Meilah

GEMARA. It was stated:1 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.2 ‘Resh Lakish holds it is allowed’, for [the idolator] surely thinks: If the idol did not save itself, how could it save me.3 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?4 — No, the twigs were brought [by the birds] from elsewhere. If so,5 if [the tree was] dedicated one may not make use [of the nest] and the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to it.6 Hence it must deal with twigs that have however grown after [the dedication of the tree],7 and [our Mishnah] holds that the Law of Sacrilege does not apply to the growth of dedicated [trees]. This interpretation8 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]!9 — 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.10 Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah: The young birds are permitted for use11 in both instances,12 and the eggs are prohibited13 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,14 THE TIMBER IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE BUT NOT THE CHIPS AND THE FOLIAGE.15 GEMARA. Said Samuel: Temple buildings are built first with secular [money]. and then they are dedicated,16 (why? Because he who donates money [to the Temple Fund] declares it [forthwith] sacred)17 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. himself and thus annulled by him. 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. may have been prohibited as a precautionary measure, lest people assume that the twigs still growing are also permitted; of sacred property. 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. The same applies to the labourers.