מעילה 13 — parallel

13:1

AND NOT FOR TEMPLE REPAIR. FOR TEMPLE REPAIR AND NOT FOR THE ALTAR, NEITHER FOR THE ALTAR NOR FOR TEMPLE REPAIR. IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, HOW IS THIS? IF ONE CONSECRATED A CISTERN FULL OF WATER, A MIDDEN FULL OF MANURE, A DOVE-COTE FULL OF PIGEONS, A TREE LADEN WITH FRUIT, A FIELD COVERED WITH HERBS, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THEM AND TO THEIR CONTENTS. BUT IF ONE CONSECRATED A Clstern AND IT WAS LATER FILLED WITH WATER, A MIDDEN AND IT WAS LATER FILLED WITH MANURE, A DOVE-COTE AND IT WAS LATER FILLED WITH PIGEONS, A TREE AND IT AFTERWARDS BORE FRUIT OR A FIELD AND IT AFTERWARDS PRODUCED HERBS, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE CONSECRATED OBJECTS THEMSELVES BUT NOT TO THEIR CONTENTS, R. JOSE SAID: IF ONE CONSECRATED A FIELD OR A TREE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THEM AND TO THEIR PRODUCE. FOR IT IS THE GROWTH OF CONSECRATED PROPERTY. THE YOUNG OF [CATTLE SET ASIDE AS] TITHE MAY NOT SUCK FROM SUCH CATTLE. SOME PEOPLE USED TO DEDICATE ON SUCH A CONDITION. THE YOUNG OF CON SECRATED CATTLE MAY NOT SUCK FROM SUCH CATTLE. SOME PEOPLE USED TO DEDICATE ON SUCH A CONDITION. LABOURERS MAY NOT ENJOY OF DRY FIGS DEDICATED TO THE TEMPLE, NOR MAY A COW EAT OF THE VETCH BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE. GEMARA. It says: ‘THE YOUNG OF CATTLE SET ASIDE AS TITHE MAY NOT SUCK FROM SUCH CATTLE’. Wherefrom do we know this? Said R. Ahadboi, son of Ammi, It is derived from the first-born by textual analogy based on the word ‘passing’ occurring in both texts]: As the first-born is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, so also the milk of cattle set aside as tithe is subject to the law of Sacrilege. As to milk of consecrated cattle, it is derived from the first-born [by textual analogy based on the words] ‘his mother’ [occurring in both texts]. LABOURERS MAY NOT ENJOY etc. What is the reason? — Said R. Ahadboi, son of Ammi, Scripture says: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn; what he treadeth of your own, but not of Temple property. If one threshes [his] kela'ilin in a field belonging to the Temple he is guilty of sacrilege. But has it not to be detached from the ground? — Said Rabina: This proves that the dust is beneficial to it [kela'ilin]. [

—

13:2

MISHNAH. IF THE ROOTS OF A PRIVATELY OWNED TREE SPREAD INTO DEDICATED GROUND, OR THOSE OF A TREE IN DEDICATED GROUND SPREAD TO PRIVATE GROUND, THEY MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. THE WATER OF A WELL WHICH COMES FORTH IN A DEDICATED FIELD MAY NOT BE ENJOYED THOUGH IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE; WHEN IT HAS LEFT THE FIELD IT MAY BE ENJOYED. THE WATER IN THE GOLDEN JAR MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT. WHEN IT HAS BEEN POURED INTO THE FLASK, IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. THE WILLOW BRANCH MAY NOT BE USED, BUT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. R. ELEAZAR, SON OF R. ZADOK SAYS: THE ELDERS WERE ACCUSTOMED TO USE IT WITH THEIR PALM TREE BRANCHES. GEMARA. Said Resh Lakish: ‘The law of Sacrilege does not apply’ to the whole of the contents [of the jar], but the Law of Sacrilege applies to the three logs. But does it not say in the second clause: WHEN IT HAS BEEN POURED INTO THE FLASK, IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, from which it follows that in the first clause the Law of Sacrilege does not apply. even with reference to the three logs? — Rather, if [Resh Lakish's statement] has been made, it has been made with reference to the second clause: IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. Said Resh Lakish: This holds good only [if the flask contained] exactly three logs, but R. Johanan said: It applies to the whole contents. Are we then to assume that Resh Lakish holds that a definite quantity has been prescribed for the water libation? But have we not learnt: R. Eleazar said, If one offered the water libation of Tabernacles during the Festival outside the Temple Court he is culpable; and R. Johanan in the name of Menahem of Jotapata remarked thereupon: R. Eleazar follows R. Akiba's principle who expounds ‘their libations’ denoting that the libation of water is analogous to the libation of wine; and Resh Lakish retorted: Would you then also say: As three logs are prescribed for wine, so also for water? Now does it not follow from this that Resh Lakish holds that no definite quantity has been prescribed for water? — No, his argument is on the view of Menahem of Jotapata! MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM A NEST WHICH IS BUILT ON THE TOP OF A DEDICATED TREE. BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT. THAT WHICH IS ON THE TOP OF AN ASHERAH ONE FLICKS [IT] OFF WITH A REED. IF ONE DEDICATED A FOREST TO THE TEMPLE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE WHOLE OF IT.

—