but is not fit for Temple maintenance, or if it is fit for Temple maintenance but not for sacrifice on the altar, or fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance, nevertheless one is liable for misusing it. The mishna clarifies each of these categories: Fit for Temple maintenance but not for sacrifice on the altar, how so?

In a case where one consecrated a cistern full of water, the water is not fit for sacrifice on the altar, as only water from the Siloam pool is used for the altar. Nevertheless, it is fit for Temple maintenance, e.g., to knead clay with it for use in reinforcing the walls of the Temple. What is the case of an item fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated garbage dumps full of manure, the place and its contents are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance. Rather, they are sold and the money received from the sale is donated to the Temple. What is the case of an item fit for sacrifice on the altar but not fit for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated a dovecote full of pigeons, the pigeons are fit for the altar while the dovecote is not fit even for Temple maintenance.

Or if one consecrated a tree full of fruit, as the fruit is fit for the altar whereas the tree is not fit even for Temple maintenance. For example, grapes are fit for the altar as wine, but the vines are not fit for Temple maintenance, as they are too flimsy for construction. Another case where the consecrated item is fit for neither the altar nor Temple maintenance is a field full of grass.

In all those cases, one is liable for misusing both them and that which is within them, as those that are unfit for use in the Temple will be sold and their money will be used for the altar or for Temple maintenance.

But if one consecrated an empty cistern and it was subsequently filled with water, or if one consecrated an empty garbage dump and it was subsequently filled with manure, or an empty dovecote and it was subsequently filled with pigeons, or a tree without fruit and it was subsequently filled with fruit, or an empty field and it was subsequently filled with grass; in all these cases one is liable for misusing them but one is not liable for misusing that which is within them. There is no misuse with regard to enhancements that developed in consecrated property.

Rabbi Yosei disagrees in two of the above cases and says: In the case of one who consecrates the empty field in which grass grew or the empty tree on which fruit grew, he is liable for misusing both them and their growth, because these are growths of consecrated property, despite the fact that they grew there only after the property was consecrated.

Apropos the growths of consecrated property, the mishna states that an offspring born to a tithed animal before it was tithed may not be given to suckle from the tithed mother, as it is a non-sacred animal that may not be allowed to derive benefit from consecrated property. And there are others who stipulate in this manner, i.e., that the consecration does not apply to the milk. The same is true of the offspring of sacrificial animals born to them before their consecration; they may not suckle from the sacrificial animal. And in this case as well, there are others who stipulate in this manner, i.e., to enable the offspring to suckle.

The laborers, who are generally permitted to eat the food of their employer, may not eat from consecrated dried figs, if they work with Temple produce. Rather, they can buy food with the money they are paid. And likewise, a cow working with consecrated property, e.g., threshing Temple produce, may not eat from consecrated vetch [mikarshinei].

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an offspring born to a tithed animal before it was tithed may not suckle from the tithed mother, and the same applies to the offspring of a sacrificial animal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said: It is derived through a verbal analogy of the expressions “passing” and “passing,” from the case of a firstborn offering. With regard to animal tithe the verse states: “Whatsoever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), and with regard to the firstborn offering it is stated: “And you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb, to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). Just as in the case of the firstborn offering one is liable for misusing all of it, as it is a male and does not have milk, so too, with regard to the milk of a tithed animal one is liable for misusing all of it, i.e., all of it is forbidden, including its milk, as it is part of the tithed animal. Therefore, the offspring may not suckle from the mother.

The other halakha, that the milk of a sacrificial animal is prohibited, is also derived through a verbal analogy, specifically the terms “its mother” and “its mother,” from the case of a firstborn offering. With regard to sacrificial animals the verse states: “When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is born, it shall be seven days under its mother” (Leviticus 22:27), and in the case of the firstborn offering it is stated: “Seven days it shall be with its mother” (Exodus 22:29). Just as one is liable for misusing all of a firstborn offering, so too, one is liable for misusing the milk of a sacrificial animal, i.e., the milk is forbidden, as it is part of the sacrificial animal. Consequently, its offspring may not suckle from the mother.

§ The mishna teaches that the laborers of Temple produce may not eat from consecrated dried figs, and likewise a cow may not eat from consecrated vetch. The Gemara does not ask about the source of the halakha of a laborer, as the verse clearly states in this regard: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard” (Deuteronomy 23:25), which does not include a vineyard belonging to the Temple; but the Gemara does ask about the case of the cow: What is the reason for the ruling with regard to a cow? Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said: As the verse states: “Do not muzzle the ox during its treading” (Deuteronomy 25:4). The term “its treading” teaches that this prohibition applies to muzzling an ox when it is treading your non-sacred field, and not when it is treading a consecrated field. Since the consecrated produce is prohibited, one must muzzle the ox.

The Gemara discusses a similar case: One who threshes his non-sacred kalilin, a type of legume, in a consecrated field is liable for misuse of consecrated items. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in order for one to be liable for misuse, we require the consecrated item from which one derives benefit to be detached from the ground, whereas the field is the ground itself. Ravina said: Conclude from it that the field’s dust is beneficial for kalilin, and therefore he misuses the detached dust of the consecrated field when he threshes it.