Meilah 13b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to discuss consecrated things in which there is no misuse, but which are forbidden for benefit.

The roots of an ordinary person's tree that enter consecrated property, and

likewise the roots of a consecrated tree

which come into an ordinary person’s property: one may not benefit from them, and there is no misuse.

The Gemara in Bava Batra [26b] establishes the Mishna, so that the beginning and the end should not contradict one another, as follows: the roots of the tree are considered to belong to the tree up to a distance of sixteen cubits. Beyond that, they are not considered to follow the tree.

Therefore, the beginning is speaking of the roots of an ordinary person that came into consecrated property, and they are within sixteen cubits of the tree. Consequently, there is no misuse, since they belong to the ordinary person. Nevertheless, the Sages forbade benefiting from them. But with regard to what is farther than sixteen cubits away, there is misuse.

And the end is speaking of the roots of consecrated property that came into an ordinary person’s property, and they are at a distance of more than sixteen cubits. Consequently, there is no misuse, since they no longer belong to consecrated property. Nevertheless, one may not benefit from them. But with regard to what is within sixteen cubits, there is misuse. According to this establishment, one must say either that these roots were consecrated through verbal consecration, or that they grew afterward, and the Mishna follows Rabbi Yosei [in the previous Mishna], who says: “There is misuse in growths.” But if we hold that “there is no misuse in growths,” there is no misuse in growths at all—neither those of an ordinary person that come into consecrated property beyond sixteen cubits, nor those of consecrated property that come into an ordinary person’s property within sixteen cubits. However, there is another establishment there in the Gemara, according to which the Mishna is speaking of growths that grew after the consecration, and the tanna of our Mishna holds that “there is no misuse in growths”; therefore,

in any event, there is no misuse in the roots. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by rabbinic ordinance to benefit from them. And the Shita Mekubetzet explains the Mishna according to this establishment. And the Gemara there resolved all this—see there—in its attempt to reconcile the case of an ordinary person and consecrated property with the case of two ordinary owners of fields, where the roots of one’s tree enter the other’s field. Apparently it is difficult: what connection do these have with one another? For concerning consecrated property, the discussion is about the very sanctity, whereas concerning two ordinary persons, the discussion is about monetary ownership? And the Takanat Ezra [in his book on the Rambam] and the Minḥat Barukh [section 29, branch 4] explain, according to what is explained [in note 453], that in sanctity of value, the sanctity depends upon monetary ownership and takes effect as a result of monetary ownership. This is like the proof brought there by the Rashba and the Ritva from a chicken that rebelled. And the Minḥat Barukh [there, branch 2] and the Takanat Ezra add that the reason one may not benefit, although according to the aforementioned reasoning they are not consecrated at all, is based on the Mishna in tractate Terumot [chapter 9, Mishna 4], which said that if one sowed consecrated property—for example, a seah of consecrated property—and something grew from it, what grew is ordinary, except that he is obligated to redeem it and give consecrated property the value of the seah, and the reason is because he benefited from consecrated property to the extent of a seah. And as long as he has not paid, it is forbidden to benefit from everything that grew. It is evident that there is an obligation on account of the benefit itself. However, in the case of ordinary property, when the roots of one person enter his fellow’s field and he benefited from his fellow’s field, he is exempt from paying for this benefit, since the other person suffers no loss, and the halakha has already been decided [Bava Kamma 21]: “This one benefits and that one suffers no loss—he is exempt.” But concerning consecrated property, the Gemara there said that he is obligated to pay for the benefit even when consecrated property suffers no loss, because consecrated property without awareness is like ordinary property with awareness; see there. Therefore, our Mishna forbade benefiting from them, even though sanctity does not take effect upon them at all, as stated above. A spring that emerges from the field

of consecrated property,

that is, the spring issues from an ordinary person’s field and passes through a field of consecrated property,

one may not benefit,

it is forbidden to benefit from its waters within the field of consecrated property,

and there is no misuse

in its waters, because it issues from an ordinary person’s field.

If it emerged outside the field

of consecrated property,

one may benefit from it .

We learned in tractate Sukkah [48b], concerning the rejoicing of the place of the drawing and the libation of the water upon the altar: “As its practice on a weekday, so is its practice on Shabbat,” meaning that the libation and the rejoicing were performed on Shabbat as they were performed on the other days of Sukkot. However, on Shabbat, because it is forbidden to bring the water from the Shiloah on account of transferring from a public domain to a private domain, they filled a barrel with water on the eve of Shabbat and brought it to the Temple.

This barrel [called in our Mishna “a golden vessel”] was not consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel, since if it had the status of a service vessel, the water inside it would become consecrated and become invalid through “remaining overnight” until the following day. And on Shabbat they put the water into a small flask consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel, and from it they poured the water upon the altar.

Therefore:

the water in the golden vessel, one may not benefit from it,

because it was filled for the needs of consecrated property ,

and there is no misuse,

since it was not yet consecrated for the sake of the Most High.

And when

they had already put it

already

in the small flask,

there is misuse in it,

because it became consecrated. We further learned there [45a] that during the festival of Sukkot they stood the willow branch upright around the altar. The Mishna discusses the law of misuse concerning that willow branch before they stood it upright, for after it was stood upright, its mitzva had already been performed, and it is permitted for benefit .

A willow branch—one may not benefit from it,

it is forbidden to benefit from it,

and there is no misuse,

because it is not consecrated .

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok says: It was customary

for the elders

to benefit from them with their lulavim,

because “mitzvot were not given for benefit”

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The water in the golden vessel—one may not benefit from it and there is no misuse.

Reish Lakish said: There is no misuse in all of them,

in all the water in the vessel,

but there is misuse in three log,

as will be explained.

And we object:

But it was taught,

for behold, we learned in the

end: If they put it into the small flask, there is misuse in it,

because the small flask was consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel, and it consecrates the water.

It follows

and one can understand from this

that the beginning,

when the water is in a barrel that was not consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel,

even in three log there is likewise no misuse,

there is no misuse, and this is difficult for Reish Lakish. And we answer:

Rather,

Reish Lakish did not say so.

If it was said,

if he indeed said so,

it was said about the end,

he said it concerning the end.

We learned in the end: If they put them into the small flask,

there is misuse in them.

And concerning this

Reish Lakish said: There is misuse only in

if he put into the small flask

three log,

which is the measure of water with which to perform the mitzva of the water libation, as will be explained. And if he put more than three log into the small flask, there is no misuse at all! Because he holds, “There is a measure for the water,” and the vessel consecrates only what is fit for it, and not when he put in more than this. And Rabbi Yohanan says: One commits misuse with all of them.

Because he holds “there is no measure for the water,” and even if they placed more in it, because “what is included in two hundred includes one hundred”; therefore, all the water in the flask, even more than three log, became consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel.

And we raise an objection:

Is it to say,

that is, should it be said,

that Reish Lakish holds “

there is a measure for the water”?!

The Gemara brings the sugya of the Gemara in tractate Zevachim [110b], and it follows from it that Reish Lakish holds “there is no measure for the water.”

There, the Mishna discusses the laws of “slaughtered offerings outside,” namely, one who slaughters or offers outside the Temple offerings and everything fit to be offered inside. One who does so is liable to karet.

And did we not learn—that is, we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says

Even one who pours the festival water—

water that was filled for the purpose of water libation—

on the festival

of Sukkot,

outside, is liable,

because of one who offers outside.

вне Храма, несет наказание,

And there in the Gemara,

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Menahem of Yodefat [from the city of Yodefat ]: Rabbi Elazar stated it according to the method of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher,

to impose liability for water libation outside,

Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with the method of his master, Rabbi Akiva,

to impose liability for pouring the water outside the Temple precincts.

In the section of the festival offerings [Numbers 29], on all the days of the festival it says, “besides the regular burnt offering and its meal-offering and its libation,” or “and their libations.” But on the sixth day it says, “its meal-offering

and its libations.”

For Rabbi Akiva expounded [Ta’anit 2b] that there is here an indication of two libations: one, the wine libation, and one, the water libation ,

And since Rabbi Elazar holds like Rabbi Akiva, who derives the water libation from the water libation, therefore

he likened them to one another in Scripture. And just as if one poured wine outside, he is liable [according to everyone], so too if he poured water outside, he is liable. And this is Rabbi Elazar’s reason.

These are the words of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Menahem of Yodefat. And there in the Gemara, Reish Lakish said: According to your words, that Rabbi Elazar likens water to wine, if

These are the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Menaḥem of Yodefa. And there, in the Gemara, Reish Lakish said:

И поскольку рабби Элазар придерживается мнения рабби Акивы, который выводит закон о возлиянии воды из закона о возлиянии вина, то

Тора уподобила их друг другу. Подобно тому как тот, кто совершает возлияние вина вне Храма, несет наказание [по всеобщему мнению], так и тот, кто совершает возлияние воды вне Храма, несет наказание. В этом состоит основание мнения рабби Элазара.

so, let us also liken them and say:

Just as wine,

whose measure for libation is

three log,

as the Torah said, “a quarter of a hin,”

so too water—do you hold that according to Rabbi Elazar its measure for libation on the festival is

three log? [And see there in the Gemara why it is difficult to say this.]

It follows

that it is proven from this sugya

that Reish Lakish holds “

there is no measure for the water,” for if he held “there is a measure for the water,” as the Gemara said here, what is his difficulty? Does he himself not hold so?

And this is difficult concerning what the Gemara said here, that Reish Lakish holds “there is a measure for the water.”

The Gemara answers: Indeed, Reish Lakish himself holds “there is a measure for the water.”

And what he raised there,

he said concerning the rationale of Menahem of Yodefat, that is, if it is as Menahem of Yodefat said, that Rabbi Elazar likens water to wine, then it follows that Rabbi Elazar also holds “there is a measure for the water.”

And concerning this Reish Lakish raises a difficulty: from Rabbi Elazar’s own words, when he said “the festival water” in an unspecified manner, this does not appear so.

And Reish Lakish’s difficulty is against Menahem of Yodefat, whereas he himself holds “there is a measure for the water” .

he said on the basis of Menaḥem of Yodefa’s reasoning—that is, if it is as Menaḥem of Yodefa said, that Rabbi Elazar equates water with wine, then it follows that Rabbi Elazar too holds that “there is a measure for the water.”

Reish Lakish’s objection is accordingly that from Rabbi Elazar’s own words, when he said “the festival water” without qualification, this does not appear to be the case.

Reish Lakish’s objection is directed against Menaḥem of Yodefa, whereas he himself holds that “there is a measure for the water” .

Mishna: The Mishna continues with the law of “one may neither derive benefit nor commit misuse of consecrated property.” Incidentally, it teaches the law of an asheira, which is a tree used for idolatry; the Torah commanded that it be cut down and burned, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it . A nest that birds built atop a tree belonging to the Temple treasury: one may neither derive benefit nor commit misuse of consecrated property. The nest atop an asheira: one may not climb the tree and take the nest in his hands. Rather, he should knock it down with a pole—he moves it with a stick so that it falls—and then take it. This will be explained in the Gemara. One who consecrates the woodland [ forest ],

Гемара отвечает: действительно, сам Реш Лакиш считает: «у воды есть установленный объем».

А то, что он возразил там,

он сказал это относительно основания мнения Менахема из Йодефы,

то есть: если принять слова Менахема из Йодефы о том, что рабби Элазар уподобляет воду вину, тогда получается, что рабби Элазар также считает: «у воды есть установленный объем».

И против этого Реш Лакиш возражает, что из собственных слов рабби Элазара, который сказал неопределенно «вода праздника», это не следует.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with the law of “one may neither benefit nor commit misuse.” And incidentally, it differs concerning an Asherah, which is a tree of idolatry, which the Torah commanded to cut down and burn, and it is forbidden for benefit . The nest, which

birds nested

at the top of the tree of consecrated property: one may neither benefit nor commit misuse. The nest that is at the top of an Asherah; one may not climb onto the tree and take the nest with his hands, but rather he shakes it by means of a stick and it falls, and he takes it. And it will be explained in the Gemara. One who consecrates the woodland [ forest], commits misuse with all of it, with its wood and with the shifui and the neviyah , since everything is included in “woodland,” and everything is consecrated .

with its wood and with its shifui and neviya ,

since everything is included in “woodland,” and everything becomes sanctified .

Гнездо

которое

находится на

ашере

нельзя: не следует взбираться на дерево и снимать гнездо руками; напротив, следует

сбить его шестом,

то есть потрясти его палкой, чтобы оно упало, а затем взять. В Гемаре это будет разъяснено.

Тот, кто посвятил лес [

лес ],

совершает незаконное использование посвященного имущества во всем его составе:

его деревьях , а также в подлеске и поросли , поскольку все это включено в понятие «лес», и все освящено .