Meilah 18a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna continues with the law of combining prohibitions.

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

Mishna:

Orla and kil'ei ha-kerem combine with one another ,

one who eats half an olive-bulk of orla and half an olive-bulk of kil'ei ha-kerem, 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 plain meaning of his words indicates that if one ate half an olive-bulk of orla and half an olive-bulk of kil'ei ha-kerem, he is not flogged. Therefore we ask:

And does Rabbi Shimon need combining,

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

But it was taught,

for we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: Anything [however small] is subject to lashes,

meaning, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the measure of eating is an olive-bulk applies specifically to prohibitions for which one who eats them inadvertently is liable to a sacrifice, and the halakha was stated that for less than an olive-bulk he does not bring a sacrifice. But in order to become liable to lashes for prohibitions of eating, no measure was stated, and even for any amount, he is flogged .

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

Teach—

repeat the Mishna! Rabbi Shimon says:

They do not need to combine,

and he is liable to lashes even for any amount .

Mishna:

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

The garment, like all other vessels, becomes susceptible to impurity. However, for other vessels there is no measure in their size, whereas for garments there is a measure in their size for them to be fit to become susceptible to impurity.

And what is their measure?

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

For all these garments there is no distinction between impurity from a corpse and the impurity of the lying-place of a person afflicted with zav. Except for the “garment”: its aforementioned measure of three by three handbreadths applies specifically to the impurity of a lying-place, since one is not fit to sit upon when it is less than this measure; but with regard to impurity from a corpse, its measure is three by three fingerbreadths, since at this measure it has importance for poor people.

Our Mishna discusses the combining of two pieces of garments. And the Mishna said that they combine, provided that the more stringent completes the less stringent, as will be explained. And provided that they are in this order: the garment combines with the sack, the sack with the leather, and the leather with the mat, since their substance is close to being 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 when he attached to it a piece of a garment [the more stringent], the garment becomes fit to become susceptible to impurity.

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

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

with one another.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

they combine?

Because they are fit to become impure

at one measure

with

impurity of

a seat .

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.

As we learned [there, Kelim, Mishna 7]: One who trims [makes even all around with a knife and properly repairs] from all of them [from one of these: the garment, the sack, the leather, and the mat] one handbreadth by one handbreadth—it is impure. And the Gemara explains there: Since it is fit to make it a patch on 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 one afflicted with zav, to become a primary source of impurity, they combine even for a lying-place .

Gemara:

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

The Gemara brings a beraita that adds further cases in which the measures are equal, in addition to one handbreadth .

The tanna taught: One who trimmed from all of them and made

from them a garment,

if

for lying,

such as to make a patch for a cushion or a mattress or for other things designated for lying, the measure of the patch is

three

handbreadths by three handbreadths. And if he trimmed to make a patch

for a seat,

such as for a donkey’s saddle,

one handbreadth

by one handbreadth. And if he trimmed

for holding,

as will be explained, the measure is

any amount.

And we explain: What is

the meaning of

“for holding”?

Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Yannai said: For it can serve to adorn,

that small piece is fit for weavers, when they smooth the spun thread of weaving with bran or with something in order to strengthen it: one wraps a small piece of cloth around his finger and smooths the spun thread, and that rag on his finger protects his finger so that it is not cut by the thread.

Since

a garment of any size

is fit for fig cutters,

those who cut figs and salt them wrap something around their finger so that it will not adhere to the fat of the figs.

We shall return to you, chapter “Sacred Offerings of the Altar.”

Until this chapter, the Mishna dealt with things concerning which one is liable on account of meila: the most sacred offerings, offerings of lesser sanctity, and consecrated property for the Temple maintenance. And likewise with things concerning which one is not liable.

Now the Mishna deals with the manner of the act of meila: through which act, use, and benefit is one liable on account of meila?

Mishna:

There are things that become defective when one uses them, and there are things that do not become defective. The Mishna discusses the difference between them with regard to meila.

One who derives benefit from consecrated property,

and the value of the benefit is

the value of a peruta, even though he did not cause a defect,

and it was not diminished,

has committed meila.

These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: Every thing that

through use of it

has a defect in it, he has not committed meila until he causes a defect,

as the Mishna will explain.

And

a thing

that has no defect in it, since he derived benefit

from it,

he has committed meila.

And in the Gemara this will be learned through exposition of the verses. And the Gemara will also explain in what Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the Sages.

And the Mishna explains:

How

is it a thing that has no defect in it?

She gave

the woman

a katla

[a kind of jewelry] of consecrated property

on her neck,

or

a ring on her hand,

or

she drank from a golden cup,

and these are things that do not become defective through their use,

since she derived benefit

of the value of a peruta ,

she has committed meila.

And the Mishna explains: How is it a thing that has a defect in it?

He wore a tunic

of consecrated property, or

he covered himself with a cloak,

or

he chopped with an ax,

since these are things that become defective,

he has not committed meila until he causes a defect,

of the value of a peruta.

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

as will be explained in the Gemara.

When it is dead,

since in any event it is not standing for redemption [sale], for one does not redeem offerings that have died, and even when it becomes defective there is no loss to consecrated property, therefore

since he derived benefit,

even if it did not become defective,

he has committed meila.

By rabbinic enactment, as explained above [2b].

Gemara:

We learned: One who derives benefit from consecrated property worth a peruta, even though he did not cause a defect, has committed meila, according to Rabbi Akiva. From the plain meaning of the wording it appears that Rabbi Akiva obligates even concerning a thing whose usual use is to cause it to become defective, although he did not cause a defect. The Gemara brings a beraita, and it states that Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Sages.

A tanna taught: Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Sages concerning a thing that has a defect in it,

that he has not committed meila until he causes a defect. And he said that one commits meila through benefit worth a peruta only concerning a thing that has no defect in it.

And the Gemara clarifies: If so,

in what do they disagree,

in what do Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagree? Surely the Sages also hold this way?

Rava said:

They did not disagree concerning a thing that becomes defective immediately, such as an upper garment [outer garment] that is rubbed against walls, and likewise an undergarment [inner garment] adjacent to the flesh, which becomes defective because of sweat. And concerning these Rabbi Akiva concedes that he has not committed meila until he causes a defect,

and concerning what did they disagree?

Concerning an intermediate garment,

an intermediate garment that does not become defective until a long time. And concerning this garment they disagreed. Rabbi Akiva holds: Since it does not become defective immediately, it is a thing that has no defect in it, and one commits meila through benefit worth a peruta even without a defect. And the Sages hold: Since in any event it becomes defective, one does not commit meila until he causes a defect ,

and a very fine garment,

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

The Gemara brings a lengthy beraita [Sifra, section 11, halakhot 1–7], and in it we learn many laws concerning meila.

And the general principle of the matters is this: There are laws of meila that are learned from the sota, and there are laws that are learned from idolatry, and there are laws that are learned from teruma, and there are laws that are learned from the Torah’s repetition of its wording, when it says, “He shall commit meila.”

The Sages taught:

The Torah said in the section of meila [Leviticus 5], “

A person

when he commits meila,” and we expound: Every person, whether he is

an ordinary individual or a prince,

or

a

priest

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

The Torah further said [there], “

When he commits meila.”

And the beraita explains:

There is no

meaning of

“meila,”

except a change .

He changes an item of consecrated property from sacred to ordinary.

And likewise it says

in the section of the sota [Numbers 5], “

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

as will be explained.