Meilah 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

But when

he gave it to another person,

the Temple treasurer

commits misuse of consecrated property,

because through this gift the other person acquired it, and it follows that the treasurer removed it from the domain of the Temple treasury.

But the other person does not commit misuse of consecrated property,

as we learned: “There is no misuse after misuse.” It has already become non-sacred, and it is his to do with as he wishes.

If the treasurer built it

into a wall, or used it as a beam,

inside his house,

the Gemara will explain that he did not alter it: He did not hew it or repair it, but merely placed it as it was over an opening. Therefore,

he does not commit misuse,

since he did not remove it from the domain of the Temple treasury, as explained, for the case concerns a treasurer, and he performed no physical alteration,

until he dwells beneath it

and benefits from it

by the value of a peruta,

by preventing rain from entering and the like. Then, when he benefits from it, he commits misuse.

And similarly, if

the treasurer took

Similarly, if the treasurer

a peruta belonging to the Temple treasury, he does not commit misuse,

as explained.

But when

he gives it to another person, he commits misuse, but the other person does not commit misuse.

He gave it,

the peruta,

to a bathhouse attendant

as payment for bathing in the bathhouse

, even though

he had

not yet bathed, he commits misuse,

because

he,

the bathhouse attendant,

says to him:

From my perspective, there is no impediment; rather,

the bathhouse is open before you,

and everything is prepared.

Enter and bathe!”

The bathhouse attendant acquired the money. It follows that the treasurer committed misuse at the moment he gave him the money .

His eating and his fellow’s eating:

If he ate half a peruta’s worth and fed his fellow half a peruta’s worth, or

his benefit [—

his enjoyment]

and his fellow’s benefit,

for example, he anointed himself with consecrated oil worth half a peruta and anointed his fellow with oil worth half a peruta; or

his eating and his fellow’s benefit,

or

his benefit and his fellow’s eating combine with one another,

and he commits misuse, but not his fellow,

even after a considerable period of time,

as explained above [18b].

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

If one took a stone or a beam, he does not commit misuse.

If he gave it to another person, he commits misuse, but the other person does not commit misuse.

The Gemara explains:

What is different with regard to him, and what is different with regard to the other person?

Once he took it, what is the difference between taking it for himself, in which case he does not commit misuse, and giving it to another person, in which case he commits misuse?

The Gemara concludes:

Shmuel said: We are dealing with a treasurer to whom

building stones

were entrusted [

for wherever it is placed,

wherever it lies, even before he takes it,

it lies in his domain,

it is considered to be in his domain ]. Therefore, although he took it, he did not alter it by removing it from the domain of the Temple treasury. But when he gave it to another person, he altered it by removing it from the domain of the Temple treasury.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he built it into his house, he does not commit misuse until he dwells beneath it, benefiting by the value of a peruta.

The Gemara assumed that before building it in, he hewed the stone or cut the beam to fit the dimensions of the construction. Therefore, it asks:

Why do I need

to wait

until he dwells beneath it?

Is it not the case that

once he altered it,

The Gemara explains And once he built it, that is, once he placed it over the opening in his roof, at any rate, he committed misuse, committing misuse through it when he dwells beneath it and benefits to the value of a peruta. Although it is now attached to the building, and we hold [above, 18b] that “there is no misuse involving an object attached to the ground,” nevertheless, since it was originally detached and is not naturally attached to the ground, the law is different. Apparently, the reason is that our Mishna holds: “Detached and subsequently attached is treated as detached.” Therefore, the Gemara asks: Shall we say that our Mishna supports Rav, who said: One who bows down to a house,

he commits misuse?

Even though he is the treasurer, nevertheless, did he not acquire it through a “change in the physical form”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav said:

Our Mishna is dealing with a case in which he did not make any alteration to it. When the Mishna says “he built it,” this means

for example, that he placed it

as it was

over an opening,

to block it, and whenever he wishes, he can remove it . Therefore, he does not commit misuse until he dwells beneath it. When it protects and saves him from rain and sun to the value of a peruta, he commits misuse.

The Gemara explains

And once he built it,

and since he built it over his opening,

at any rate, he commits misuse,

he commits misuse through it when he dwells beneath it and benefits by the value of a peruta. Although it is now attached to the building, and we maintain [above, 18b] that “there is no misuse with regard to something attached to the ground,” nevertheless, since it was initially detached and is not naturally attached.

Apparently, the reason is that our Mishna maintains: “Detached and subsequently attached retains the status of detached.”

The Gemara therefore asks:

Shall we say,

that our Mishna

supports Rav,

who said: One who bows down to a house,

for the sake of idolatry,

prohibits it

from benefit?

That is, idolatry that is attached is not prohibited from benefit; rather, it is prohibited only when detached, as the Sages expounded [Avoda Zara 45a] from the Torah’s statement [Deuteronomy 12]: “You shall utterly destroy all the places ... their gods upon the mountains”—but not the mountains themselves as their gods. A house, however, whose wood and stones were detached and were subsequently attached to the ground is not like a mountain that is intrinsically attached.

If so, our Mishna can support Rav.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said:

This is not conclusive proof for Rav. It can properly be said that our Mishna maintains: “Detached and subsequently attached has the status of attached,” [and one who bows down to a house does not prohibit it]. If you ask why one commits misuse when he actually builds it in, given that “there is no misuse with regard to something attached,”

it is because

the Torah prohibited benefit that is visible to the eye,

that is, a distinction must be made between idolatry and—far be it from comparison between the impure and the pure—the Temple treasury. With idolatry, the prohibition of benefit resulting from bowing came after the house had been built; therefore, there is room to say that the house was not prohibited. This differs from consecrated property, where the stone had been consecrated before it was built into the structure; therefore, one commits misuse through it even though “there is no misuse with regard to something attached.”

The Gemara continues to discuss the matter of “detached and subsequently attached.”

Let us say:

Could it be said that the following beraita

supports him

with regard to Rav, who says that “detached and subsequently attached” retains the status of detached?

We learned:

One who resides in a house belonging to hekdesh, once he has derived benefit from it [

it should read:

from it ]

worth a peruta,

has committed me'ila.

The questioner assumed that the beraita is speaking of a house that one built and only afterward consecrated. Nevertheless, even though it was detached and subsequently attached, he has committed me'ila. This proves Rav’s position, that “detached and subsequently attached” retains the status of detached; for if it did not, and its status were that of attached, why would he have committed me'ila? After all, “there is no me'ila with regard to attached items.”

We reject this:

Reish Lakish said: There

the beraita, too, is speaking

of a case where he consecrated it and only afterward built it.

As was already explained above, in a case where he consecrated it and only afterward built it, one commits me'ila with regard to it, even if we maintain that “detached and subsequently attached” has the status of attached.

The Gemara challenges Reish Lakish’s rejection:

But

when

he built it and only afterward consecrated it, what

would its status be with regard to me'ila? Would you say that he

did not commit me'ila?!

If so, the following difficulty can be raised against the beraita:

Why, specifically, did the tanna run and teach

[why did the tanna of the beraita go out of his way], that is, why, when he wished to teach us a case involving something attached, in which one does not commit me'ila, did the beraita state:

One who resides in a cave

which was attached from the outset,

did not commit me'ila; let us say

that it could have taught us the law that “he did not commit me'ila” with regard to a stone house, which is not a cave, and stated:

One who resides in a stone house that he built and only afterward consecrated it did not commit me'ila

because, with regard to me'ila, it has the status of “detached and subsequently attached,” and there is no me'ila with regard to attached items?

We answer:

They said:

It may be stated:

This

cave house

is unequivocal

—it is a clear and definite case—and it is always like one that he built and only afterward consecrated; therefore, the tanna chose this case to teach us that one does not commit me'ila. Whereas

this

stone house

is not unequivocal

—it is not a clear case, since sometimes he built it and afterward consecrated it, and sometimes he consecrated it and afterward built it. Therefore, the beraita did not state a stone house in its latter clause.

We have completed the fifth chapter, “One Who Derives Benefit from Hekdesh.”

It was explained above [18b] that the law of me'ila is derived from teruma: Just as with teruma, the agent's action is effective, and whatever the agent did is done, and the teruma that he designated is teruma, so too with me'ila, the agent's action is effective, whatever he did is done, and the sender commits me'ila.

And although throughout the Torah the rule is that “there is no agency for a transgression,” nevertheless, with regard to me'ila, “there is agency for a transgression” .

When does this apply? When the agent acted according to the sender's instructions. But if he deviated from the sender's instructions, the agent commits me'ila.

Mishna:

If the agent carried out his agency, the owner—

the sender—

commits me'ila.

If he did not carry out his agency, the agent commits me'ila.

The Mishna explains:

How so?

He said to him—

the owner said to the agent—“

Give meat to the guests,”

and he did not know that it belonged to the Sanctuary,

and he gave them—

the agent gave them—

liver,

and he did not know that it belonged to the Sanctuary; or he said to him, “Give

liver,” and

he gave them meat, the agent commits me'ila.

Since he did not carry out his agency: Meat is no longer liver, and liver is not meat. This will be explained in the Gemara.

But if he said to him, “Give meat,” and he gave meat, the sender commits me'ila.

He said to him—

the owner said to the agent—“

Give them”—

the guests—

one piece at a time,

to each guest,”

and he—

the agent—

said

to them, “

Take two each,”

and they—

the guests—

, took,

each guest,

three each,

and all of them—the sender, the agent, and the guests—acted inadvertently and did not know that it belonged to the Sanctuary;

they all committed me'ila.

Since the agent did not deviate from his agency, but merely added on his own initiative: The sender commits me'ila for the first piece, the agent for what he added, and they for eating what had not been given to them. This will be explained in the Gemara.