Meilah 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to discuss consecrated items with which there is no me'ila, but from which it is forbidden to derive benefit.

The roots of a non-sacred tree that extend into consecrated property, and

likewise the roots of a consecrated tree

that extend into non-sacred property: one may not derive benefit from them, but there is no me'ila.

The Gemara in Bava Batra [26b] establishes the Mishna in this manner, so that the first clause and the latter clause will not contradict one another: The roots of a tree are considered extensions of, and belong to, the tree up to a distance of sixteen cubits. Beyond that distance, they are not considered extensions of the tree.

Accordingly, the first clause is referring to non-sacred roots that entered consecrated property, when they are within sixteen cubits of the tree. Therefore, there is no me'ila, because they belong to the non-sacred owner. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from them. But with regard to what is farther than sixteen cubits from the tree, there is me'ila.

And the latter clause is referring to consecrated roots that entered non-sacred property, when they are more than sixteen cubits from the tree. Therefore, there is no me'ila, because they no longer belong to the consecrated property. Nevertheless, one may not derive benefit from them. But with regard to what is within sixteen cubits, there is me'ila.

A spring that emerges from within a field

of consecrated property

, meaning that the spring originates in a non-sacred field and passes through a consecrated field,

one may not derive benefit from it

, meaning that it is forbidden to derive benefit from its water while it is within the consecrated field,

but there is no me'ila

with regard to its water, because it originates in a non-sacred field.

If it emerged outside the field

of consecrated property,

one may derive benefit from it .

We learned in tractate Sukkah [48b], concerning the rejoicing of the Beit HaShoeva and the pouring of the water upon the altar: “As it is performed on a weekday, so it is performed on Shabbat.” That is, the pouring and the rejoicing were performed on Shabbat just as they were performed on the other days of Sukkot. However, on Shabbat, because it is forbidden to bring the water from the Shiloah due to the prohibition against transferring an object 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 jug”] was not sanctified with the sanctity of a service vessel, since if it had the status of a service vessel, the water inside it would have been sanctified and would become disqualified through linah, remaining overnight until the next day . On Shabbat, they poured the water into a small flask sanctified with the sanctity of a service vessel, and from it they poured the water upon the altar.

Accordingly:

With regard to the water in the golden jug, one may not derive benefit from it

, because it was filled for the needs of the consecrated property ,

but there is no me'ila

, since it had not yet been sanctified for the sake of the Most High.

And when they

placed

it

in the small flask, there is me'ila with regard to it

, because it had been sanctified.

We further learned there [45a] that during the festival of Sukkot they would stand the willow branches upright around the altar. The Mishna discusses the law of me'ila with regard to that willow branch before they stood it upright, since after it had been stood upright, its mitzva had already been performed and it was permitted to derive benefit from it .

With regard to the willow, one may not derive benefit from it

, meaning that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it,

but there is no me'ila

, because it is not sanctified .

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok says: It was customary

for the elders

to derive benefit from them in their lulavim

, because “mitzvot were not given for deriving benefit” .

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: With regard to the water in the golden jug, one may not derive benefit from it and there is no me'ila.

Reish Lakish said: There is no me'ila with regard to all of it

, meaning all the water in the jug,

but there is me'ila with regard to three log

, as will be explained.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught,

for we learned in the

latter clause: “When they placed it in the small flask, there is me'ila with regard to it”

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

It follows

, and it can be understood from this, that in the

first clause

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

there is not even me'ila with regard to three log

. This is difficult for Reish Lakish. And we answer:

Rather

, Reish Lakish did not say this.

If it was stated

, if he indeed said this,

it was stated with regard to the latter clause

—he said it concerning the latter clause.

We learned in the latter clause: When they placed it in the small flask,

there is me'ila with regard to it.

And concerning this

Reish Lakish said: There is me'ila only with regard to

water placed in the small flask in the amount of

three log

, which is the measure of water required to fulfill the mitzva of the water libation, as will be explained. But if they placed more than three log in the small flask, there is no me'ila at all, because he holds that “there is a prescribed measure for the water,” and the vessel sanctifies only what is fit for that purpose, but not when more than that amount was placed in it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One commits misuse of consecrated property with all of it. Because he maintains that “there is no measure for the water,” and even if they placed more than the required amount, since “two hundred includes one hundred,” all the water in the flask, even more than three log, became sanctified with the sanctity of a service vessel.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Does this mean,

are we to say

that Reish Lakish holds that “

there is a measure for the water”?

The Gemara cites a sugya of the Gemara in tractate Zevaḥim [110b], from which it appears that Reish Lakish holds that “there is no measure for the water.”

There, the Mishna discusses the laws of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple precincts—that is, one who slaughters or offers outside the Temple precincts offerings and all things fit to be offered inside. One who does so is liable to karet.

And did we not learn—

that is, this is what we learned:

Rabbi Elazar says

Even one who pours the festival water

water that was filled for the purpose of the water libation

during the Festival

of Sukkot,

outside the Temple precincts is liable,

for offering outside the Temple precincts.

And

there, in the Gemara, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Menaḥem of Yodefa [from

the city of Yodefat ]:

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 concerning the offerings of the Festivals [Numbers 29], on each day 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 this indicates two libations:

one, the wine libation, and one, the water libation ,

And since Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who derives the water libation from the water libation, the verse therefore equated them to one another. Just as one who pours wine outside the Temple precincts is liable [according to everyone], so too, one who pours water outside the Temple precincts is liable. This is Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning.

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

“According to your words, that Rabbi Elazar equates water with wine,

if

so, let us also equate them and say:

Just as wine,

whose measure for libation

is three log,

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

so too, water—

do you maintain that, according to Rabbi Elazar, its measure for libation during the Festival is

three log?” [See there in the Gemara for why it is difficult to say this.]

By inference,

it is evident from this sugya

that Reish Lakish holds that “

there is no measure for the water,” for if he held that “there is a measure for the water,” as the Gemara said here, what is his objection? He himself holds this view.

There is therefore a difficulty with what the Gemara said here, that Reish Lakish holds that “there is a measure for the water.”

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

And what he asked there,

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 ],

one commits misuse of consecrated property with all of it,

with its wood and with its shifui and neviya ,

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