period of availability [for use by the Kohanim] and one commits religious sacrilege, for the ritually impure, since is appropriate for the Divine Service of the community, as the sacrifice of the community postpones the ritual defilement, when he he tossed the blood, the rest of he blood became remnants, and furthermore, the tossing by the fit of the blood is not an inappropriate use of sacred property to permit the meat, and among the disqualified, you don’t have an individual who makes the blood of the remnants other than the ritually impure alone.
1.2.1
בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים (beyond the veils of the courtyard) – and afterwards it (i.e., the meat) came in and afterwards tossed/sprinkled the blood.
1.2.2
ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בו – even though he tossed/sprinkled the blood, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] does not take effect/benefit to [meat] that leaves to exclude something from religious sacrilege.
1.2.3
ואין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for since it (i.e., the meat) left [the courtyard]. For tossing/sprinkling is fit for it establishes פיגול/an offering disqualified by proper intention, but it is not disqualified.
1.2.4
רבי עקיבא – Rabbi Akiva holds that we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it. For he holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] takes effect for [the meat] that goes out to exclude it from religious sacrilege.
1.2.5
אבל חייבין כו' – but, the language of “surely!”/”truly!”- like truthfully. But when Rabbi Akiva said that tossing/sprinkling [the blood] take effect for [the meat] that leaves [from the courtyard], as for example, that part of the meat went out but not all of it, that because it is effective for that part that is inside [the courtyard], it is effective also for that part [of the meat] that left [the courtyard] to the outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
1.2.6
אמר ר' עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה – now he brings a proof to that which he sasid that tossing/sprinkling effects that [meat] which left [the Temple courtyard].
1.2.7
והרי שתיהן עומדות (both of them are available)– are both slaughtered and their blood was received in two cups and he tossed/sprinkled the blood from one of them.
1.2.8
לא כשם שדמה – of that one.
1.2.9
פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.
1.2.10
כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה– whose blood was not tossed/sprinkled, since he was able to sprinkle/toss the blood of which of them that he wanted.
1.2.11
ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה – even though it is disqualified, that it is permitted as a sin-offering. Does it not follow that it will exempt its own flesh, even though it was disqualified when it went out [of the courtyard?” But Rabbi Akiva did not say that just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its fellow [sacrifice], but rather, when he slaughtered two sin-offerings as one, because if he wanted, he toss/sprinkles from this one, if he wanted, he sprinkles/tosses from that one, but [in the case of] one after another, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the blood would exempt the flesh of its fellow [animal sacrifice].
1.3.1
אימורי קדשים קלים – we don’t commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things other than after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, as we stated at the end of the chapter (see Mishnah 4), and if they went out [from the Temple courtyard] before the sprinkling/tossing of the blood.
1.3.2
ר' אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן – just as that Rabbi Eliezer has [the opinion] that the sprinkling [of the blod] does not effect [meat] that leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the most Holy Things from becoming religious sacrilege, here too, it does not take effect [for meat] that leaves to include the parts of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege, and just as Rabbi Akiva has the opinion that sprinkling/tossing of the blood effects that [meat] which leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the Most Holy Things from religious sacrilege, it effects that [meat] which leaves to include the portions of the sacrifice offered o the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege.
1.4.1
מעשה דמים – this sprinkling/tossing of the blood.
1.4.2
ואין מועלין בבשר – after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there is no religious sacrilege with the flesh/meat, for already it has its hour of availability [for use by] the Kohanim (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter), which isits leniency, for because of the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there comes the leniency that we don’t have religious sacrilege with it.
1.4.3
על זה ועל זה – whether for those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar whether on the flesh/meat after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood[.
1.4.4
חייבין משום פיגול – if he had the wrong intention in one of the four [Divine] Services, for sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] establishes for the wrong intention and also establishes for remnants/left-overs and that which is ritually impure, and this is make a stringemcy.
1.4.5
ובקדשים קלים – after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood].
1.4.6
כולו להחמיר – and they commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, for it is was already appropriate to “on High” (i.e.,God), and these are Holy Things and not the money of the owners.
1.4.7
ועל זה ועל זה – whether on the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar or on the meat/flesh, they are liable for it because of improper intention, left-overs/remnants, and that which is impure. And that means all of it is for stringency.
2.1.1
חטאת העוף. הוכשרה ליפסל – that is to say, from when the bird is killed by pinching its neck with a finger nail, holiness is added to it, and it becomes disqualified if a טבול יום /a Kohen who has immersed himself that day, but is awaiting sunset, had come in contact with it or someone lacking atonement/מחוסר כפורים (i.e., like a woman after childbirth, a male or woman with a flux, a healed leper who have to bring a sacrifice to complete their purification). But especially if It was disqualified by a Tevul Yom. But it does not become unclean to make others unclean, for just as the Tevul Yom disqualifies the heave-offering/Terumah, so it also disqualifies that which is holy.
2.1.2
הוזה דמה חייבין עליה משום פגול – for it refers to the sprinkling of the sin offering of a bird in the place of sprinkling of an animal/cattle, for sprinkling [of the blood] establishes disqualification of an offering of inappropriate intention when he thought about it prior to this like the sprinkling of the blood of cattle and furthermore, there is the prohibition of remnant and impurity.
2.1.3
ואין בה מעילה – for since its blood had been sprinkled there is [in it] a moment of availability for the Kohanim.
2.2.1
מיצה דמה (the wringing/squeezing out of the blood) – the squeezing/wringing out of the burnt offering of the bird refers to the place of the sprinkling of the [blood] of the animal and the sprinkling of the sin-offering of the bird, for concerning the burnt-offering of the bird it is written (Leviticus 1:15 – also see Tractate Zevakhin 6:5): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”
2.2.2
עד שתצא לבית הדשן – for since all of it is burnt entirely, and there is no moment of availability [for use by the priests] at the end, one always commits religious sacrilege with it until it is burned entirely, and one takes from its ashes in the removal of the ashes from the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 6:3) “and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt- offering on the altar [and place them beside the altar].”
2.3.1
פרים הנשרפים – for the Kohanim do not have a moment of availability [for use] at all.
2.3.2
הוזה דמן כו' – the sprinkling of their blood establishes them for inappropriate intention to be punishable by extirpation for a person who eats of them, if he had in mind an undue intention [in the performance of a sacrificial ceremony] at the time of the ritual slaughter to offer their portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar outside of their appropriate time, for since there is no moment of availability [for use] by the Kohanim, they commit religious sacrilege with them in the house of the ashes outside of the camp where they were burned if he benefited from them.
2.3.3
עד שיתך הבשר (until the flesh is charred in small lumps) – that is to say, that it will be burned and become charcoal/used for kindling. But after it is charred into small lumps, furthermore, there is no sacrilege, for there is nothing where its command is performed where one commits religious sacrilege.
2.4.1
ואין מועלין בעורה – because it belongs to the Kohanim, as it is written (Leviticus 7:8): “the priest [who offers a man’s burnt offering] shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered.”
2.4.2
אבל מועלין בבשר – all the time that is burnet on the altar, it is burnt entirely.
2.4.3
עד שתצא לבית הדשן – when they lift all the ashes from top of the altar and cast them in the ash heap. And furthermore, there is no sacrilege, for its command had already been done/fulfilled.
2.5.1
אין מועלין בבשר – for there is a period of availability for the Kohanim, for the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering and communal sacrifices of peace-offerings, are consumed by the Kohanim.
2.5.2
אבל מועלין באימורים – for there is no period of availability for the Kohanim.
2.6.1
שתי הלחם – that we bring on Shavuot/Atzeret.
2.6.2
קרמו פני הלחם בתנור (when they have formed a crust in the oven) – which is the beginning of their establishment, but this formation of a light crust on the dough is considered rendering fit to be made invalid by a Tevul Yom/one who immersed himself that day [but had to wait until sunset to be pure] and those lacking atonement [through bringing a sacrifice], like the ritual slaughtering of something of the Holy of Holies. But here, we don’t have the reading, "ובלינה" /being left overnight (which is found in the earlier Mishnayot of this chapter), because the “two loaves” are baked from the eve of the Festival [of Shavuot] and their baking does not supersede the festival and are eaten on the morrow on the Festival. But they are rendered fit to slaughter upon them the sacrifice, for since they have formed a light crust on their face, they are called, “bread.”
2.6.3
ואין בהם מעילה – for there is no period of availability for the Kohanim, and their commandment has already been fulfilled.
2.7.1
לחם הפנים – here also we don’t have the reading "ובלינה"/being left overnight, because it is baked on Friday (i.e., the Eve of the Sabbath) and is not consumed until the following Sabbath.
2.7.2
קרבו הבזיכין (when dishes of incense have been offered) – that is, its preliminary acts, that on Shabbat at the time of the removal of the bread, they would offer dishes of incense of frankincense.
2.7.3
ואין בו מעילה – for it was permitted to the Kohanim and its command had been performed.
2.8.1
המנחות מועלין בהן משהוקדשו – through the sanctification of the mouth [enunciating it].
2.8.2
ואין מועלין בשיריים – because there is a period of availability to the Kohanim.
2.8.3
אבל מועלין בקומץ (with the handful of the meal offering the priest takes to be put on the altar) = until it is burned completely and it leaves to the ash heap according to the law of the parts of the sin-offering and guilt-offering burned on the altar. And after that, there is no sacrilege with it, for its commandment had been performed.
2.9.1
ומנחת נסכים – the meal offering that comes with the sacrifice where there are no remnants, and all of these are burned entirely.
2.9.2
משהוקדשו – mere sanctification by mouth.
2.9.3
ופגול אין בהן – because they don’t have permitting factors
2.9.4
(i.e., in animal sacrifices the blood is the permitting factor while in meal offerings it is the handful of flour; an offering whose permitting factor was not offered is not rendered unfit by improper intention), as for example, peace-offerings and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, that their blood permits the portions of offerings consumed on the altar and the meat/flesh to the Kohanim, or something that has a permitting factor to the altar alone, such as the burnt-offering of birds and oxen that are burned, that their blood is a permitting factor to the altar alone, as for example, the two loaves (brought as a communal sacrifice on Shavuot) that the blood of the lambs is the permitting factor, and the shewbread (see Leviticus 24:5-9) that are in the dishes are a permitting factor, as for example, the meal offerings that have a permitting factor through a handful of the meal offering which the priest takes to put on the altar. All of these, there is no liability because of inappropriate intention and left-over and impure until the permitting factors are offered, for this is written regarding inappropriate intention (Leviticus 7:18): “[If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day,] it shall not be acceptable; [it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing],” and we stated the same ceremonies which are needed for the atoning efficacy of the legally performed offering, are required for making it an unfit offering (the eating of which is punishable by extirpation). But the remnant and impure we derive from פיגול /offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention in Tractate Zevakhim in chapter two “All of the Sacrifices” /כל הזבחים (Talmud Zevakhim 28b and 45b).
2.9.5
כל דבר שאין לו מתירין – like those of the handful of the meal offering which the priest takes to put on the altar and the frankincense which are themselves permitting factors themselves but they do not permit any other thing.
2.9.6
חייב משום עליה משום נותר וטמא – because impure things we include them, from what is written (Leviticus 22:3): “if any man among your offspring, while in a state of impurity , partakes of any sacred donation that the Israelite people may consecrate to the LORD, that person shall be cut off [from before Me,” the Biblical verse speaks of all of the Holy Things to make one liable because it is impure, and that which is remnant is derived from the impure (see Talmud Zevakhim 45b).
3.1.1
ולד חטאת וכו' יומתו – that these are from five sin-offerings that we derive that they died, and these three have always died, whether prior to atonement or after atonement [of the person who brought them], for they are not offered. And this Mishnah is taught at the beginning of the fourth chapter of [Tractate] Temurah and there I have explained it.
3.2.1
המפריש מעות לנזירותו – but he didn’t specify, “these for my burnt-offering (he-lamb), and these for my sin-offering (ewe-lamb) and these for my peace-offering (ram).” (see Numbers 6:14)
3.2.2
לא נהנים ולא מועלים – with all of these monies.
3.2.3
מפני שהן ראויין להביא אותן שלמים – that is to say, that for each and every Me’ah (a small silver coin worth 32 Perutot or one-sixth of a Denar), we are able to say that he set them aside for peace-offerings. But peace-offerings are Lesser Holy Things and they don’t have the law of religious sacrilege associated with them, as is taught at the end of the first chapter [of Meilah, Mishnah 4], for Lesser Holy Things prior to the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, one does not commit sacrilege. But even though there is also among them the sin-offering and burnt-offering which are eligible for religious sacrilege, since there are also the monies for the peace-offerings which are not eligible for religious sacrilege, if he brought upon them the sacrilege sacrifice, we find that he brings unconsecrated things into the Temple courtyard, therefore, they are not available for benefit nor religious sacrilege.
3.2.4
מת – A person who sets aside money, and these monies were undefined, as he did not specify that these were for the sin-offering and these for the burnt-offering and these for the peace-offering, all these monies would all [to the Temple treasury] as a donation.
3.2.5
דמי חטאת ילכו לים המלח – for a sin-offering whose owners died.
3.2.6
דמי עולה יביאו עולה – as we state [Tractate Kinim, at the end of Chapter 2 – Mishnah 5]: “The woman who died let her heirs bring her bunt-offering,” for it is a mere gift.
3.2.7
ונאכלין ליום אחד – like the law regarding the peace-offering of the Nazir (see Mishnah Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6 - also found in a standard traditional Siddur as part of the morning service).
3.2.8
ואינן טעונין לחם – for regarding bread, it is written (Numbers 6:19): ”and he shall place them (the shoulder of the ram, one unleavened cake and one unleavened wafer) and place them on he hands of the nazirite [after he has shaved his consecrated hair],” but he is not there since he died.
3.3.1
הדם בתחילה אין מועלין בו – that is prior to its (i.e., the blood’s) sprinkling/tossing, as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[For the life of the flesh is in the blood,] and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation I have given it but not for sacrilege.
3.3.2
יצא לנחל קדרון ומועלין בו – that is after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood on the altar]. As it is taught in the Mishnah (see Tractate Yoma, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6): “The two streams of blood that mingled together in the [flow of the] surrounding channel and flowed down into the Kidron Brook and are sold to gardeners for fertilizer and the law of sacrilege applies to them [until the sale].” This religious sacrilege is from the Rabbis and not from the Torah, for there is nothing where its command is performed and the law of religious sacrilege applies.
3.3.3
יצאו לשיתין – a perforation was in the altar through which the libations would descend to pits, and these are the foundations of the altar which are hollow and very deep. But if he placed his hand inside and received the libations prior to their descending into the pit, he does not commit religious sacrilege, for their command had already been fulfilled.
3.4.1
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.
3.4.2
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.
3.4.3
תורין – when he sanctified them (i.e., the turtledoves) prior to their maturation and the pigeons after their maturation.
3.4.4
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.
3.4.5
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.
3.5.1
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.
3.5.2
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.
3.6.1
כל הראוי למזבח – it states that their body is appropriate.
3.6.2
בור מלא מים – their body is appropriate for the repair of the Temple house for building, but their body is not appropriate for the altar, for it is not appropriate for the libation of waters but rather potable, running spring water, for they would not make water libations in the Temple other than from the waters of the Shiloah.
3.6.3
אשפה מלאה זבל – its body is not appropriate either for the altar nor for repair of the Temple house but rather for its monetary value.
3.6.4
שובך מלא יונים – it is appropriate for the altar but not for the repair of the Temple house.
3.6.5
אילן מלא פירות – it is appropriate for the altar for First Fruits but not for the repair of the Temple house.
3.6.6
שדה מלאה עשבים – it is not appropriate either for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple house.
3.6.7
ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן – they are not subject to the law of sacrilege in what they became more valuable after it was dedicated [to the Temple].
3.6.8
ולד מעושרת (offspring of the tithe of cattle) – if a female cow came out tenth that passes under the shepherd’s staff (see Leviticus 27:32 – “All tithes of the herd or the flock – of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD”), and it had a male issue prior to that, it cannot suck any further from her, for her male issue is unconsecrated, and she (i.e., the mother) is tithe, and it is found that he would be benefitting from the milk of something dedicated, for the tithing of cattle is something holy.
3.6.9
ואחרים מתנדבים כן – meaning to say, this one “that passed under the shepherd’s staff” undefined, It should not suck from it (i.e., the tithe of cattle), but others that had donated [their beasts] beforehand, are permitted to make a condition prior to tithing that if the tithe of their cattle should be a female beast, its milk would be unconsecrated in order that its young can suck from her with legal permission, and similarly also with the offspring of that which is dedicated, that they would not dedicate the milk of their mother. Such is what my Rabbis/Teachers have explained, but it is spoken with an expression of uncertainty. But Maimonides explained [that the expression] “and others donate,” that whomever whose heart causes him to donate who donate milk to cause to suck the offspring of a tithed and dedicated animal, because it is forbidden for offspring to suck from them, for the Rabbis declared that it should be considered like shearing and Divine service that is forbidden with Holy Things. Therefore, they don’t have a remedy other than that others will donate milk to cause them (i.e., the offspring) to suck, since they were forbidden from sucking from the milk of their mother. And this is correct.
3.6.10
לא יאכלו מגרוגרות של הקדש – and even if they made a condition that they would perform the work of their meals, we don’t eat from the dried figs of that which is dedicated [to the Temple], but rather, the treasure gives them the cost of food from that which is dedicated and they purchase [food] from the market.
3.6.11
וכן פרה – that threshes in the vetches of that which is dedicated [to the Temple], we muzzle its mouth so that it doesn’t eat from that which is dedicated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” with threshing that is appropriate for it you don’t muzzle, but you do muzzle [an ox] with threshing of dedicated/sacred things that is not appropriate for it, for it is not permitted to eat that which is dedicated/consecrated [to the Temple].
3.7.1
שרשי אילן של הדיוט באין בשל הקדש (the roots of a privately owned tree that come into consecrated ground) – they do not benefit nor do the laws of sacrilege apply, for we follow after the tree, and this refers to the tree of a private person. But these words, when there is nothing between the tree of a private person and the sanctified property other than sixteen cubits or less. But if there is between them more than sixteen cubits, the laws of sacrilege apply with the roots that are growing in the sanctified field, for it no longer follows after the tree.
3.7.2
ושל הקדש באין בשל הדיוט לא נהנין ולא מועלין – (see the Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra 26b) as for example that there is between a consecrated tree and the ground of a private person more than sixteen cubits, that the roots that are growing are of the private person and they don’t follow after the consecrated tee since they are distanced from it by so much, therefore, the laws of sacrilege do not apply, But if there isn’t between them sixteen cubits or less, the laws of sacrilege apply.
3.7.3
מעין שהוא יוצא מתוך שדה הקדש – My Rabbis/Teachers explained for me, as for example, that a well that is unconsecrated flows/gushes forth in a privately owned field, but it continues and goes out and passes through a consecrated field. We don’t derive benefit from it within the consecrated field. But the laws of sacrilege do not apply, because it is through a private [field] that it gushes forth.
3.7.4
יצאו – the water that is in this well that flows/gushes forth from the field of a private individual and passes in a consecrated field and leaves from the consecrated field, we derive benefit from it ab initio.
3.7.5
המים שבכד של זהב – this is concerning the libation of water in the seven days of the Festival [of Sukkot] as is taught in the Mishnah (in Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 10): “As the rite concerning it [is performed] on a weekday, so the rite concerning it [is performed] on the Sabbath. But on the Eve of the Sabbath one would fill with water from the Shiloah a gold jug which was not sanctified [and he would leave it in a chamber (in the Temple)],” but from those waters, they would not derive benefit nor would the laws of religious sacrilege be applicable, for they were not sanctified for the water libation for religious sacrilege until they were placed in a golden flask, which is a sanctified utensil.
3.7.6
ערבה – that they would lean them upright near the altar (literally, at the sides of the altar), as it is taught in the Mishnah in the Chapter “The Lulav and the Willow” (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5).
3.7.7
נותנים היו ממנו בלולב – at the outside before they would lean it. For even though they did not gather it other than in order to lean it on the altar.
3.8.1
קן שבראש אילן של הקדש – that the bird bruilt it from the wood and chips that it brought from another place.
3.8.2
שבאשרה יתיז בקנה – he should cause the nest to fall to the ground with a reed, and specifically, cause it to fly off, but he should not ascend on the Asherah/idolatrous tree, for if he ascends to take the nest, it is found that he is benefitting from the Asherah. But the eggs and the chicks that are in the nest, all the time that they need their mother, it is forbidden, whether at the top of a sanctified tree or whether at the top of an Asherah.
3.8.3
המקדיש את החורש – the Aramaic translation of “forest,” thicket, wild-growing bushes.
3.8.4
מועלים בכולו – in the trees and on the branches and on the leaves.
3.8.6
הגזברים שלקחו את העצים – Maimonides explained, to include the pieces of wood that they cut with a saw at the time when they prepare them for beams, that they commit religious sacrilege with them.
3.8.7
ולא בשפויין (but not with their shavings/planings/chips) – thin boards that they planed/sawed from the trees when they split them.
3.8.8
נויה (sproutings, leaves and flowers) – leaves that are on the trees of the forest.
4.1.1
קדשי המזבח מצטרפים זה עם זה למעילה – if he benefitted from two kinds of Holy Things of the altar at the equivalent of a penny, he has committed religious sacrilege/misappropriation. But they combine also up to an olive’s bulk because of eating from sacrileges offered with the inappropriate intention or remnants or something impure, or to make one liable above an olive’s bulk outside the Temple courtyard.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org Licence: CC-BY. Source.