Meilah 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

How so?

If one consecrated a cistern full of water,

the water is fit for the repair of the Temple but not for the altar ;

a full refuse pit

of manure,

is fit neither for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple ;

a dovecote full of pigeons,

the pigeons are fit for the altar, whereas the dovecote itself is not fit even for the repair of the Temple ;

a tree full of fruit,

the fruit is fit neither for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple ;

a field full of weeds,

the weeds are fit neither for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple. In all these cases and similar ones,

one is liable for misuse

of them and of what is inside them ,

one who ate them or derived benefit from them.

But if one consecrated a cistern and afterward it became filled with water,

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

Thus, if it subsequently became filled with fruit, or if a field subsequently became filled with weeds,

one is liable for misuse of them, but there is no liability for misuse of what is inside them ,

because there is no liability for misuse of the enhancement produced by consecrated property, and likewise there is no liability for misuse of the growths of consecrated property .

Rabbi Yosei says: One who consecrates the field or the tree,

in these two cases,

is liable for misuse of them and of their growths

because they are the growths of consecrated property .

The Mishna continues with the law of misuse of consecrated property.

The offspring of a tithed animal,

of animal tithe; that is, it was born before its mother entered the pen to be tithed, and he consecrated the offspring as well. It follows that both the mother and the offspring are consecrated, and nevertheless

it may not nurse from the tithed animal,

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And others volunteer to do so,

generous householders would volunteer to nurse those offspring from their own non-sacred animals.

Likewise,

the offspring of consecrated animals,

both the mother and the offspring are consecrated, and nevertheless

it may not nurse from consecrated animals.

And others volunteer to do so.

It is explained in tractate Bava Metzia [87a] that by Torah law, a laborer may eat from what he is working with, whether it is attached to the ground or already detached, as the Torah states [Deuteronomy 23]. Similarly, an animal eats from detached produce while working, and it is forbidden to muzzle it, as the Torah states [Deuteronomy 25].

The Mishna says: When does this apply? To the property of an ordinary person. But in the case of consecrated property, the laborers do not eat, and the animal’s mouth is muzzled.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

The laborers,

who perform work with consecrated property,

may not eat from the dried figs

of

consecrated property .

Similarly, a cow,

And similarly, a cow,

threshing with consecrated property,

may not eat

from the vetch [a type of animal feed]

Gemara: We learned,

of consecrated property.

It teaches, we learned:

Gemara:

It was taught,

we learned:

The offspring of a tithed animal may not nurse from the tithed animal.

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

The Gemara clarifies:

From where are these matters derived,

from where are these matters learned? Even when the offspring itself is also consecrated, it is forbidden to nurse from its mother.

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 .

it is forbidden to nurse the firstborn from an animal tithe or from consecrated animals. Rather, it may nurse from its mother when she is non-sacred, or from other non-sacred nursing animals,

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said:

The prohibition against nursing is derived by means of a gzera shava from the firstborn, as will be explained.

The firstborn born from its mother certainly does not have a consecrated mother. For it is impossible for its mother to be consecrated, since a firstborn born to an animal tithe or to other consecrated property is not sacred with firstborn sanctity, as explained in tractate Ḥullin [130a].

Therefore, we derive: Just as with a firstborn, “misuse applies to it,” meaning it is forbidden to nurse the firstborn from an animal of the tithe or from consecrated animals; rather, it nurses from its mother when she is non-sacred, or from other non-sacred nursing animals,

So too, an animal tithe and other consecrated animals may not nurse from their mother when she is consecrated; rather, they nurse from their non-sacred mother or from other non-sacred animals.

It is derived,

it is learned by means of a gzera shava:

“passing”

“passing”

from the firstborn.

It is stated with regard to the firstborn [Exodus 13], “You shall pass through every firstborn of the womb,” and it is stated with regard to animal tithe [Leviticus 27], “Whatever passes under the rod.”

And it comes to teach us:

Just as misuse applies to a firstborn,

as explained,

so too, misuse applies to the milk of a tithed animal.

The milk of consecrated animals is likewise derived,

it too is learned by means of a gzera shava:

“its mother”

“its mother”

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 .

We learned in the Mishna:

The laborers may not eat from the dried figs of consecrated property, and similarly, a cow may not eat from the vetch of consecrated property.

The Gemara clarifies:

What is the reason

why may the laborers not eat from consecrated property? That is, from where do we derive that the Torah’s mitzva to allow laborers to eat from detached and attached produce applies specifically to ordinary property and not to consecrated property?

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 cites a beraita [or a statement of early amoraim]:

One who threshes seeds [

a type of legumes]

in a field of consecrated property,

and benefits from using the field of consecrated property,

has committed me'ilah.

And we raise an objection: Why has he committed me'ilah,

as we require [the item] to be detached,

as there is no me'ilah for [produce] attached to the ground, and all the more so for the ground itself ? [ as explained below, 18b].

And we answer:

Ravina said: Infer from this,

it is possible to infer from this halakhic ruling that

its dust improves it ,

the dust of the ground benefits and improves the legumes when they are threshed on consecrated ground. And since the dust is detached, therefore, one commits me'ilah.