Meilah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And the baraita continues:

If

, if we derive this from teruma, then it could be said as follows:

Just as the sin mentioned with regard to teruma

is not subject to liability

until it passes from the sacred to the profane,

since a non-priest who eats it transfers it to the profane domain.

And even one who transfers an item from one sacred domain to another is subject to me'ila. For example, one who purchases individual offerings with consecrated money in his possession.

And the Sages disagreed as to when he committed me'ila.

Rabbi Shimon maintains that he committed me'ila from the time the offering was brought to the Temple courtyard, because he holds that already when the offering is brought, the owner of the offering has fulfilled his obligation.

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he did not commit me'ila until the blood was sprinkled, because he holds that the owners remain responsible for the offering until the sprinkling of the blood.

And the baraita explains: One who transfers

from one sacred domain to another sacred domain, for example, who took

[purchased]

the nests of zavim, the nests of zavot, and the nests of women who gave birth,

which are offerings for which he bears responsibility, and purchased them with consecrated money; or who took consecrated money

and weighed out his shekel,

and gave it for the half-shekel obligation, in fulfillment of his obligation to give a half-shekel every year; or who took consecrated money

and brought

from it

his sin-offering and guilt-offering; once he brought them

he committed me'ila; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He did not commit me'ila

until the blood was sprinkled.

And

from where

do we know that one commits me'ila even through transferring an item from one sacred domain to another? After all, from teruma we can derive only the case of one who transfers an item from the sacred to the non-sacred domain.

The verse states: “

He shall commit a betrayal,”

thereby including me'ila

in every case,

whether one transfers an item from the sacred to the non-sacred domain or from one sacred domain to another.

The Gemara now explains the beginning of the baraita:

The Master said:

The Torah said

“a person,”

and this comes to include

both an ordinary person, and a prince, and

the

anointed priest, as included.

And the Gemara discusses this:

One might have thought,

what?!

What could we have excluded if the Torah had not included them? Is it not

obvious? “

A person is written,”

and “a person” means every person. Why, then, would it have occurred to us to exclude a prince and an anointed priest?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

if the Torah had not included a prince and an anointed priest, we would have said:

The Merciful One said,

the Torah says in the passage concerning anointing oil [Exodus 30], “

And whoever places some of it upon an outsider

shall be cut off from among his people.”

And this

anointed priest

is not an outsider, for he was anointed with it;

he was anointed with the anointing oil and is consequently not included in the law of me'ila.

It teaches us

that this is not so ; he does commit me'ila.

The Gemara now summarizes the three teachings, from a sota, from idolatry, and from teruma. From each one, a new law of me'ila is learned that cannot be derived from the other two, but only from that source.

The Merciful One juxtaposed

me'ila,

the Torah juxtaposed me'ila

with a sota, idolatry, and teruma.

With regard to a sota,

the Torah juxtaposed me'ila with it in order to teach

that

just as with a sota one benefits

even though there is no damage,

as explained above, since in the case of a sota there is no damage,

so too, with regard to consecrated property,

when she

placed a ring in her hand

and benefited from it without causing damage,

he commits me'ila.

When the Merciful One juxtaposed

me'ila, and in what way did the Torah juxtapose it

with idolatry?

To teach

that

just as with idolatry

there is no liability until there is a change

—that is, me'ila through transfer, as explained—

so too, with regard to consecrated property,

he did not commit me'ila

until he split wood with the ax.

The Merciful One juxtaposed me'ila with teruma

in order to teach us

that just as with teruma,

the Torah says

“when he eats,”

and we expound:

to exclude one who causes damage,

as explained,

so too, with regard to consecrated property,

any item of food,

when he damages it, he is exempt.