מֵיתִיבֵי: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. הָא עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַחֲזִיר,

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s explanation from a mishna ( Zevaḥim 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the mishna that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב קַשְׁיָא! אֲמַר לָךְ רַב: שָׁאנֵי גַּחֶלֶת דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא.

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [ meshasha ] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.

אִיכָּא דַּאֲמַר לָהּ לְהָךְ גִּיסָא: טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם גַּחֶלֶת – דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא, הָא אֵפֶר דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא – אֲפִילּוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב – נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא!

There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The mishna indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to Rabbi Yoḥanan it is difficult.

אֲמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ אֵפֶר, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָתָנֵי גַּחֶלֶת, קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוּעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ גַּחֶלֶת דְּאִית בָּהּ מְשָׁשָׁא, כִּי פָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: The same is true that even ash that was dislodged must be returned. And this is the reason that the mishna teaches an ember, and not ash: It is coming to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it is dislodged from upon the altar the priest does not return it.

אִיתְמַר, הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִבְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְאֵמוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים. רַב אָמַר: מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֶה – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, וְלֵוִי אָמַר: יָבִיא דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

§ One of the halakhot of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to this money: In the case of one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or who derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, Rav says: The value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings, and Levi says: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, e.g., incense. One does not bring a burnt offering with this money, as the hide of a burnt offering belongs to the priests.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: מְעִילָה זוֹ לְהֵיכָן הוֹלֶכֶת? הַלְּמֵידִין לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיא דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאי נִיהוּ? קְטֹרֶת.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: This money paid for misuse of consecrated items, to where does it go? The Rabbis who are called: Those who learn before the Sages, say: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, and what is that? Incense, which is burned on the altar in its entirety.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִדְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּמִדְּמֵי אָשָׁם, עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה אֲשָׁמוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ. קָרַב חַטָּאתוֹ – יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, כְּבָר קָרַב אֲשָׁמוֹ – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of one who derives benefit from money set aside for the purchase of a sin offering or set aside as money set aside for the purchase of a guilt offering, if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his sin offering. And likewise, if he pays before his guilt offering is sacrificed, he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his guilt offering. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money is cast into the Dead Sea. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed, the money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִקָּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֶה יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, קָרְבְּנוֹת קָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת – לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, קָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר.

The baraita continues: One who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or if he derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, the value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita summarizes: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are sacrificed on the altar is used to purchase items for the altar, whereas the reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are consecrated for Temple maintenance is donated to Temple maintenance. And the reimbursement for misuse of all communal offerings is allocated for communal gift offerings.

הָא גּוּפָהּ קַשְׁיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ, מִשֶּׁקָּרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, וְקָתָנֵי: כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּאִיכְפּוּר בְּעָלִים, וְלָא שְׁנָא הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִיכְפּוּר!

The Gemara notes that this baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it is apparently self-contradictory. In the first clause it teaches that if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring a more expensive animal as his sin offering, and if his sin offering has already been sacrificed the money is cast into the Dead Sea. But it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita : The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings that are sacrificed on the altar must be used to purchase items for the altar. The Gemara further explains the contradiction: And it can be inferred from this last statement that there is no difference if the owner has already achieved atonement through his sin offering and there is no difference if the owner has not yet achieved atonement through his sin offering.

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כָּל חַטָּאת שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – תָּמוּת.

The Gemara answers that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin offering whose owners achieved atonement by means of another animal must be left to die. Therefore, if the owner has achieved atonement, the money for misuse must be cast into the Dead Sea.