Meilah 14a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Gemara brings a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning the nullification of idolatry. And from this Mishna Reish Lakish proves his statement.

The idolatry of 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 chips it for the purpose of nullifying it, in his anger toward it, or in his despair of it and cessation of his belief in it, then through the nullification it becomes permitted for benefit.

It was stated: 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 reason for their dispute.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden:

because

the idolater did not nullify it,

the gentile did not explicitly nullify it; therefore it does not have the status of idolatry that was nullified.

And Reish Lakish said: It is permitted:

because the gentile who worships it

says to himself,

thinks in his heart:

It itself does not save,

if it does not have the power to save itself from the damage of being broken,

will it save me?!

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

And there in the Gemara Rabbi Yohanan brings Mishnayot and beraitot to prove his words, and Reish Lakish explains them according to his position, and ultimately Reish Lakish brings 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:

The nest that is at the top of a tree belonging to the Temple property: one may not benefit from it, and there is no misuse of sacred property;

but the nest

that is in an asherah, he should dislodge with a pole.

And Reish Lakish infers from the permission to use the branches of the nest that is in the asherah:

Is it not referring to a case where it broke off from its body,

where it is speaking of a situation in which branches and thin pieces of wood broke off from the body of the asherah through the bird, and from them the bird built the nest.

And it teaches,

and the Mishna says:

he should dislodge

it

with a pole,

he should move the branches of the nest, and the branches will fall, so that he can benefit from the wood, for example, for burning,

Yet they are asherah wood, which is forbidden for benefit, and who nullified them? Rather, it is proved that the very breaking that the bird effected in them from the asherah [or that they broke] permitted them for benefit, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish, who maintains that an object that broke on its own is permitted; and this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan?

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking of a case in which the bird built its nest from branches of the asherah tree, but rather

that it brought wood from elsewhere,

that it brought branches from other trees, which are not asherah, and from them it built its nest at the top of the asherah tree; therefore they are permitted for benefit. And the novelty of the Mishna is that the Sages did not decree lest he take along with them also from the branches of the asherah. Nevertheless, he 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,

why did the Mishna say that if the nest was

of Temple property, one may not benefit from it, and there is no misuse of sacred property?

Why did the Sages prohibit benefiting from it? Are the wood not Temple property?

Rather,

necessarily, here it is speaking of a case in which the nest was built from the branches of this tree [of Temple property or of the asherah], and there is no misuse of sacred property because the Mishna is speaking

of growths that come afterward,

that the wood grew after the tree had been consecrated,

and it holds

that the tanna of our Mishna

holds that there is no misuse of sacred property with growths.

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

This too is logically evident,

the Gemara proves from the words of the Mishna that indeed it is speaking of the wood of the tree itself:

For if it enters your mind

that it is speaking of a situation

that it brought from elsewhere,

that the nest was built from the wood of other trees, it is difficult: with regard to a tree of an asherah,

why should he dislodge it with a pole? Let him take it outright!

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

And this is well understandable if it is speaking of a case in which the nest was made from branches of the asherah tree: it is understandable why they did not permit him to take them with his hand, even though they had broken, because the Sages were concerned lest he come to take also from the wood of the asherah itself, from branches that had not broken and had not been nullified, and they are certainly forbidden for benefit; and concerning taking them, the Sages were concerned because those pieces of wood that broke from the tree itself resemble the wood of the asherah. But if it is speaking of wood that the bird brought from other trees, such a decree does not apply, since they do not resemble the wood of the asherah. Therefore it is difficult: why did they prohibit taking it by hand?

And since it is proved that the branches are from the asherah itself, and when he removes them in the manner that the Sages permitted him [with a stick] they are permitted for benefit, it is proved in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish, that even an object of idolatry that broke on its own is permitted. And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who maintains that an object of idolatry that broke on its own is forbidden ?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Actually,

that it brought from elsewhere,

that is, the Mishna can be established even when the bird brought the wood from other trees,

and what

and what we learned,

“he should dislodge,”

means

“he should dislodge the chicks,”

with a stick, and he should not take them by hand, lest he ascend the tree and use it as a ladder; and this ascent is certainly forbidden,

But the wood is forbidden for benefit, even if it was brought from other trees, just as it is forbidden with regard to Temple property. And the reason the Sages prohibited taking from the wood is that they were concerned lest he come to exchange and permit himself to take from the wood of the asherah itself. And it is not speaking of a nest built from asherah wood, which is absolutely forbidden, since it was not explicitly nullified, but rather broke on its own.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Chicks, here and here,

in the case of Temple property and in the case of an asherah,

are permitted

for benefit, since they possess the breath of life and do not need their mother [the tree ^169]; rather, he may not take them with his hand, but should dislodge them from their nest with his pole ^170,

But if he comes to take

And if he comes to take

eggs, here and here,

in the case of Temple property and in the case of an asherah,

they are forbidden,

just as the Sages prohibited benefiting from the nest itself, as explained.

Rav Ashi said: If the chicks

are small, and they

need their mother, they are considered like eggs ,

and they are forbidden. Mishna:

Mishna This is a continuation of the end of the previous Mishna. And there we learned: One who consecrates the forest, there is misuse of sacred property in all of it: wood, branches, and fallen material. Since the one who consecrates it consecrates everything.

The treasurers who took [that is,

purchased ]

wood

for the purpose of building the House ,

there is misuse of sacred property in the wood

itself,

but there is no misuse of sacred property either in the shavings,

the sawdust that the craftsman shaves from the beam ,

or in the fallen material,

the leaves . Because the treasurers purchased and consecrated only the thing needed for the building, and not its shavings and fallen material.

Gemara:

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

Shmuel said:

When they were building and repairing the Temple and the courtyards, they

built with unconsecrated materials,

for the treasurer of Temple property did not purchase the wood and stones with Temple funds in a manner that would cause sanctity to take effect upon them immediately. Rather, he purchased them on credit, and they remained unconsecrated until the entire building was completed. And likewise if a person wished to donate stones for the building, they would say to him: Do not consecrate them until after the completion of the building; meanwhile they are yours, as unconsecrated property,

and afterward,

at the completion of the building, they would

consecrate

it.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Why would they not consecrate the stones immediately, before the completion of the building?

Because

one who voluntarily dedicates money

for the purpose of constructing the Temple,

consecrates it

he consecrates the money,

and says,

“And this is what he would say”:

“Let the sanctity of the money take effect—

on the building” [

that is, let the sanctity of the money that I am consecrating for the repair of the Temple take effect upon the building],

and he gives it to the craftsmen as their wages.

That is to say, it is forbidden to give this money to the workers and craftsmen who construct the building as their wages, because “consecrated property does not lose its sanctity through labor,” since labor is “a thing that has no tangible substance,” and consecrated property can be redeemed only in such a way that its sanctity takes effect upon another tangible object. If so, how can the consecrated property pay the wages of the craftsmen who construct the building? Therefore, Shmuel said that they should not consecrate the building stones until the construction is complete. Three things are invested in the completed building: the cost of the wood and stones, the added value produced by the construction, and the craftsmen’s wages. Therefore, the consecrated money is transferred onto the building, which is now non-sacred, and the sanctity leaves the money and takes effect upon the building. Consequently, the Temple treasury has non-sacred money with which it can pay its debt to the sellers of the stones and pay the craftsmen for their work.