Mishnayos Meilah Perek 1 Mishnah 4

With regard to establishing liability for misuse of consecrated items, there is an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, it contains in its entirety aspects of stringency, i.e., there are only aspects of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of the most sacred order is that before the sprinkling of blood, one is liable for misusing their sacrificial portions that are to be burned on the altar, and for misusing the meat that is to be eaten by the priests. Since the meat is prohibited prior to sprinkling the blood, it is in the category of items consecrated to God, which are subject to the halakhot of misuse. After the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order, one is still liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, as they remain prohibited to be eaten and are in the category of items consecrated to God, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat, as it is now permitted for consumption by the priests. This explains how there is an aspect of leniency in the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and the prohibition against consumption of notar, and the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, the act of sprinkling blood of offerings of the most sacred order is found to contain an aspect of leniency and an aspect of stringency. But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their aspects are of stringency. How so? The status of offerings of lesser sanctity is that before the sprinkling of the blood, one is not liable for misuse, not for their sacrificial portions nor for the meat. After the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, but one is not liable for misuse of the meat. This explains how the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity causes a stringency in terms of the halakhot of misuse. And for consumption of both this, the sacrificial portions, and that, the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, one is liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition against consumption of piggul, and of the prohibition against consumption of notar, and of the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. Consequently, in the act of sprinkling the blood of offerings of lesser sanctity, it is found that all of their aspects are of stringency.

מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וּבַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִים בָּאֵמוּרִים וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים כֻּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין לֹא בָאֵמוּרִין וְלֹא בַבָּשָׂר. לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּאֵמוּרִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה, חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. נִמְצָא מַעֲשֵׂה דָמִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֻּלּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר: