מעילה 19 — Soncino English Talmud

¹there is no liability except when [the food] has been transferred from sacred possession into secular ownership, [so also with the word ‘sin’ used in connection with sacrilege]; whence do we know [that the Law of Sacrilege applies] when consecrated money has been misappropriated and used for other sacred purposes; e.g., if he purchased with it the bird-offerings of a zab or a zabah, or of a woman after confinement, or has paid therewith his shekel, or if one has offered his sin- or guiltoffering from sacred money, in which case one is liable to sacrilege at the moment of misappropriation according to R. Simeon and at the time of the sprinkling according to R. Judah. Whence do we know all this? The text reads: ‘Commit a trespass’: whatever the form may be. The Master said: It is written, ‘If any one [commit a trespass]’, to imply the ordinary man as well as the Prince or the Anointed [Priest]. What else might one have assumed? Is this not obvious, ‘If any one’ is written [distinctly]? — I might have thought, The Divine Law says: And whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger [he shall be cut off from among his people], and this one is not a stranger, since he had been anointed therewith. Therefore the amplification mentioned was necessary. The Divine Law has drawn an analogy between [the Law of Sacrilege on the one hand] and [the laws concerning] the suspected woman, idolatry and terumah [on the other]. [It is compared] to the law concerning the suspected woman: [Just as the law applies] even though there was no deterioration, so also with consecrated property; if [a woman] has [e.g.,] put a ring on her finger she is guilty of sacrilege. And the Divine Law compared it to the law of idolatry: Just as the latter [applies] only when a change has taken place, so also in the case of consecrated property. One is not guilty when one has chopped wood with an axe [belonging to the Temple] unless it has been impaired. The Divine Law was compared to the law of terumah: Just as in the case of terumah [the words] ‘if one has eaten’ exclude the one who damages [terumah], so also with consecrated things: If one has damaged anything eatable, he is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege. FOR INSTANCE, IF [A WOMAN] HAS PUT A NECKLACE . . . Said R. Kahana to R. Zebid: Does gold indeed not deteriorate? Whither, then, has the gold of Nun's daughter-in-law gone? — He retorted: Perhaps the gold was thrown about as your daughter in-law used to do. And besides, admitted this is not a case where there is enjoyment and immediate deterioration [of the used article], but [can you say] it will never deteriorate. IF ONE HAS DERIVED A BENEFIT FROM A SIN-OFFERING etc. Now, consider:, if this refers to an animal that has no blemish, [do you not agree that] it would be analogous to the case of the golden cup? — Said R. Papa: It refers indeed to one with a blemish. 22^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:I.e., in this connection the possession of the priest.
^ᵇnote:By eating the terumah one necessarily becomes the owner thereof.
^ᶜnote:I.e., a man or a woman respectively who have recovered from gonorrhoea; v. Lev. XV.
^ᵈnote:V. Lev. XII.
^ᵉnote:V. Shek. II, 1.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XXX, 33. The text deals with the anointing oil. From which it follows that he upon whom the oil is put by law is not to be considered a ‘stranger’ in respect of Temple property.
^ᵍnote:Viz., the anointed.
^ʰnote:And consequently would not be liable to the Law of Sacrilege.
^ⁱnote:Num. V, 12-31.
^ʲnote:I.e., no physical change has taken place with the woman.
^ᵏnote:Viz., regarding things which do not deteriorate through use.
^ˡnote:The worshipper transfers his allegiance from God to the idol (Rashi).
^ᵐnote:Referring this time to things which do deteriorate through use.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XXII, 14 dealing with terumah.
^ᵒnote:I.e., if he damaged terumah he is not liable to the payment of the additional Fifth. Pes. 32b.
^ᵖnote:Terumah, from which this restrictive law is derived, consists always of edibles. The derived rule applies, therefore, also in the case of sacred property to edibles only.
^ᵠnote:The general rule of the Mishnah is exemplified by a golden cup. It must, therefore, be assumed that gold is considered a material which does not deteriorate through use.
^ʳnote:This alludes according to Rashi and Tosaf. to a man called Nun who presented his daughters-in-law with golden vessels which after a time were found to have lost in weight.
^ˢnote:I.e., treated with little care.
^ᵗnote:Thus lit.: When the rule of the Mishnah speaks of deterioration it can only mean immediate deterioration, for nothing remains unimpaired after a sufficiently long time.
^ᵘnote:As it is to be offered upon the altar, whether it be fat or grows lean, any deterioration of the animal is irrelevant with regard to its purpose. Consequently it is to be compared to the case of the golden cup.
^ᵛnote:The offering is then to be redeemed, and any deterioration will express itself in the price offered for it.

²MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS DERIVED A BENEFIT OF HALF A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND HAS IMPAIRED [THE VALUE OF THE USED ARTICLE] BY ANOTHER HALF A PERUTAH, OR IF ONE HAS DERIVED THE BENEFIT OF A PERUTAH'S WORTH FROM ONE THING AND HAS DIMINISHED ANOTHER THING BY THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH, HE IS NOT LIABLE TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, [FOR THIS LAW APPLIES] ONLY WHEN HE BENEFITS A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND DIMINISHES THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH OF THE SELFSAME THING. ONE DOES NOT COMMIT SACRILEGE WITH CONSECRATED THINGS WITH WHICH SACRILEGE HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY ANOTHER PERSON, EXCEPT WITH ANIMALS AND VESSELS OF MINISTRY. FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE RODE ON A BEAST AND THEN CAME ANOTHER AND RODE ON IT AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND RODE ON IT, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE; OR IF ONE DRANK FROM A GOLDEN CUP, THEN CAME ANOTHER AND DRANK AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND DRANK, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE; OR IF ONE PLUCKED [OF THE WOOL] OF A SIN-OFFERING, THEN CAME ANOTHER AND PLUCKED AND YET ANOTHER CAME AND PLUCKED, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. RABBI SAID: WHATSOEVER IS UNREDEEMABLE IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE EVEN AFTER SACRILEGE HAS BEEN ALREADY COMMITTED WITH IT. GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? — According to R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught: One does not commit sacrilege with things of which sacrilege had been committed already, except with animals; R. Nehemiah says. Except with animals and vessels of ministry. What is the reason of the first Tanna? — He bases his opinion upon the fact that animals are mentioned in connection therewith, for it is written: With the ram of the guilt-offering, while R. Nehemiah argues a minori: If it renders things contained therein holy, surely it must be holy itself. RABBI SAID WHATSOEVER IS UNREDEEMABLE IS SUBJECT etc. But this is the view of the first Tanna? — They differ with regard to wood. For our Rabbis taught: If a man said, I take upon myself to present wood to the Temple, he may not offer less than two logs. Rabbi said: Wood has the status of a sacrifice, it requires salt and swinging. Whereupon Raba remarked that according to Rabbi an offering of wood requires other wood in addition, and R. Papa remarked that according to Rabbi wood requires the taking of a handful. R. Papa said, They differ with regard to unblemished offerings consecrated to the altar which received blemishes and were illegitimately slaughtered. This indeed is confirmed by what has been taught: If unblemished offerings dedicated to the altar received blemishes and were illegitimately slaughtered. Rabbi says they have to be buried, while the Sages hold they shall be redeemed. MISHNAH. IF A MAN TOOK AWAY A STONE OR A BEAM BELONGING TO TEMPLE PROPERTY, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SACRILEGE^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ʷnote:Viz., an article which according to the rule of the previous Mishnah comes under the Law of Sacrilege only after it has been impaired.
^ˣnote:The first transgressor has become its owner. Sacrilege can no longer apply to it, since it is in secular possession.
^ʸnote:Consecrated to the altar and unblemished. They cannot be redeemed or alienated.
^ᶻnote:These things remain sacred even after sacrilege has been committed therewith. They cannot be redeemed or alienated.
^ᵃᵃnote:Tosef. II, 2.
^ᵃᵇnote:Viz., with sacrilege.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. V, 16. These words are considered superfluous, since it is clear from the context that the atonement is to be made with the ram of the guilt-offering. They are therefore taken to indicate that only to offerings does sacrilege apply under all circumstances, i.e., even though another person has already committed sacrilege with them, but not to vessels of ministry.
^ᵃᵈnote:Viz., a vessel of ministry.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. Zeb. IX, 7.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., it possesses a high degree of holiness so that it ought to retain its sacred character even after it has unlawfully been used by another person.
^ᵃᵍnote:The first part of this quotation is from the Mishnah Men. 106b, while the second part is from a Baraitha cited in the Gemara belonging thereto.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Lev. II, 13.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. Lev. XIV, 12. V. Men. loc. cit.
^ᵃʲnote:Upon which to burn the wood-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:To be burnt upon the altar. According to Rabbi wood would be included in one category with animal sacrifices, also with regard to the question of repeated sacrilege, according to the Sages it would not.
^ᵃˡnote:Rashi: Rabbi holds namely that also sacrifices when being redeemed have to be placed before the priest and appraised. This cannot be done with a slaughtered animal, v. Hul. 30a. The sacrifice is thus unredeemable and is according to Rabbi's rule subject to repeated sacrilege. The Sages. however, hold that the placing before the priest is unnecessary with sacrifices. The slaughtered sacrifice can thus be redeemed and does not come into the same category as unblemished offerings and vessels of ministry.
^ᵃᵐnote:Referring to the Temple treasurer, v. Gemara.