Meilah 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning the nullification of an object of idolatry. From this Mishna, Reish Lakish proves his position.

An object of idolatry belonging to a gentile, which is forbidden for benefit, can be nullified, as explained in the third and fourth chapters of tractate Avoda Zara. That is, if the gentile breaks it or damages it with the intention of nullifying it, whether out of anger toward it or because he has despaired of it and abandoned his belief in it, then through this nullification it becomes permitted for benefit.

It was stated: With regard to an object of idolatry that broke on its own,

and the gentile did not nullify it,

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden

for benefit,

and Reish Lakish said: It is permitted

for benefit.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden:

because

the gentile did not nullify the object of idolatry;

the gentile did not explicitly nullify it, and therefore it does not have the status of an object of idolatry that was nullified.

And Reish Lakish said: It is permitted:

Because the gentile who worships it

says to himself,

thinking in his heart:

“It itself cannot save me;”

if it does not have the power to save itself from the damage caused by the breaking,

“will it save me?!”

Will it save me?! Therefore, presumably, he nullifies it.

There, in the Gemara, Rabbi Yohanan cites mishnayot and beraitot to prove his position, and Reish Lakish explains them according to his own view. Finally, Reish Lakish cites our Mishna to prove from it that an object of idolatry that broke on its own is permitted.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from what we learned:

With regard to a nest at the top of a consecrated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but there is no misuse of consecrated property.

But a nest

that is in an asheira, one should dislodge with a reed.

Reish Lakish infers from the permission to use the branches of the nest in the asheira:

Is it not referring to a case where it broke off from the object itself,

meaning that branches and thin pieces of wood broke off from the body of the asheira through the bird, and the bird used them to build the nest.

And it teaches

and the Mishna says:

“One should dislodge”

it

“with a reed,”

one should shake the branches of the nest, causing the branches to fall, so that one may benefit from the wood, for example, by using it for burning,

But these are asheira wood, which is forbidden for benefit, and who nullified them? Rather, it evidently follows that the very breaking through which the bird broke them off from the asheira, [or through which they broke off,] rendered them permitted for benefit, in accordance with the view of Reish Lakish, who holds that an object of idolatry that broke on its own is permitted. This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, is it not?

And we answer:

No;

the case is not one in which the bird built its nest from branches of the asheira tree. Rather,

it brought wood from elsewhere,

bringing branches from other trees that were not asheira, and it built its nest from them at the top of the asheira tree. Therefore, they are permitted for benefit. The novelty of the Mishna is that the Sages did not issue a decree lest one take branches from the asheira along with them. Nevertheless, one may not take it with his hands, as will be explained.

But the Gemara rejects this:

If so,

if the nest was built from other wood,

why

did the Mishna say that if the nest was

“on a consecrated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but there is no misuse of consecrated property?”

Why did the Sages prohibit deriving benefit from it? The wood does not belong to consecrated property!

Rather,

it must be referring to a case in which the nest was built from branches of this tree [whether a consecrated tree or an asheira], and there is no misuse of consecrated property because the Mishna is speaking

of growths that came afterward,

the branches having grown after the tree was consecrated,

and he holds

the tanna of our Mishna

that there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to growths.

Nevertheless, it is forbidden to derive benefit from them, as we learned in the earlier Mishna [13a].

This too is logically evident;

the Gemara proves from the wording of the Mishna that it is indeed referring to wood from the tree itself:

If it could enter your mind

that the case is one

in which it brought wood from elsewhere,

that the nest was built from wood of other trees, this is difficult: With regard to a nest in an asheira,

why should one dislodge it with a reed? Let him take it directly!

Why did they not permit him to take the nest with his hand, without a stick?

And this is understandable if the nest was made from branches of the asheira tree itself: it is clear why they did not permit him to take them with his hand, despite the fact that they had broken off. The Sages were concerned lest he come to take branches from the asheira itself—branches that had not broken off and had not been nullified—which are certainly forbidden for benefit. They were concerned about his taking those branches because the branches that had broken off the tree itself resemble the branches of the asheira. But if the case involves wood that the bird brought from other trees, such a decree is inapplicable, as they do not resemble the wood of the asheira. Therefore, it is difficult: Why did they prohibit taking them by hand?

And since it is proven that the branches are from the asheira itself, and when one removes them in the manner that the Sages permitted him [with a stick], they are permitted for benefit, this proves the position of Reish Lakish as well: an object of idolatry that broke on its own is permitted. This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that an object of idolatry that broke on its own is forbidden, is it not?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Actually,

it brought wood from elsewhere

—that is, it is possible to establish the Mishna even where the bird brought the wood from other trees.

And what

is the meaning of what we learned,

“one should dislodge”?

That is,

“one should dislodge the chicks”

with a stick and not take them by hand, lest he climb the tree and use it as a ladder; such climbing is certainly forbidden.

The wood, however, is forbidden for benefit, even if it was brought from other trees, just as it is forbidden in the case of consecrated property. The reason the Sages prohibited taking the wood is that they were concerned lest one come to exchange one for the other and permit himself to take wood from the asheira itself. The case is not one in which the nest was built from wood of the asheira, which would be absolutely forbidden, since it was not explicitly nullified but merely broke on its own.

The Gemara concludes:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The chicks, in both cases,

in the case of consecrated property and in the case of an asheira, are

permitted

for benefit, since they contain the breath of life and do not require their mother [the tree]. Rather, one may not take them by hand; he should dislodge them from their nest with a reed,

But if he comes to take

eggs, in both cases,

in the case of consecrated property and in the case of an asheira, they are

forbidden,

just as the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from the nest itself, as explained.

Rav Ashi said: If the chicks

are small and

require their mother, they are considered like eggs

and are forbidden.

Mishna:

Mishna This is a continuation of the end of the preceding Mishna. There we learned: One who consecrates a woodland misuses all of it—its trees, branches, and fallen leaves—since the one who consecrates it consecrates everything.

The treasurers who took

[purchased]

wood

for the construction of the House,

misuse consecrated property with regard to the wood,

itself,

but there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to the shavings,

the sawdust that the carpenter planes from the beam,

nor with regard to the fallen leaves,

the leaves. This is because the treasurers purchased and consecrated only what was needed for construction, and not the shavings and fallen leaves.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a statement of Shmuel concerning consecrated property, and Rav Pappa’s explanation of it, because of the difficulty raised by our Mishna.

Shmuel said:

When they built and repaired the Temple and the courtyards, they

built with non-sacred materials.

The treasurer of consecrated property did not purchase the wood and stones with consecrated funds in a manner that would immediately impose sanctity upon them. Rather, he purchased them on credit, and they remained non-sacred until the entire construction was completed. Similarly, if a person wished to donate stones for the construction, they would say to him: Do not consecrate them until after the construction is completed. In the meantime, they remain yours, as non-sacred property,

and afterward,

when the construction was completed, they would

consecrate

it.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Why did they not consecrate the stones immediately, before the construction was completed?

For

one who donates money

for the purpose of building the Temple,

consecrates it;

he consecrates the money,

, and he says,

and this is what he would say: “

The sanctity of the money shall apply—

to the stones” [that is,

the sanctity of the money that I consecrate for the repair of the Temple shall apply to the building],

and he gives it to the craftsmen as their wages.

That is, it is forbidden to give this money to the workers and craftsmen who build the structure as their wages, because “consecrated property does not become profane through labor,” since labor is “a matter lacking substance,” and consecrated property can be redeemed only in such a manner that its sanctity applies to another tangible object. If so, how can the consecrated property pay the wages of the craftsmen who build the structure? Therefore, Shmuel said that they should not consecrate the building stones until the construction has been completed. Three things are invested in the building: the cost of the wood and stones, the enhancement produced through the construction, and the craftsmen’s wages. Therefore, they effect the redemption of the consecrated money onto the building, which is now profane, and the sanctity leaves the money and applies to the building. Consequently, the consecrated property has profane money in its possession with which it can pay its debt to the sellers of the stones and pay the craftsmen for their work.