Commentary for Meilah 3:9

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.

Introduction This mishnah is found word for word in Temurah 4:1. It is brought here because it also deals with sacrilege. I have mostly replicated my commentary from there. In Temurah 2:2 we learned that there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.

A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply. When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.

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)

Introduction When a nazirite finishes his term he must bring three offerings: a hatat (sin-offering), an olah (whole-burnt offering), and a shelamim (well-being offering). Our mishnah deals with how the law of sacrilege and various other laws apply to these three offerings in a case where a person set aside money to buy the sacrifices but had not yet bought them.

לא נהנים ולא מועלים – with all of these monies.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he set aside money, he is not allowed to use the money, but the laws of sacrilege don’t apply. This is because all of the money might end up going for shelamim (offerings of well-being), and since shelamim are sacrifices of lower sanctity, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them (see 1:4).

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.

If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering. If he died and left money, but had not specified how much was to go for each type of sacrifice, then all of the money goes to the general fund in the Temple used to buy voluntary offerings.

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.

The mishnah now deals with a case where he did specify which coins go for which sacrifices. The money set aside for a hatat must be destroyed. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a hatat whose owners have died can’t be sacrificed. While it is forbidden to derive any benefit from this money, if he does it is not sacrilege, because the money was not going to be used to buy a sacrifice. The money for the olah should be used to buy an olah. The law of sacrilege will apply to the olah, as it always does. The money set aside for the shelamim is used for a shelamim. It must be eaten by the next day, as is the law for the shelamim of a nazirite (Zevahim 5:6), but it does not need to be accompanied by a bread-offering, because the nazirite is dead and the bread offering is supposed to be put in his hands (see Numbers 6:19).

דמי חטאת ילכו לים המלח – for a sin-offering whose owners died.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses the law of sacrilege as it relates to blood and the wine libations.

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.

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. This section introduces the rest of the mishnah. As we have seen on many occasions, the rabbis frequently compare the laws as they apply in one case with their application in other cases.

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.

Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Before the blood is put on the altar, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is derived in the Talmud from a midrash. After being spilled or cast against the altar, the blood would flow out of the Temple down into Wadi Kidron. Blood found in the soil surrounding the Wadi was subject to sacrilege. This would mean that anyone using this soil, which was used for fertilizer, would have to pay for its use to the Temple.

Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin. Before the wine libations are put on the altar, they are subject to the law of sacrilege. This is because it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. However, after they flow out through the hole on the altar down to the “shittin” the foundations of the altar, the law of sacrilege no longer applies. The general rule is that anything which has had its mitzvah performed is not subject to the law of sacrilege.

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.

The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. The incense was burned on the inner altar, inside the Sanctuary. It is forbidden to use the ashes from this altar, and to use the wicks of the menorah. However, since their mitzvoth had already been performed, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.

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.

If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. If after the ashes were removed from the Temple, someone picked them up and dedicated them to the Temple, they would then become subject to sacrilege. In other words, they would remain forbidden but one who did use them would be liable to compensate the Temple.

תורין – when he sanctified them (i.e., the turtledoves) prior to their maturation and the pigeons after their maturation.

Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtle-doves can be used as sacrifices when they are mature. Pigeons can only be used when they are young. If one dedicates them before they have reached the right age, or after they have passed their age they may not be used, but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, because they are not fit to be put on the altar.

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.

Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege. Before turtle-doves reach the right age, they are subject to the law of sacrilege, because they will eventually become fit for the altar. However, he agrees with the previous opinion that once pigeons have passed the age at which they can be sacrificed, they are no longer subject to sacrilege.

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.

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.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with sacrilege and the products that come from animals milk and eggs.

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.

The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of [consecrated] turtle-doves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege. The sanctity of a consecrated female animal or turtle-dove applies to the animal itself, but not to the products that come from the animal, such as milk and eggs. While one may not derive any benefit from these items, they are not holy and therefore, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.

When is this so? For things dedicated for the altar, but as for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege. The above exemption from the law of sacrilege applies only if the animal was dedicated for the altar. But if an animal which could not be sacrificed was dedicated, such as a chicken or a donkey, then the animal is considered to have been dedicated for Temple upkeep. This means that the animal will be sold and the profits used to maintain the Temple. In such a case, even those things which the animal produces are holy and are subject to the law of sacrilege. We shall deal more with this subject in tomorrow’s mishnah.

כל הראוי למזבח – it states that their body is appropriate.

Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege. A person can be liable for sacrilege for things that are either fit for use on the altar, or fit for use for Temple repair, or not fit for either use. In all cases, it is possible that the law of sacrilege will apply, as the mishnah will now explain.

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.

How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Water is fit for Temple repair but not for the altar. It can be used to make bricks, or for other uses. But this water cannot be put on the altar, because the one water libation done during the year, on Sukkot, was done with water from the Shiloah. The manure is fit for neither use. It would have to be sold and its profits used for Temple upkeep. The pigeons can be put on the altar. Some fruit, such as grapes and olives, can be put on the altar. Other fruit cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. They would be sold and the profits used for Temple upkeep. Similarly, herbs cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. In all of these cases, the law of sacrilege applies both to the container, and to that which was in it or on it. However, if one dedicates one of these things before it contains the water, manure, etc. only the container/tree/field is subject to the law of sacrilege. The general rule is that which is produced by something dedicated is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah.

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.

Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property. Rabbi Shimon partially disagrees with Rabbi Judah. He holds that if something grows from a consecrated thing, such as fruit from a tree or herbs from a plant, that which grows is subject to the law of sacrilege.

שובך מלא יונים – it is appropriate for the altar but not for the repair of the Temple house.

The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use. Tithed animals are sacred as are their offspring. Therefore, even their own offspring cannot nurse from them. Other people dedicate milk so that the offspring of tithed or holy animals can have milk to nurse.

אילן מלא פירות – it is appropriate for the altar for First Fruits but not for the repair of the Temple house.

Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple. Workers who are working on behalf of the Temple, or a cow performing some type of labor needed for the Temple, cannot directly eat produce dedicated to the Temple. Although the Temple must feed the workers or the cow, they still can’t eat holy property. They get their pay from the Temple treasurer. They can then use these funds to buy their own food.

שדה מלאה עשבים – it is not appropriate either for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple house.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.
The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it When it has left the field it may be used.
The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.
When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege.
The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.
Section one: In this case, either the tree grows on privately owned, non-sacred ground but its roots spread out onto dedicated ground, or the opposite. Since part of the tree is on sacred ground, it is forbidden to benefit from any of the tree. However, since the entire tree is not on sacred ground, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.
Section two: This refers to a case where a person dedicated his field to the Temple, but he did not dedicate the spring. While the spring is on the field, the water may not be used because it is on dedicated ground. However, since he didn’t dedicate the spring itself, the water is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Once the water has left the field, it can be used. This is different from the case of the tree because all parts of a tree are interconnected. When its roots leave the sacred ground they are not disconnected from that ground, unlike water which is.
Section three: This section refers to the water used for the water libation on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9-10). The day before Shabbat, they would fill a golden jar with water drawn from the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem, so that the next day they could pour it onto the altar without having to carry from the Shiloah to the Temple. When in this jar, the water cannot be used for other purposes, but it has not yet been sanctified so it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. The golden flask was used on most days to directly draw water from the Shiloah, and on Shabbat they would pour from the golden jar into the golden flask. The flask serves to sanctify the water and therefore once in this flask it is subject to the law of sacrilege.
Section four: On Sukkot there was a custom to place willows on the side of the altar (see Sukkah 4:5). That willow cannot be used for other purposes, but it is not subject to the law of sacrilege, because it is not sanctified. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok notes that before putting it next to the altar, the elders used to put it with their palm branches (the lulav). This is not considered illicit use, because when one performs a mitzvah with an object, it is not considered that he has “derived benefit” from the object.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

קן שבראש אילן של הקדש – that the bird bruilt it from the wood and chips that it brought from another place.

A nest which is built on the top of a dedicated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. The nest at the top of the dedicated tree is forbidden for use, but since it is not the tree itself, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.

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.

That which is on the top of an asherah, one flicks [it] off with a reed. An asherah is a tree used in idol worship (see Avodah Zarah 3:7). It is forbidden to use the tree. The nest, however, is not prohibited. If a person wants to take the nest, he can flick it off with a reed. Note that the law is stricter when it comes to Temple property there is no way to use the nest.

המקדיש את החורש – the Aramaic translation of “forest,” thicket, wild-growing bushes.

If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it. If a person dedicates an entire forest to the Temple, every part of the tree is sacred and subject to the law of sacrilege, including the leaves.

מועלים בכולו – in the trees and on the branches and on the leaves.

However, if the Temple buys a forest in order to use the trees, only the parts of the tree that they intend to use, namely the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege. The chips and the fallen leaves are not subject to sacrilege because the when the treasurers bought them, they knew that they had no use for them.

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.

ולא בשפויין (but not with their shavings/planings/chips) – thin boards that they planed/sawed from the trees when they split them.

נויה (sproutings, leaves and flowers) – leaves that are on the trees of the forest.