Parallel
מעילה 20
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
. BUT IF HE GAVE IT TO HIS FELLOW HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT HIS FELLOW IS NOT GUILTY. IF HE BUILT IT INTO HIS HOUSE HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SACRILEGE UNTIL HE LIVES BENEATH IT AND BENEFITS THE EQUIVALENTS OF A PERUTAH. IF HE TOOK A PERUTAH FROM TEMPLE PROPERTY HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, BUT AS SOON AS HE GAVE IT TO HIS FELLOW HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, WHILE HIS FELLOW IS NOT GUILTY; IF HE GAVE IT TO THE BATHING KEEPER, HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT BATHED, FOR [THE MASTER] CAN SAY TO HIM, BEHOLD THE BATH IS READY FOR YOU, GO IN AND BATHE. THE PORTION WHICH A PERSON HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN TO HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT CAN RESPECTIVELY COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER EVEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF A CONSIDERABLE TIME. GEMARA. What is the difference between himself and the other person? — Said Samuel: It refers to the Temple treasurer in whose trust these articles were. IF HE BUILT IT INTO HIS HOUSE HE IS NOT GUILTY etc. Why only when he has lived beneath it? [Should he not be guilty of sacrilege at all events] since the beam has been transformed? — Said Rab: We suppose he placed it over the roof opening. When, however, he built it in, it is agreed that he is guilty of Sacrilege; does this not confirm Rab's view? For Rab said: If a man worships a house, he renders it prohibited for use? Said R. Aha son of R. Ika: As to sacrilege, the Torah has prohibited any benefit which is visible. Shall we say the following supports him [Rab]? For it was taught: If one has dwelt in a house belonging to Temple property. he is guilty of sacrilege as soon as he has derived therefrom the benefit [of a perutah's worth]? — Said Resh Lakish: This deals with a case where [the building material] was consecrated and then [the house] built. But what would be the case if the house was first built and then consecrated? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply? Why then was it necessary to contrast: If, however, one has dwelt in a cave [belonging to Temple property] he is not liable to the Law of Sacrilege? Why not state [instead]: If one has dwelt in a house of stones which he had first built and then consecrated, he is not liable to the Law of Sacrilege? — They replied: That instance is absolute, this one would not be absolute. MISHNAH. IF AN AGENT HAS DISCHARGED HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, THE EMPLOYER IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT IF HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. FOR INSTANCE: IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: GIVE FLESH TO THE GUESTS AND HE OFFERED THEM LIVER, LIVER AND HE OFFERED THEM FLESH, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: ‘GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH’, AND HE SAID TO THEM: ‘TAKE TWO PIECES EACH’, WHILE THE GUESTS THEMSELVES TOOK THREE PIECES EACH, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRllege.21
—
GEMARA. Who is the Tanna who holds that any deviation for which the agent would consult [the principal] is considered something different [from the original order]? — Said R. Hisda: It is certainly not R. Akiba, for we have learnt: If one vows to abstain from vegetables. he is permitted to eat gourds; R. Akiba holds, he is forbidden. Abaye said: The Mishnah may well agree with R. Akiba, for do you not admit that he should have nevertheless consulted his employer? When the scholars passed on these words to Raba he said: Nahmani said well. Who is the Tanna who opposes R. Akiba? — It is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, for it has been taught: If one vows to abstain from meat, he is prohibited to eat any kind of flesh as well as the head, the legs, the windpipe, the liver and the heart and even the flesh of fowls, but he is permitted to eat the flesh of fish and locust. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel permits the head, the legs. the windpipe. the liver and the flesh of fowl, fish and locust. Similarly Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said that entrails are no flesh and he who eats them is no man. Why is, according to the first Tanna, the flesh of fowl different [from that of fish and locust]? — [Presumably] because people often say. I could not find flesh of the cattle and bought flesh of the fowl instead. But can you not argue similarly: people often say. I could not find flesh of the cattle and bought fish instead? — Said R. Papa: We deal with the case where [the vow was made] on the day of blood letting. when people do not as a rule eat any fish. But then he may not eat fowl either? For Samuel said: If a man who has let blood eats the flesh of fowl, his heart will fly off like a fowl. And it has further been taught: One should not let blood after a meal of fish, fowl and salted meat! — Rather said R. Papa: We deal with a case where [the vow was made] at a time when his eyes were sore, when one does not eat fish. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH’ etc. May we not infer from this that if an agent adds to his order he still remains an agent [in respect of the original commission]? — Said R. Shesheth: [Our Mishnah deals with a case] where [the agent] said to the guests. ‘Take one piece each at my master's permission and another with my permission’.
—