מעילה 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. It was stated: If an idol broke to pieces by itself, R. Johanan says it is still prohibited [for use]; Resh Lakish says it is allowed. ‘R. Johanan holds it is prohibited’, because the idol worshipper has not annulled it. ‘Resh Lakish holds it is allowed’, for [the idolator] surely thinks: If the idol did not save itself, how could it save me. Resh Lakish raised an objection to R. Johanan: 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. Now, does this not deal with a case where the twigs [with which the nest was built] were broken off [by the birds] from that tree itself, and yet it rules that he can flick them off with a reed? — No, the twigs were brought [by the birds] from elsewhere. If so, if [the tree was] dedicated one may not make use [of the nest] and the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to it. Hence it must deal with twigs that have however grown after [the dedication of the tree], and [our Mishnah] holds that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to the growth of dedicated [trees]. This interpretation seems also logical, for should we say that the twigs were brought from elsewhere, why [has the nest] to be shaken off with a reed, let it be simply taken [by hand]! — Said R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan: It deals indeed with twigs brought from elsewhere and the expression ONE FLICKS OFF refers to the young birds. Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah: The young birds are permitted for use in both instances, and the eggs are prohibited for use in both instances. Said R. Ashi: If the birds are [so young that they] require [the care of] their mother, they are considered like eggs. MISHNAH. IF THE TREASURERS [OF THE TEMPLE] BOUGHT TREES, THE TIMBER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE BUT NOT THE CHIPS AND THE FOLIAGE. GEMARA. Said Samuel: Temple buildings are built first with secular [money]. and then they are dedicated, (why? Because he who donates money [to the Temple Fund] declares it [forthwith] sacred) in that he [the Treasurer] says the sacredness of the money shall be transmitted to the building, so that the money may be paid out to the labourers as their wages.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:A.Z. 4b.
^ᵇnote:It was not the heathen who broke the idol, it broke by itself.
^ᶜnote:It is assumed that in their hearts the worshippers have abandoned this idol. It is no longer an object of worship.
^ᵈnote:And, of course, used. This instance is parallel to the case in question. for the twigs were not broken by the heathen himself and thus annulled by him.
^ᵉnote:Rashi has here a version similar to that of the same discussion in A.Z. 42a.
^ᶠnote:Since the twigs are not from the tree belonging to Temple property, they should even be permitted for use (Tosaf).
^ᵍnote:You are thus obliged to interpret the Mishnah as referring to twigs taken from the tree itself; but should you then object, in that case the difficulty would be why they were not subject to the Law of Sacrilege: It is because it deals with twigs grown after the dedication of the tree (exclusive of the ground upon which the tree grows) and such twigs are not subject to the Law of Sacrilege. The objection to R. Johanan again remains. The following passage is to be understood in parenthesis.
^ʰnote:Viz., that the twigs were from the tree itself.
^ⁱnote:If the twigs are, in accordance with our interpretation. of the same tree the direct approach to the nest and its twigs may have been prohibited as a precautionary measure, lest people assume that the twigs still growing are also permitted;
^ʲnote:The twigs, however, are indeed prohibited in accordance with the view of R. Johanan.
^ᵏnote:Because they can fly and are not considered as belonging to the tree.
^ˡnote:I.e., in the case of dedicated trees and an asherah.
^ᵐnote:For they are considered attached to the tree.
^ⁿnote:To have them prepared for building purpose for the Temple.
^ᵒnote:For these are useless for building and the Treasurer, it is assumed, has not intended to impart to them the character of sacred property.
^ᵖnote:The building material is bought with money belonging to private individuals or taken on credit. Also the wages for the workmen are paid from secular money or owed to them. When the building is finished it is exchanged. as a whole, against the money donated to the Temple Fund for this building. The money becomes again secular and can be used to satisfy the creditors and the labourers.
^ᵠnote:If material was bought with this money, the seller of the material would be guilty of sacrilege in using the money. The same applies to the labourers.

²An objection was raised: What was done with the surplus of the frankincense? Money equivalent to the craftsmen's but if the twigs are from elsewhere there is no ground for such an assumption. wages was set aside [from the Temple Treasury], [the surplus was] then exchanged against this money of the craftsmen, handed over to the craftsmen and then purchased from them with money of the new levy. Now why was [this procedure necessary]? Why not exchange the surplus against a building? — [We deal with a case where] there was no building. But does it not speak of ‘the craftsmen's wages’? — There was no building equivalent to the value of the surplus. But does not Samuel hold: ‘If consecrated property of the value of a maneh has even exchanged against a perutah, the exchange is valid’. — [He sanctions such a transaction] after it has been done, but not at the outset. R. Papa says, This is the reason why the building has to be built with secular [money]: The Torah has not been given to ministering angels; he [the craftsman] might wish to lie down and would lie down on them, and if it was built by consecrated [money] he would as a result be guilty of sacrilege. We have learnt: IF THE TREASURERS [OF THE TEMPLE] BOUGHT TREES, THE TIMBER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE BUT NOT THE CHIPS AND THE FOLIAGE. But why should one trespass the law of Sacrilege? Let this too be prepared in a secular state lest one might wish to lie down on them, and would as a result be guilty of sacrilege! — Said R. Papa: If the wood is to be used at a later date it would be indeed so; our Mishnah refers to wood which is to be used on the same day. [^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ʳnote:Each year there was a surplus of frankincense. In the month of Nissn a new year began for the offering of incense. The surplus of the past year was not allowed to be used in the new year. The device mentioned here provides a method of using this surplus by repurchasing it with the money of the new levy.
^ˢnote:I.e., any wages that the Temple may owe to labourers for their work.
^ᵗnote:From this money of the shekel chamber (the Lishkah) wages were permitted to be paid, but not from a donation declared holy for a special purpose.
^ᵘnote:It is not essential actually to hand it over to the labourers. Somebody else may acquire it on their behalf. The incense then becomes secular property and may be re-purchased for the Temple to be used during the coming year.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the newly paid shekels from which all public offerings for the coming year beginning with the first of Nisan are bought, v. Shek. IV, 5.
^ʷnote:Since, according to Samuel, the building is at first secular, why not exchange the frankincense against it and re.purchase it with the money of the new levy?
^ˣnote:No new building was erected then.
^ʸnote:Implying that some work has been done.
^ᶻnote:B.M. 57b.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., we are only human beings.
^ᵃᶜnote:The bricks e.g.
^ᵃᵈnote:Let the preparation of the timber be done as non consecrated property and then purchased by the Temple Fund.
^ᵃᵉnote:As you suggest.
^ᵃᶠnote:In which case there is little likelihood that one will use it unwittingly.