Meilah 19a — the Talmud in English

And the beraita continues:

If

, if we learn it from teruma, then it could indeed be said:

Just as the sin stated with regard to teruma ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position on the page") is not liable

until it passes from the sacred to the non-sacred,

a non-koen who eats it takes it out to the non-sacred.

And even one who takes something from sacred to sacred commits meila, such as one who purchases individual offerings with sacred funds in his possession.

And the Sages disputed when he commits meila.

Rabbi Shimon holds that he commits meila from the time of bringing the offering to the forecourt, because he holds that already at the time of bringing the offering, the owner of the offering has fulfilled his obligation.

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that he does not commit meila until the blood is sprinkled, because he holds that the owners are responsible for the offering until the sprinkling of the blood.

And the beraita explains: one who takes

from sacred to sacred, for example, took

[purchased]

the nests of men with flux, the nests of women with flux, and the nests of women after childbirth,

which are offerings for which he is responsible, and he purchased them with sacred money, or he took sacred money

and weighed his shekel,

and gave it for the half-shekel, for his obligation to give a half-shekel every year, or he took sacred money

and brought

from it

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

[them,] he committed meila, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

he did not commit meila

until he sprinkles the blood.

And

from where

do we know that there is meila even in taking out from sacred to sacred? Is it not possible to learn from teruma only the one who takes out from sacred to non-sacred?

The verse says

“He shall commit a trespass,”

to include meila

in every case,

whether one who takes out from sacred to non-sacred or one who takes out from sacred to sacred.

And the Gemara explains the beginning of the beraita:

The Master said,

the Torah said

“a person,”

and it comes to include

both an ordinary person, and a prince, and

the

anointed koen, are included.

And the Gemara asks:

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” signifies every person? Why, then, would it have entered one’s mind to exclude a prince and an anointed koen?

And we answer:

What might you have said

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

the Merciful One said,

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

“And whoever puts some of it upon an outsider

shall be cut off from his people,”

and this

anointed koen

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

he was anointed with the anointing oil, and consequently he is not included in meila,

It teaches us this

, the beraita comes to teach us that this is not so, and he commits meila.

The Gemara now summarizes the three teachings, from the woman suspected of adultery, from idolatry, and from teruma. And from each one of them a new law in the laws of meila is learned, which cannot be learned from the other two, but only from that one.

The Merciful One juxtaposed

it

, the Torah juxtaposed meila

with the woman suspected of adultery, with idolatry, and with teruma,

With the woman suspected of adultery,

the Torah juxtaposed it, to teach

that

just as with the woman suspected of adultery one benefits

even though there is no impairment,

as explained above, that with the woman suspected of adultery there is no impairment,

so too with regard to sacred property,

when

she placed a ring in her hand,

and benefited from it without impairing it,

he commits meila.

When the Merciful One juxtaposed it,

and in what way did the Torah juxtapose meila

with idolatry,

to teach

that

just as idolatry is

until there is a change in it,

that is, meila through taking out, as explained.

So too with regard to sacred property,

he did not commit meila

until he split with an axe.

The Merciful One juxtaposed it with teruma,

to teach us:

just as teruma,

the Torah said,

“when he eats,”

and we expound:

excluding one who damages,

as explained,

so too with regard to sacred property,

every matter of eating,

when he damages it, he is exempt.

Therefore, the Torah likened it to a sotah, to idolatry, and to teruma.

We learned in our Mishna:

“How so? He placed a necklace around her neck, a ring on her hand, or drank from a golden cup; once he benefited, he committed meila.”

Because these are objects in which there is no damage.

The Gemara discusses whether, indeed, they are not damaged through extensive use.

Rav Kahana said to Rav Zevid: And

is

gold

[gold]

not subject to damage?! But

indeed,

the gold of Nôn’s brides,

the golden jewelry that a certain wealthy man named “Nôn” made for his brides, and after some time it was found to have diminished in weight; and

where did it go,

where did that gold go? For gold, too, is evidently capable of being damaged.

He said to him,

Rav Zevid to Rav Kahana:

Perhaps,

it is possible that the gold went

to the place where your brides throw it,

to the place where your brides cast it! That is, golden jewelry is not damaged when it is worn and put on properly, but when it is thrown into windows or other unguarded places.

Furthermore, even granted that there is no enjoyment and damage immediately,

even if they are not damaged immediately at the time one benefits from them, by wearing them or drinking from the cup,

is there ever no damage?!

Therefore, since they are not damaged immediately, they are called an object in which there is no damage.

We learned in our Mishna:

“One who benefits

from the sin-offering while it is alive has not committed meila until he causes damage.”

The Gemara understood that this refers to an animal fit for an offering and designated to be offered. Therefore, the Gemara asks: What relevance does damage have in it? After all, even if it became thinner, it is not thereby disqualified, and whether it is fat or whether it is lean, it is still fit to be offered?

Damage is relevant only to an object designated for sale, for when it becomes thinner, its value decreases.

Now,

since

if

the Mishna is speaking

of an unblemished animal

designated to be offered, it is difficult:

it is the same as a golden cup,

for which one is liable merely through benefiting from it, without damage?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: In

an animal

with a blemish,

which is designated for sale and whose price decreases when it becomes thinner, and

we are dealing

with that animal. Since it is an object in which there is damage, the Mishna therefore said that he did not commit meila until he caused damage worth a peruta.

And in the latter clause, where we learned, “When it is dead, once he benefits, he has committed meila,” this refers both to an unblemished animal and to an animal with a blemish , because in any event it is not designated for redemption, since “one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs.”