Meilah 19b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

As explained above, regarding every item in which there is deterioration, he has not committed meila until he causes deterioration; and regarding an item in which there is no deterioration, once he derives benefit, he has committed meila.

It is further explained that the measure of meila for which one becomes liable for a fifth and a guilt-offering is the value of a peruta.

If he wore a consecrated garment and

derived benefit

from it

to the

measure of

half a peruta, and caused deterioration

to the measure of half a peruta, or derived benefit worth a peruta from one item—

an item in which there is deterioration—and did not cause deterioration,

and caused deterioration worth a peruta in another item,

but did not derive benefit from it—for example, he wore this garment and tore another garment —

This person has not committed meila,

until he derives benefit worth a peruta and causes deterioration worth a peruta in one item .

As explained above [18b], meila is derived from teruma: in the item from which he derives benefit, he causes deterioration.

The sugya of “there is a second meila after meila”

Consecrated items for the maintenance of the Temple that have been used improperly—their sanctity has been desecrated, and they are unconsecrated property, and one can no longer commit meila with them.

There is no second meila after meila:

there are not two acts of meila, one after the other,

with

one item of

consecrated property .

Except [that is, apart from]

items other than

an animal,

of the consecrated offerings of the altar, designated for sacrifice , because it does not leave the category of unconsecrated property while it is unblemished,

and

likewise

sacred vessels only.

But other consecrated items, such as consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple, leave the category of unconsecrated property from the time of the first meila, as explained [above, 18b]: “There is meila nowhere except through a change,” whereby it is changed from its sanctity .

And the Mishna explains: How so? He rode upon an animal ,

designated for sacrifice,

and his fellow came and rode

upon it,

and his fellow came and rode, all of them committed meila. Or,

if

he drank from a golden cup ,

a sacred vessel,

and his fellow came and drank, and his fellow came and drank, all of them committed meila.

He pulled out

hair or wool

from the sin-offering, and his fellow came and pulled out, and his fellow came and pulled out, all of them committed meila .

Rabbi says: Any item that has no redemption

another version of the reading:

that has no defect

that is to say, that its defect is not significant, because it is not disqualified on account of it, since it is not designated for redemption,

there is one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse.

Apparently, Rabbi’s intention is [to refer] to an animal and service vessels that are not designated for redemption. And the Gemara will explain in what he disagrees with the first tanna.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that service vessels, like an unblemished animal, have one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse.

And the Gemara explains that these matters are not according to all the tannaim, but rather,

whose opinion is the Mishna according to,

according to whose words was the Mishna taught?

It is Rabbi Nehemiah’s.

For it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

There is no one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse

with consecrated items that have redemption,

except with an animal alone,

for its sanctity is sanctity of the body, and it has no redemption [when it is unblemished], since it is only for the needs of a sacrifice. But service vessels have redemption; therefore, when one committed misuse with them, they became unconsecrated, and the second person does not commit misuse. These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Nehemiah says:

there is no one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse, except

an animal and service vessels,

even though service vessels have redemption, nevertheless, one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse exists with regard to them. And the reason will be explained.

The Gemara explains the reason for their disagreement:

What is the reason of the first tanna?

He holds that

the law of misuse

is written with regard to the matter of an animal.

That is to say, the Torah revealed with regard to an animal that there is one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse, and we have to expound this only with regard to it.

For it is written in the section of misuse [Leviticus 5]: “He shall pay for that which he sinned from the sacred property, and he shall add its fifth to it, and he shall give it to the priest; and the priest shall atone for him with the ram of the guilt-offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” And that which the Torah said

«

“with the ram of the guilt-offering”

is superfluous, for it was already stated [in the preceding verse], “He shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock, according to your valuation in silver shekels, according to the sacred shekel, as a guilt-offering.” Rather, it comes to teach us to expound that specifically “with the ram of the guilt-offering”—that is, a sacrifice fit to be offered has one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse, but not another item, and not even a service vessel.

And Rabbi Nehemiah could say to you:

Indeed, the law is so with regard to an animal, but one must expound a

kal va-chomer: If

the sanctity of a service vessel is so stringent that

it brings others to sanctity,

as explained in tractate Zevahim [87b], that service vessels sanctify whatever enters them, then

it itself,

the service vessel,

all the more so,

that it should not become unconsecrated through misuse?! And although it has redemption, nevertheless it does not become unconsecrated through misuse.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi says: Any item that has no redemption has one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse.

The Gemara explains in what Rabbi disagrees with the first tanna. And we raise an objection: Rabbi’s words

are identical

exactly to the words of

the first tanna.

For an item that has no redemption is every item sanctified with sanctity of the body, and the first tanna already said concerning them that there is one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse, so in what do Rabbi’s words differ? And we answer:

Rava said: There is a difference between them: “

wood,”

Indeed, with regard to the law of misuse there is no difference between Rabbi and the first tanna, except that Rabbi comes to add “wood,” as will be explained.

Rabbi holds in tractate Menahot [106b] that wood donated for the purpose of the wood of the arrangement upon the altar has upon it complete sanctity of a sacrifice. Therefore, according to his method, Rabbi said, “Any item that has no redemption,” to include even the wood of the arrangement, with which there is one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse. Whereas the first tanna holds that the sanctity of a sacrifice is not upon it, and therefore it becomes unconsecrated through misuse.

For the Rabbis taught: One who says “

It is incumbent upon me

to bring

wood

for the altar,”

may not bring less than two pieces of wood,

two large split logs of wood.

Rabbi says: Wood is a sacrifice, and requires salt,

just as sacrifices are salted,

and requires waving ,

just as is done with sacrifices.

And we inquire concerning it:

Rava said: According to Rabbi, wood

that was donated

requires wood

other consecrated wood with which to burn it, like other sacrifices.

And Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi, wood requires kemitza,

that is, one crushes it into fine pieces of wood until he takes from it the fullness of his handful.

And concerning this wood Rabbi said in our Mishna, “Any item that has no redemption has one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse.”

This is Rava’s interpretation in explaining the “there is a difference between them” in our Mishna.

Whereas

Rav Pappa said: Consecrated property of the altar that was unblemished and became blemished—there is a difference between them ,

and one benefited from them while they were still alive.

Rabbi follows his method, that their sanctity is like sanctity of the body, as will be explained; therefore, there is one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse with them. And therefore he said, “Any item that has no redemption has one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse.” Whereas the first tanna holds that their sanctity is merely the sanctity of property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, and when one committed misuse with them, they became unconsecrated, and there is no one who commits misuse after another who commits misuse with them.

But was it not taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

Consecrated property of the altar that was unblemished and became blemished,

and it is forbidden to slaughter them without redemption,

and he transgressed and slaughtered them, Rabbi says:

Since with regard to blemished consecrated animals we require “standing and valuation” in order to redeem them, as it is stated [Leviticus 27], “He shall have the animal stand before the priest, and the priest shall value it,” and since it is impossible to have them stand, once they have already been slaughtered, they have no remedy through redemption; therefore,

they shall be buried,

like other disqualified consecrated animals.

And the Sages say: They shall be redeemed,

and standing and valuation are not required.

And now, Rabbi follows his method, that their sanctity is sanctity of the body. And the first tanna holds like the Sages, that since they have redemption, their sanctity is not sanctity of the body. And therefore they disagree with Rabbi, and hold that they become unconsecrated through misuse, like other property consecrated with sanctity of value.

Mishna:

One took

a stone or a beam belonging to consecrated property,

and did not benefit and did not cause a defect,

this person did not commit misuse.

And it is explained in the Gemara that this concerns a treasurer to whom the stone and the beam were entrusted, and they do not become unconsecrated through his taking them, since by taking them he does not remove them from the domain of consecrated property: as long as they are in the treasurer’s domain, they are in the domain of consecrated property —