Meilah

MISHNAH. IF THE ROOTS OF A PRIVATELY OWNED TREE SPREAD INTO DEDICATED GROUND,1 OR THOSE OF A TREE IN DEDICATED GROUND SPREAD TO PRIVATE GROUND,2 THEY MAY NOT BE USED, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.3 THE WATER OF A WELL4 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.5 THE WATER6 IN THE GOLDEN JAR7 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 BRANCH8 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.9 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,10 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;11 and R. Johanan in the name of Menahem of Jotapata remarked thereupon: R. Eleazar follows R. Akiba's principle who expounds ‘their libations’12 denoting that the libation of water is analogous to the libation of wine;13 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!14 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 ASHERAH15 ONE FLICKS [IT] OFF WITH A REED.16 IF ONE DEDICATED A FOREST TO THE TEMPLE, THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO THE WHOLE OF IT. dedicated ground. according to Resh Lakish. For log v. Glos. out of place.