Meilah 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

Meitive:

from the Mishna in tractate Shekalim [chapter 4, Mishna 5], concerning Shmuel’s ruling.

The Mishna there discusses the surplus of the incense, meaning what remained of the incense that had been prepared from last year’s contribution. Each year they prepared incense for the entire year, and they burned this incense until the first of Nisan. From the first of Nisan onward, they burned incense purchased with the new shekels [the new contribution] collected during the month of Adar, as the Sages expounded in tractate Rosh HaShana [7a]. And so we learned:

The surplus of the incense—

What would they do with it?

They would set aside from the funds of the chamber, that is, from the shekels collected each year,

the

wages of the artisans,

the builders and repairers of the building, to whom the funds from the chamber had been credited through others, so that the funds in the artisans’ possession were unconsecrated funds.

And

since the funds were unconsecrated, they would

transfer the sanctity of it,

the surplus of the incense,

onto the artisans’ funds,

that is, the aforementioned unconsecrated funds, which had not yet been placed in the artisans’ possession.

The sanctity had now been removed from the surplus of the incense, and the funds had become consecrated in its place.

And they give it,

the surplus of the incense,

to the artisans as their wages

and then take it again:

the treasurer purchases

it,

the incense, from the artisans with a

new contribution,

from new shekels contributed for the coming year.

They did this so that the incense would possess the sanctity of the new contribution, as explained. The questioner understood that the artisans mentioned in this Mishna were the artisans who built and repaired the Temple building. Therefore he asks:

But why?

Why was this procedure necessary? Granted, if construction is not performed while unconsecrated, it would be impossible to transfer the sanctity of the incense onto the artisans’ wages, as explained: “One does not transfer sanctity onto labor.” But if it is as Shmuel said, that construction is performed while unconsecrated, this is difficult:

Let them transfer its sanctity onto the building.

Could they not transfer the sanctity of the surplus of the incense onto the building while it was still unconsecrated, so that the sanctity of the incense would take effect upon the building, and then transfer the sanctity of the incense again from the new contribution? And we answer:

There is no building;

they were not engaged in construction at that time.

And we ask:

But it teaches, “the artisans’ funds”!

The Mishna said “the artisans’ funds,” implying that they were engaged in construction.

And we answer: Indeed, they were building at that time, but

there was not enough building to equal the value of the funds

of the incense. That is, the surplus of the incense was worth more than the building; therefore, there was no way to transfer the sanctity of the incense onto the building. Alternatively, the incense was worth as much as the cost of the building and the artisans’ wages together.

And we ask: What difference does it make if there is not enough building to equal the value of the surplus of the incense?

For Shmuel said: If consecrated property worth one maneh was redeemed with an item worth a peruta, it is redeemed

and the question returns: Why did they need to transfer the sanctity of the incense onto the artisans’ funds and then purchase it again with the new contribution? Could they not have transferred its sanctity onto the building, even though it was not worth the full value of the incense?

And we answer:

These words—

Shmuel’s statement, “If consecrated property worth one maneh was redeemed with an item worth a peruta, it is redeemed”—applies only

after the fact;

but to do so

ab initio, no.

Therefore, they could not transfer the sanctity of the surplus of the incense onto a building worth less than the value of the surplus of the incense. This is the reason for Shmuel’s statement that “they build while unconsecrated and afterward consecrate,” so that in this manner it would be possible to give the artisans their wages, as explained.

The Gemara cites a different explanation, in the name of Rav Pappa, for Shmuel’s ruling.

Rav Pappa said: This is the reason for “they build while unconsecrated”:

because

the Torah was not given to ministering angels.

That is,

they say,

one must be concerned and say:

Perhaps he will need to lean,

sometimes the workers need to lean on the stones,

and he will lean upon them,

and they will lean on the stones; they are not ministering angels who can take care not to derive benefit from the stones.

And if he builds in a consecrated state,

if they build it after it has already been consecrated,

it turns out that he has committed misuse with consecrated property,

they will be misusing consecrated property.

Accordingly, Shmuel said that they should not consecrate the building until after the construction had been completed.

The Gemara cites our Mishna to challenge Rav Pappa’s explanation

. We learned: The treasurers who purchased the wood are subject to misuse, but there is no misuse with regard to the shavings or the bark. And

it is difficult:

Why are they subject to misuse? Here too, let them perform the work with non-sacred wood

and not consecrate the wood, for the same reason,

perhaps

he may wish to recline and lean upon them, and it will turn out that he is misusing consecrated property?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: If it is wood intended for use from this point onward

when the treasurers purchase a large quantity of wood for an extended period,

it is indeed so

they should act in accordance with Shmuel's statement and not consecrate it, lest they rely upon it and derive benefit from it, thereby coming to misuse.

Rather, when we learned in the Mishna

our Mishna is speaking

of wood intended for use that very day

wood that they purchased to use for construction that day, immediately on the day of its purchase; and within a short time they can take care not to rely upon it.

We have returned to you, chapter: The Offspring of a Sin Offering

The first Mishna discusses the combining of different objects that complete one another to the measure for the prohibition of me'ila, which is one peruta, and from there the Mishna proceeds to the combining of other prohibitions in the Torah.