Meilah 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna continues with the law of combining prohibitions.

One who eats orla in the measure of an olive-size is flogged, and likewise one who eats kil'ei hakerem.

Mishna:

Orla and kil'ei hakerem combine with one another ;

one who eats half an olive-size of orla and half an olive-size of kil'ei hakerem, is flogged.

Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine,

and this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine. The simple meaning of his words is that if one ate half an olive-size of orla and half an olive-size of kil'ei hakerem, he is not flogged. Therefore, we ask:

And does Rabbi Shimon need them to combine,

as though Rabbi Shimon required completion of the measure in order to render one who eats it liable to lashes?

But it was taught,

as we learned in a baraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: Anything whatsoever is sufficient for lashes

—that is, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai states that the measure of eating is an olive-size only with regard to prohibitions for which one who eats them inadvertently is liable to bring an offering, and the halakha states that for less than an olive-size he does not bring an offering. But with regard to becoming liable to lashes for prohibitions against eating, no measure was stated, and even for any amount whatsoever he is flogged .

If so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Shimon require combining in order to complete the measure of an olive-size? And we answer:

Teach—

revise the wording of the Mishna! Rabbi Shimon says:

They do not need to combine,

and he is liable to lashes even for any amount whatsoever .

Mishna:

The Mishna discusses the law of combining with regard to the ritual impurity of garments. It will be explained according to Rashi [Shabbat 76a; Sukkah 17b].

A garment, like all vessels, is susceptible to ritual impurity. However, other vessels have no minimum size, whereas garments have a minimum size at which they are fit to become susceptible to impurity.

What are their measures?

We learned in tractate Kelim [chapter 27, Mishna 2]: A garment [of wool or linen] is three by three [handbreadths]; a sack [made of goat hair, and thicker than a garment] is four by four [handbreadths]; leather [thicker than a sack] is five by five [handbreadths]; and a mat [made of reeds, and thicker than leather] is six by six [handbreadths].

For all these garments, there is no distinction between impurity imparted by a corpse and the impurity of the zav’s seating. The exception is a “garment”: its measure stated above, three by three handbreadths, applies specifically to the impurity of seating, since anything smaller than this is not fit for sitting; but with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, its measure is three by three fingerbreadths, since at this measure it has significance for poor people.

Our Mishna discusses combining two pieces of garments, and the Mishna says that they combine, provided that the more stringent completes the measure of the less stringent, as will be explained. This applies only when they are arranged as follows: a garment combines with a sack, a sack with leather, and leather with a mat, since their textures are nearly equal. For example, if one took a piece of a sack [the less stringent] smaller than the measure of four by four and completed its measure by attaching a piece of a garment [the more stringent] to it, the garment becomes fit to become susceptible to impurity.

But a garment does not combine with leather or with a mat, nor does a sack combine with a mat .

The garment and the sack, the sack and the leather, and the leather and the mat combine

with one another.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

that they combine?

Because they are fit to become impure

at one measure

with

the impurity of

seating .

As we learned [there, Kelim, Mishna 7]: One who cuts and trims from all of them [from one of each of these: the garment, the sack, the leather, and the mat] a square handbreadth by a square handbreadth is impure. The Gemara explains there: Since it is fit to be made into a patch for a donkey’s saddle, opposite the place where a person sits.

And since they are equal in one measure, at least with regard to one of the impurities of the zav, to become a primary source of ritual impurity, they combine even with regard to the impurity of seating .

And we explain: What does “for holding” mean? Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Yannai said: Since it can be used to scuff that small piece is suitable for weavers. When they smooth the spun thread of a woven fabric with bran or something similar to strengthen it, they wrap a small piece of cloth around a finger and smooth the spun thread. That rag on the finger protects the finger from being cut by the thread.

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that the reason they combine is that they have a common measure of one handbreadth for the impurity of seating, as a patch for a donkey’s saddle, as we learned in the Mishna there.

The Gemara cites a baraita that adds further ways in which the measures are equal, in addition to one handbreadth .

The tanna taught: If one cut from all of them and made

a garment from them,

if it is

for lying,

for example, to make a patch for a pillow, a cushion, or other items designated for lying, the measure of the patch is

three

handbreadths by three handbreadths. And if he cut it to make a patch

for seating,

such as for a donkey’s saddle,

one handbreadth

by one handbreadth. And if he cut it

for grasping,

as will be explained, the measure is

any amount whatsoever.

And we explain: What

is meant by

“for grasping”?

Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Yannai said: For it to be used for loosening,

that tiny piece is suitable for weavers when they smooth the spun thread of a woven fabric with bran or something similar, in order to strengthen it: they wrap a small piece of cloth around their finger and smooth the spun thread, and that rag on the finger protects the finger from being cut by the thread.

It was taught in a baraita: Since,

a garment of any size

is suitable for those who cut figs,

those who split figs and salt them, wrapping something around their finger so that it will not stick to the fat of the figs.

We will return to you, chapter “Sacrifices of the Altar.”

Until this chapter, the Mishna dealt with matters for which one is liable on account of meila: kodshei kodashim, kodashim kalim, and property consecrated for the repair of the Temple. It also dealt with matters for which one is not liable.

Now the Mishna deals with the nature of the act of meila: Through what act—use or deriving benefit—is one liable on account of meila?

Mishna:

There are objects that become damaged when they are used, and objects that do not become damaged. The Mishna discusses the difference between them with regard to meila.

One who derives benefit from sacred property,

and the value of the benefit is

worth a peruta, even though he did not damage it,

and it was not diminished,

has committed meila.

These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: Anything that

when used,

is damaged, one has not committed meila until he damages it,

as the Mishna will explain.

And

an object

that is not damaged, once he derives benefit

from it,

he has committed meila.

The Gemara will derive this from the biblical verses. The Gemara will also explain in what respect Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the Sages.

And the Mishna explains:

How

does an object that is not damaged manifest itself?

If

a woman

placed a ketala

a type of consecrated ornament

around her neck,

or

a ring on her hand,

or

drank from a golden cup,

and these are objects that are not damaged through use,

once she derives benefit

worth a peruta,

she has committed meila.

And the Mishna explains: How does an object that is damaged manifest itself?

If he wore a robe

of sacred property, or

covered himself with a prayer shawl,

or

chopped wood with an axe,

since these are objects that become damaged,

he has not committed meila until he damages them,

by the value of a peruta.

One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive has not committed meila until he damages it,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

When it is dead,

since in any event it is not destined for redemption [sale], as animals that have died may not be redeemed, and even when it is damaged the sacred property suffers no loss, therefore,

once he derives benefit,

even if it was not damaged,

he has committed meila.

This is by rabbinic law, as explained above [2b].

Gemara:

We learned: One who derives benefit from sacred property worth a peruta, even though he did not damage it, has committed meila; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. The plain meaning of the wording indicates that Rabbi Akiva holds one liable even for an object that ordinarily becomes damaged. The Gemara cites a beraita in which it is stated that Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Sages.

It was taught: Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Sages with regard to an object that is damaged,

that one has not committed meila until he damages it. He said that one commits meila through benefit worth a peruta only with regard to an object that is not damaged.

And the Gemara clarifies: If so,

with regard to what do they disagree,

in what do Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagree? Do the Sages not also hold this way?

Rava said:

They did not disagree with regard to an object that is damaged immediately, such as an outer garment that is rubbed against walls, or an inner garment adjacent to the flesh that is damaged by perspiration. With regard to these, Rabbi Akiva concedes that one has not committed meila until he damages it.

And with regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to a middle garment,

an intermediate garment that is not damaged until a long time has passed. With regard to this garment they disagree: Rabbi Akiva holds that since it is not damaged immediately, it is an object that is not damaged, and one commits meila through benefit worth a peruta even without damaging it. And the Sages hold that since, in any event, it is damaged, one does not commit meila through it until he damages it.

And similarly with regard to a malmala,

a very thin garment [when folded, it is the size of one and a half walnuts], whose law is like that of an intermediate garment.

The Gemara cites a lengthy beraita [Sifra, Section 11, halakhot 1–7], in which many laws concerning meila are taught.

The general principle is this: Some laws of meila are derived from the sota, some are derived from idolatry, some are derived from teruma, and some are derived from the Torah’s repetition of the wording “commit meila.”

The Sages taught:

The Torah says in the passage concerning meila [Leviticus 5], “

A person

who commits a betrayal,” and we expound: Every person, whether

an ordinary individual or a ruler,

or

a

anointed

koen with the anointing oil. This will be explained in the Gemara [19a], after the conclusion of the beraita.

The Torah further says [there], “

When he commits a betrayal.”

And the beraita explains:

There is no

meaning of

“betrayal”

other than alteration.

He changes an object of sacred property from its consecrated status to an ordinary status.

And so it says

in the passage concerning the sota [Numbers 5]: “

If any man’s wife goes astray and commits a betrayal against him,”

as will be explained.