Meilah 20a — the Talmud in English

But when

he gave it to his fellow,

the treasurer

committed misuse,

because through this gift his fellow acquired it; it follows that the treasurer removed it from the domain of the Sanctuary.

But his fellow did not commit misuse,

as we learned: “There is no misuse after misuse.” And it had already become non-sacred property, and it was his to do with it whatever he wished.

He built it

the treasurer, whether a stone or a beam,

inside his house,

and the Gemara will explain that he did not alter it, did not hew it, and did not repair it, but placed it as it was over an opening; therefore,

he did not commit misuse,

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

until he dwells beneath it

and benefits from it

in the value of a peruta

by preventing rain from entering and the like; then, when he benefits, he commits misuse.

And likewise, if

he took

the treasurer

a peruta belonging to the Sanctuary, he did not commit misuse,

as explained.

But when

he gave it to his fellow, he committed misuse, but his fellow did not commit misuse.

He gave it,

the peruta,

to the bath attendant,

as payment for bathing in the bathhouse

, even though

he had still

not bathed, he committed misuse,

because

he,

the bath attendant,

says to him:

“There is no impediment from my side; rather,

the bathhouse is open before you,

and everything is ready.

Enter and bathe!”

And the bath attendant acquired the money. It follows that the treasurer committed misuse at the moment when he gave him the money .

His eating and his fellow’s eating,

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

his benefit [-

his benefit]

and his fellow’s benefit,

for example: he anointed himself with Sanctuary oil worth a half-peruta and anointed his fellow with a half-peruta’s worth, or

his eating and his fellow’s benefit,

or

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

and he commits misuse, but not his fellow,

even after a long time.

As explained above [18b].

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“He took a stone or a beam, he did not commit misuse.”

“He gave it to his fellow, he committed misuse, but his fellow did not commit misuse.”

And the Gemara explains:

“What is different with him, and what is different with his fellow?”

Once he took it, what is the difference between taking it for himself, for which he did not commit misuse, and giving it to his fellow, for which he did commit misuse?

And we conclude:

Shmuel said: We are dealing with a treasurer to whom were entrusted [

building stones ],

it is

with [stones] wherever they are placed,

wherever it is placed, even before he takes it,

it is placed in his domain,

it is placed in his domain . Therefore, even though he took it, he did not alter it by removing it from the domain of the Sanctuary. But when he gave it to his fellow, he altered it by removing it from the domain of the Sanctuary.

We learned in our Mishna:

“He built it inside his house, he did not commit misuse until he dwells beneath it to the value of a peruta.”

The Gemara assumed that before he built it, he hewed the stone or cut the beam to fit the measure of the building; therefore we ask:

Why do I need ‘until he dwells beneath it’?

Is it not the case that

since he altered it,

having altered it [another version:

that he built it ], he

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,

committed misuse?

Even though he is the treasurer, nevertheless he acquired it through “change of act”?

And we answer:

Rav said:

Our Mishna is dealing with a case where he did not make any alteration in it. And what the Mishna says, “he built it,” means

for example: he placed it,

as it was,

over an opening,

to block it, and whenever he wishes he takes it . Therefore he did not commit misuse until he dwells beneath it. And when it protects him and saves him from rain and sun to the value of a peruta, he commits misuse.

And the Gemara explains

And since he built it,

and since he built it over his opening,

at any rate he committed misuse,

he commits misuse through it when he dwells beneath it and benefits to the value of a peruta. Even though now it is attached to the building, and we hold [above, 18b], “There is no misuse with something attached to the ground,” nevertheless, since it had been detached and is not naturally attached.

Apparently, the reason is that our Mishna holds: “Detached and subsequently attached—the law is that of detached.”

Therefore the Gemara asks:

Let us say,

shall we say that our Mishna

supports Rav,

who said: One who bows down to a house,

for the sake of idolatry,

forbids it

from benefit.

That is, attached idolatry is not forbidden for benefit, but only when detached, as the Sages expounded [Avoda Zara 45a] from what the Torah said [Deuteronomy 12], “You shall utterly destroy all the places ... their gods upon the mountains”—but not mountains that are their gods. But a house, whose wood and stones from which it was built were detached and were afterwards attached to the ground, is not like a mountain that is truly attached.

If so, support for Rav can be brought from our Mishna.

And we reject this:

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said:

There is no conclusive proof from this for Rav. It is entirely possible to say that our Mishna holds: “Detached and subsequently attached—the law is that of attached,” [and one who bows to a house does not forbid it]. And if you will ask why misuse is committed through it when he did in fact build it, since “there is no misuse with something attached,”

because

the Torah forbade benefit that is visible to the eyes,

that is, one must distinguish between idolatry and—far be it—between impure and pure, consecrated property. 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 forbidden. In contrast, with consecrated property, the stone was consecrated before it was built into the building; therefore misuse is committed through it, even though “there is no misuse with something attached.”

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

Let us say,

whether it may be said that the following baraita

supports him

Rav, who says that “detached and subsequently attached is judged as detached”,

we learned:

One who resides in a consecrated house, since he benefited from it [

one must emend it to:

from it ]

worth a peruta,

has committed misuse.

And the objector assumed that the baraita is speaking of a case in which he built it and subsequently consecrated it. And despite all this, even though it was detached and subsequently attached, he committed misuse. It is proven, in accordance with Rav, that detached and subsequently attached is judged as detached, for if not, and it is judged as attached, why did he commit misuse? Is it not the case that “there is no misuse with attached [objects]”?

And we reject this:

Rish Lakish said: There

this baraita, too, is speaking

of a case in which he consecrated it and subsequently built it.

And it was already explained above that when he consecrated it and subsequently built it, misuse applies to it, even if we hold that “detached and subsequently attached is judged as attached”.

The Gemara challenges Rish Lakish’s rejection:

But,

when

he built it and subsequently consecrated it, what

what will its status be with regard to misuse? Would you say that

he did not commit misuse?!

If so, one can raise an objection against the baraita:

Why did it run and teach [

why did the tanna of the baraita hasten to teach], that is, why did the baraita, wishing to teach us a case of an attached object, in order to say that misuse does not apply, state:

One who resides in a house of a cave,

which was made attached from the outset,

did not commit misuse; let us say

it could have taught us the law that “he did not commit misuse” in a house of stones, which is not a house of a cave, and said:

One who resides in a house of stones, which he built and subsequently consecrated, did not commit misuse,

because with regard to misuse its status is that of “detached and subsequently attached”, and there is no misuse with attached [objects]?

And we answer:

They say,

let it be said:

This,

a house of a cave,

is definite for him,

it is a definite matter [—clear], and in any event it is like a case in which he built it and subsequently consecrated it. Therefore the tanna chose this case to teach us that misuse does not apply; whereas

this,

a house of stones,

is not definite for him,

it is not a definite matter, for sometimes he built it and afterward consecrated it, and sometimes he consecrated it and afterward built it. Therefore the baraita did not state, in its latter clause, a house of stones .

We shall return to you, chapter “One Who Benefits from Consecrated Property.”

It was explained above [18b] that the law of meila is learned from teruma: just as with teruma, the act of the agent is effective, and what the agent did is done, and the teruma that he separated is teruma, so too with meila, the act of the agent is effective, and what he did is done, and the sender committed meila.

And even though throughout the entire Torah “[there is] no agent for a transgression,” nevertheless, with regard to meila, “[there is] an agent for a transgression” .

When do these words apply? When the agent acted according to the sender’s command. But if he changed from the sender’s intention, the agent committed meila.

Mishna:

The agent who carried out his agency, the householder,

the sender,

committed meila.

If he did not carry out his agency, the agent committed meila.

And the Mishna explains:

How?

He said to him,

the householder to the agent, “

Give meat to the guests,”

and he did not know that it belonged to the sacred property,

and he gave them

the agent

liver,

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

liver,” and

he gave them meat—the agent committed meila.

Because he did not carry out his agency, for it is no longer meat, and meat is not liver; and this will be explained in the Gemara.

But if he said to him, “Give meat,” and he gave meat, the sender committed meila.

He said to him,

the householder to the agent, “

Give them

to 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—were unwitting, and did not know that it belonged to the sacred property,

all of them committed meila.

Because the agent did not change from his agency, but only added on his own; the sender committed meila for the first [piece], the agent for what he added, and they for eating what had not been given to them. And this will be explained in the Gemara.