Meilah

their fathers. and went astray after the gods of the peoples of the land.1 One might assume that [the Law of Sacrilege applied also to a case] where one has damaged [consecrated things] but has derived therefrom no benefit or has derived a benefit but has left the things unimpaired, or [that it applies] to things attached to the ground and in the case of a messenger who has carried out his appointed errand.2 The text3 therefore states, ‘and sin’.4 [The term] ‘sin’ is used in connection with terumah5 and ‘sin’6 is also mentioned in connection with sacrilege: just as ‘sin’ mentioned in connection with terumah7 [refers to a case where there is] deterioration as well as benefit; [and to a case] where he who has caused the damage is at the same time the person that has derived the benefit; [and to a case] where the deterioration and the benefit are in respect of one and the same object and where the deterioration and the benefit take place simultaneously;8 and to things detached from the ground and applies in the case where an agent has executed his appointed errand,9 so also the word ‘sin’ used in connection with sacrilege [refers to a case where there is] deterioration as well as benefit; where he who has caused the damage is at the same time the person that has derived the benefit; where the deterioration and the benefit are in respect of one and the same object and where the deterioration and the benefit have taken place simultaneously; and to things detached from the ground and applies in the case where an agent has executed his appointed errand.10 From this11 we only derive that [the law of Sacrilege applies to] edibles which are enjoyed. whence do we know [its application to] things that do not deteriorate [through use] and that [different portions] can combine with one another,]12 even after the elapse of a considerable time;13 in the case where he has himself eaten thereof14 and has given to his fellow to eat thereof,15 or where he has himself made use of it14 and has given to his fellow to make use of it,15 or where he has himself made use of it14 and has given to his fellow to eat thereof,15 or where he has himself eaten thereof14 and has given to his friend to make use thereof?15 The text therefore reads: Commit a trespass:16 whatever the form may be. But [why not deduct in the following manner]: Just as with the word ‘sin’ mentioned in connection with terumah the rule is that two separate edibles cannot combine with one another,17 so also with the word ‘sin’ mentioned in connection with sacrilege two separate meals cannot combine with one another.18 From whence [further] do we know [that edibles can combine] if one eats one portion on one day and the other on the following, or if even a longer period has elapsed between the two meals? The text therefore reads: ‘Commit a trespass’, whatever the form may be. But [why not draw the following comparison]: Just as with the word ‘sin’ mentioned in connection with terumah the deterioration and the enjoyment is simultaneous,19 [so also with the word sin used in connection with sacrilege]; whence do we know then [that the Law of Sacrilege applies] when one has eaten [of consecrated food] himself and has given to his fellow to eat, even though after an interval of three years? The text therefore reads: ‘Commit a trespass’, whatever the form may be. But [why not deduct as follows]: Just as with the word ‘sin’ mentioned in connection with terumah valid general rule: ‘One cannot appoint a deputy for an illegal act’. V. however infra 20a. two different kinds of food, which is contradictory to IV, 1.