Meilah 18b — the Talmud in English

The beraita brings an additional teaching that “meila” means “change”:

And it says ,

concerning idolatry [I Chronicles 5], “

And they committed meila against the God of ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

their fathers, and they whored after the gods of the peoples of the land.”

That is, from the sota we learn the prohibition of “benefit” from consecrated property, just as the sota derives benefit from the transgression. “

Benefit” that is prohibited from consecrated property is prohibited even without a defect. Just as the transgression of the sota is without a defect , so benefit from consecrated property is prohibited.

This meila also applies when he did not remove the consecrated item from the domain of consecrated property, for example, a treasurer of consecrated property who derives benefit from consecrated property .

And from idolatry we learn meila through a change from the “domain” of consecrated property, even without benefit . For example, one who takes money of consecrated property and makes it ordinary, and does not derive benefit from the money itself, but rather from the object that he purchased with the money . Or, for example, one who gives an item of consecrated property to his fellow.

Just as one who worships idolatry changes himself from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He, and from His service to the domain of the idols, even without benefit,

the beraita continues:

I might

have said that if he

derived benefit but did not cause a defect ,

he should be liable.

That is, even though we learned from the sota to obligate one for benefit without a defect, as explained, nevertheless one might say that the Torah’s principal concern in the sota is the very benefit itself, whether with a defect or without a defect, And meila is learned from the sota to obligate one for benefit even without a defect. Yet in our Mishna we learned that concerning a thing that has a defect in it, one is not liable for the benefit until he causes a defect.

And the beraita discusses: From where do we learn to “exempt” benefit-meila without a defect, concerning a thing that has a defect in it?

And likewise, I might have said that if he

caused a defect but did not derive benefit,

he should be liable.

That is, if we learn from idolatry, it is possible to reason and say that just as one who worships idolatry causes a defect to the One who hates it, the Holy One, blessed be He, and abandons His service and goes after vanity ,

and that wicked person derives no benefit at all from abandoning the Creator, blessed is He,

so too one who causes a defect to consecrated property without benefit, for example, one who damages consecrated property and casts it away to be lost, such as one who takes objects of consecrated property and casts them into fire or water, or breaks them.

And from where do we learn to exempt one who damages consecrated property ?

And

I could have said that if he misappropriated

something attached to the ground, he should be liable. And from where do we know that he is exempt?

, he should be liable. And from where do we know that he is exempt?

And

so ,

in the case of an agent who carried out his agency , for example: a householder who said to his agent, “Give meat to the guests” [consecrated meat], I could have said that the agent committed meila, just as throughout all the laws of the Torah we hold that “there is no agency for a transgression,” because the sender can say, “The words of the master and the words of the student—which words are heeding?”

, for example: If a homeowner said to his agent, “Give meat to the guests” [and the meat was consecrated], I might have said that the agent misused the consecrated property, as we hold in all areas of Torah law that “there is no agency for a transgression,” because the sender can say: “The words of the Master and the words of the student—which words does one obey?”

But regarding meila, we learned [in the next chapter] that the householder committed meila and not the agent. And from where do we know to exclude meila from the entire Torah, to say that the householder committed meila?

And the beraita answers:

The verse states: “

a person, when he commits a misuse,”

“and sins,” and we expound a

gzera shava:

“sin” is stated with regard to teruma, concerning a “non-koen” who eats teruma and profanes it [Numbers 18]: “And you shall not bear sin because of it,”

in the case of a non-kohein who eats teruma and thereby desecrates it: “You shall not bear sin because of it,”

and “sin” is stated with regard to meila, to teach us:

to teach us:

Just as the sin stated with regard to teruma involves causing a deficiency and deriving benefit, for it is stated [Leviticus 22] regarding teruma, “when he eats.” And eating is impossible without causing a deficiency. And it teaches us that just as for eating teruma one is liable only for benefit that causes a deficiency, so too for meila one is liable only for benefit that causes a deficiency [with an object in which a deficiency can be caused].

And just as with teruma, the deficiency is bound up with benefit, and one who damages teruma is exempt ,

so too with meila one is liable only for a deficiency involving benefit, to exclude one who damages [when he did not remove it from the domain of the consecrated property].

And

just as teruma,

the one who causes the deficiency derives benefit,

so too meila. And it comes to exclude a case in which one causes a deficiency and the other derives benefit .

And

just as teruma,

with the thing in which he causes a deficiency, he derives benefit,

so too meila. And it comes to exclude a case in which he causes a deficiency without benefit.

And

just as teruma,

his causing a deficiency and his deriving benefit are simultaneous,

so too meila. And it comes to exclude a case in which he causes a deficiency now and derives benefit tomorrow, for causing a deficiency and deriving benefit do not combine, even with one person and one object .

And

just as teruma applies specifically

to something detached from the ground, for teruma applies only to something detached, from the time it is called “grain,” as it is stated [Deuteronomy 18], “the first of your grain,” so too meila applies only to something detached .

, since teruma applies only to something detached, from the time it is called “grain,” as it is stated: “The first fruits of your grain,” so too, misuse of consecrated property applies only to something detached .

And

just as teruma’s law applies

in the case of an agent who carried out his agency, when the householder instructed him to separate teruma, it is as though the householder separated it, and his teruma is teruma. As we expound from what is stated [Numbers 18], “So shall you also raise.” So too meila: when the agent carried out his agency, the householder committed meila .

, when the homeowner instructed him to separate teruma, it is considered as though the homeowner himself separated it, and his teruma is valid, as we derive from the verse: “So shall you also set aside.” So too, with misuse of consecrated property, when the agent carries out his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse .

So too, the sin stated with regard to meila involves causing a deficiency and deriving benefit; the one who causes the deficiency derives benefit; with the thing in which he causes the deficiency he derives benefit; his causing a deficiency and his deriving benefit are simultaneous; it applies to something detached from the ground; and it applies to an agent who carried out his agency,

as explained.

And the beraita continues [according to one version ]:

If meila is learned from teruma,

I have a teaching

to make one liable

only when he eats and derives benefit, when the eater himself derives benefit. But

he eats part and another person eats part—where

his eating and his fellow’s eating—from where do we have a teaching to make one liable when he took food worth a peruta, ate half of it himself, and fed his fellow the other half, whereas we learned in the following Mishna that he committed meila and his fellow did not. [The continuation of the beraita will be explained]. [גירסא אחרת]Another version

the other half to his fellow, while we learn in the next Mishna that he, and not his fellow, was liable for misuse? [The continuation of the beraita will be explained ]. [ Another version If misuse of consecrated property is derived from teruma, I have a teaching

Another reading ]:

If meila is learned from teruma,

I have a teaching

to make one liable

only when he eats, just as regarding teruma it is stated, “And a person, when he eats,”

from it,”

he derives benefit

and did not eat,

with a thing in which there is no deficiency—from where do we know that he is liable? And likewise,

do we have a teaching that he is liable? And likewise,

his eating and his fellow’s eating , as above, or

his deriving benefit

his benefit [his benefit]

and his fellow’s deriving benefit , or

and his fellow’s benefit , or

his eating and his fellow’s deriving benefit .

his benefit and his fellow’s eating, or

or

his eating and his fellow’s benefit.

The

all these

combine with one another even after a long time,

such as: one in the morning and the second in the evening,

from where?

And the beraita answers:

the verse states “

you commit a trespass,”

and we expound: trespass

in every circumstance, even through combining. [And according to the second version, we include as well enjoyment from an item in which there is no damage].

even through combining. [According to the second version, this also includes deriving benefit from an item that has not been diminished].

And the beraita continues:

If,

if meila is derived from terumah, then it is possible to say:

just as the transgression stated with regard to terumah does not combine two acts of eating as one,

if he ate today half of the measure for which one is liable for the principal and the fifth for eating terumah , and the second half tomorrow, he is not liable,

And it is derived from terumah that

even the transgression stated with regard to meila does not combine two acts of eating as one,

from where,

to include

one ate

half of the measure of meila

today, and ate

the second half

tomorrow, and

not specifically tomorrow, but

even after a long time ?

And the beraita answers:

the verse states “

you commit a trespass”

to include trespass

in every circumstance.

And the beraita continues:

If,

if meila is derived from terumah, then it is possible to say:

just as the transgression stated with regard to terumah,

when he ate the terumah,

its damage and his enjoyment are together,

when he eats and benefits, the terumah is damaged, and he is the one who benefits and he is the one who causes the damage,

so too, the transgression stated with regard to meila: its damage and his enjoyment are together ,

from where

to include,

his eating and the eating of his fellow,

which combine, and combine over a long time,

and even from now until three years?

the verse states: “

you commit a trespass,”

and we expound: to include trespass

in every circumstance.