Meilah 13a — the Talmud in English

How so?

If he dedicated a cistern full of water,

and the water is fit for the repairs of the Temple but not for the altar ,

a dungheap full of

manure,

it is fit neither for the altar nor for the repairs of the Temple ,

a dovecote full of doves,

the doves are fit for the altar, whereas the dovecote is not fit even for the repairs of the Temple ,

a tree full of fruit,

the fruit is fit neither for the altar nor for the repairs of the Temple ,

a field full of weeds,

they are fit neither for the altar nor for the repairs of the Temple. In all these and similar cases,

one commits meila with them

and with what is inside them ,

one who ate them or benefited from them.

But if he dedicated a cistern, and afterward it became filled with water , a dungheap, and afterward it became filled with manure; a dovecote, and afterward it became filled with doves; a tree, and afterward So if afterward it became filled with fruit, [and] a field, and afterward it became filled with weeds, one commits meila with them, but one does not commit meila with what is inside them , because one does not commit meila with what the Temple treasury caused to improve, and likewise one does not commit meila with the growths of the Temple treasury . Rabbi Yosei says: One who dedicates the field and the tree, in these two cases,

a refuse heap, and only afterward it became filled with manure; a dovecote, and only afterward it became filled with pigeons; a tree, and afterward

a refuse pit, and afterward it became filled with manure; a dovecote, and afterward it became filled with pigeons; a tree, and afterward

one commits meila with them and with their growths

because they are the growths of the Temple treasury .

because one does not misuse the increase produced by consecrated property, and one likewise does not misuse growths of consecrated property.

Rabbi Yosei says: If one consecrates a field or a tree,

in these two cases,

one misuses them and their growths

because they are growths of consecrated property.

The Mishna continues with the law of me'ila.

The offspring of the tithed animal,

of animal tithe—that is, one that was born before its mother entered the pen to be tithed, and he also consecrated the offspring, so that both the mother and the offspring are consecrated, and nevertheless

may not nurse from the tithed animal,

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara

while others volunteer to do so,

generous householders would volunteer to nurse those offspring from their unconsecrated animals.

And likewise, the offspring of consecrated animals, both the mother and the offspring are consecrated, and nevertheless

may not nurse from the consecrated animals.

While others volunteer to do so.

It is explained in tractate Bava Metzia [87a] that by Torah law, a worker eats from what he works with, whether attached or detached, as the Torah says [Deuteronomy 23]. Likewise, an animal eats while working with detached produce, and it is forbidden to muzzle its mouth, as the Torah says [Deuteronomy 25].

And the Mishna says: In what context are these words stated? In the case of an ordinary person’s property; but in the case of the Temple treasury, the workers do not eat. And they muzzle the animal’s mouth.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

The workers, who perform work with property of the Temple treasury, may not eat from dried figs

The reason will be explained in the Gemara .

of

the Temple treasury.

which threshes with property of the Temple treasury, may not eat

of

the consecrated property .

Similarly, a cow,

from the vetches

[a type of animal feed]

of the Temple treasury.

belonging to the consecrated property.

Gemara: We learned,

Gemara:

It teaches, we learned:

“The offspring of the tithed animal may not nurse from the tithed animal.”

And we further learned: The offspring of consecrated animals may not nurse from the consecrated animals.

The Gemara inquires:

From where are these words

learned? From where do we learn these matters—that even when the offspring also belongs to consecrated property, it is forbidden to nurse from its mother?

But is it not stated concerning consecrated animals [Leviticus 22]: “And it shall be seven days under its mother,” which plainly implies that even if its mother was consecrated, nevertheless it nurses from her?

Rabbi Ahadvoi bar Ami said: The prohibition against nursing is learned by a gezerah shavah from the firstborn, as will be explained. A firstborn born from its mother—certainly its mother is not consecrated. For it is impossible that its mother should be consecrated, since a firstborn born to animal tithe or to other consecrated property is not holy with firstborn sanctity, as explained in tractate Hullin [130a].

Rabbi Aḥadboi bar Ami said: The prohibition against nursing is learned through an analogy based on an identical expression from the firstborn, as will be explained. In the case of a firstborn animal born to its mother, the mother is certainly not consecrated. For it is impossible for the mother to be consecrated, since a firstborn born to an animal tithe or to another consecrated offering does not possess firstborn sanctity, as explained in tractate Chullin [130a]. Therefore, we derive as follows: Just as with regard to a firstborn animal, “one commits misuse through it,” meaning

But it is stated with regard to consecrated animals [Leviticus 22], “It shall be seven days under its mother,” which seemingly indicates that even if its mother was consecrated, it may nevertheless nurse from her .

Therefore, we derive: Just as with a firstborn, “one commits me'ila through it,” meaning

it is forbidden to nurse the firstborn from an animal of animal tithe or consecrated property, but only from its mother when she is unconsecrated, or from other unconsecrated nursing animals,

This is derived

so too, an animal tithe and other consecrated animals may not nurse from their mother when they are consecrated, but only from their unconsecrated mother, or from other unconsecrated animals.

It comes, it is learned by a gezerah shavah: “

passing” “

passing”

from the firstborn.

It is stated concerning the firstborn [Exodus 13]: “And you shall pass over every first issue of the womb,” and it is stated concerning animal tithe [Leviticus 27]: “Everything that passes under the staff.”

And it comes to teach us:

Just as with a firstborn, one commits me'ila through it,

as explained,

so too, with the milk of the tithed animal, one commits me'ila through it.

The milk of consecrated animals, too, comes

that is, it too is learned by a gezerah shavah:

“

its mother” “

its mother”

from the firstborn.

It is stated concerning the firstborn [Exodus 22]: “For seven days it shall be with its mother,” and it is stated concerning consecrated animals [Leviticus 22]: “And it shall be seven days under its mother,” teaching us, as above: just as with a firstborn one commits me'ila through it, so too with the milk of consecrated animals one commits me'ila through it.

We learned in the Mishna: “The workers may not eat from the dried figs of the Temple treasury, and likewise a cow may not eat from the vetches of the Temple treasury.” The Gemara inquires: What is the reason, what is the reason that the workers may not eat from the property of the Temple treasury? That is, from where do we derive that the Torah’s mitzva to allow workers to eat from detached and attached produce applies specifically to an ordinary person’s property and not to the property of the Temple treasury? Rabbi Ahadvoi bar Ami said: For the verse says [Deuteronomy 25]: “ You shall not muzzle an ox while it threshes,” and we derive:

from the firstborn.

It is stated with regard to the firstborn [Exodus 22], “For seven days it shall be with its mother,” and it is stated with regard to consecrated animals [Leviticus 22], “It shall be seven days under its mother.” This teaches us, as above: Just as misuse applies to a firstborn, so too, misuse applies to the milk of consecrated animals .

“Its threshing,” yours,

that of an ordinary person,

but not the threshing of the Temple treasury,

and from this

we derive the prohibition of muzzling an animal, and from it we learn the eating of a worker, as the Gemara says in tractate Bava Metzia [89a], that a worker was juxtaposed to an animal.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said: For the verse states [Deuteronomy 25]:

“You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,”

and we derive:

“its threshing” means yours ,

that of an ordinary person,

and not the threshing of consecrated property,

and from here we derive the prohibition against muzzling an animal, and from it we learn the laborer’s eating, as the Gemara states in tractate Bava Metzia [89a], that a laborer was equated with an animal.

The Gemara brings a beraita [or a statement of early amoraim]:

One who threshes kernels [

a type of legume]

in a consecrated field,

and derives benefit from using the consecrated field,

commits misuse.

And we object: But why did he commit misuse,

for we require [the object to be] detached,

for surely there is no misuse with what is attached to the ground, and all the more so with the ground itself ? [ as is explained below, 18b].

And we answer:

Ravina said: Infer from this,

it is possible to learn from this ruling that

its dust benefits it ,

the dust of the ground benefits and improves the legumes when they are threshed in consecrated ground. And since the dust is detached, therefore: there is misuse.