Meilah 14b — the Talmud in English

They raise an objection from a source:

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

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

The remainder of the incense—

what would they do with it?

They would set aside

from the chamber’s money—that is, from the shekels collected each year—

the wages of the craftsmen,

the builders and repairers of the building, to whom the money from the chamber was transferred through others, so that the money in the craftsmen’s possession was non-sacred money.

And,

since the money was non-sacred, they would

transfer its sanctity,

that of the remainder of the incense,

to the craftsmen’s money,

meaning the aforementioned money, which was non-sacred but had not yet been physically given to the craftsmen.

The sanctity was now removed from the remainder of the incense, and the money became consecrated in its place.

And they give it,

the remainder of the incense,

to the craftsmen as their wages.

And they then take it back:

the treasurer purchases

it,

the incense, from the craftsmen with a

new

contribution, meaning 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 craftsmen mentioned in this mishna were the craftsmen who built and repaired the Temple building, as explained in note 187. He therefore asks: Why

was this procedure necessary? Granted, if construction is not carried out with non-sacred materials, it would be impossible to transfer the sanctity of the incense through the craftsmen’s wages, as explained by the principle that “consecrated property cannot have its sanctity transferred to labor.”

But if Shmuel’s statement is correct, that construction is carried out with non-sacred materials, the difficulty is: Why not transfer its sanctity to the building?

The remainder of the incense could have had its sanctity transferred to the building while it was still non-sacred; the sanctity of the incense would then take effect upon the building, and they could subsequently transfer the sanctity of the incense using the new contribution .

And they answer: There is no building—

they were not engaged in construction at that time.

And they object: But does the mishna not teach, “the craftsmen’s money”? The mishna says “the craftsmen’s money,” which indicates that they were engaged in construction.

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

there was not enough building to match the value of the money

of the incense. That is, the remainder of the incense was worth more than the building, and therefore there was no way to transfer the sanctity of the incense to the building.

Alternatively, the incense was equal in value to the cost of the building together with the craftsmen’s wages.

And they object: What difference does it make if there is not enough building to match the value of the remainder of the incense? For Shmuel said: If consecrated property worth one hundred dinars was used to transfer its sanctity to an item worth one peruta, its sanctity has been transferred . The question therefore returns: Why was it necessary to transfer the sanctity of the incense to the craftsmen’s money and then purchase it back with the new contribution? They could have transferred its sanctity to the building even though the building was not worth the full value of the incense.

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 they answer:

These matters—

Shmuel’s statement, “If consecrated property worth one hundred dinars was used to transfer its sanctity to an item worth one peruta, its sanctity has been transferred”—applies only

after the fact. But to do so initially is prohibited. Therefore, they could not transfer the sanctity of the remainder of the incense to building worth less than the value of the remainder of the incense . This is the reason for Shmuel’s statement that “construction is carried out with non-sacred materials, and only afterward they are consecrated”: This procedure makes it possible to give the craftsmen their wages, as explained.

The Gemara presents, in the name of Rav Pappa, another explanation of Shmuel’s reasoning.

Rav Pappa said: This is the reason for “construction is carried out with non-sacred materials.”

Because

the Torah was not given to ministering angels,

meaning,

they say, one must be concerned and say: Perhaps one will need to lean on it; sometimes the workers need to lean on the stones , and he will lean upon them, and they will lean on the stones, for they are not ministering angels who can take care not to derive benefit from the stones. And if he builds with sacred materials,

if they build it after it has already been consecrated,

it will turn out that he has misused sacred property,

for they will have misused sacred property.

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,

Therefore, Shmuel said that the materials should not be consecrated until after the construction was completed.

The Gemara cites our mishna to challenge Rav Pappa’s explanation .

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 commit meila with it, but they do not commit meila with either the shavings or the bark. And

it is difficult:

why do they commit meila with it? Here too, let them work with ordinary wood

and not consecrate the wood, for the same reason,

lest

he need to recline and sit upon them, and it be found that he is committing meila with consecrated property?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: If it is wood for from now onward,

when the treasurers purchase much wood for an extended period,

so too,

indeed they act in accordance with Shmuel’s words, and do not consecrate it, lest they rely upon it and benefit from it and come to commit meila,

Rather, when we learned in the Mishna,

our Mishna is speaking

of wood for that day,

of wood that they purchased in order to build with it that day, immediately on the day of its purchase, and within a short time they can be careful not to rely upon it.

We have returned to you, chapter “The Offspring of a Sin-Offering.”

The first Mishna deals with the combination of different things that complete one another to the measure of the prohibition of meila, which is a peruta, and from there the Mishna continues to the combination of other prohibitions in the Torah.