Meilah

there is no liability except when [the food] has been transferred from sacred possession1 into secular ownership,2 [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,3 or of a woman after confinement,4 or has paid therewith his shekel,5 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],6 and this one7 is not a stranger, since he had been anointed therewith.8 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,9 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,10 so also with consecrated property;11 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,12 so also in the case of consecrated property.13 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’14 exclude the one who damages [terumah],15 so also with consecrated things: If one has damaged anything eatable,16 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?17 Whither, then, has the gold of Nun's daughter-in-law gone?18 — He retorted: Perhaps the gold was thrown about19 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.20 IF ONE HAS DERIVED A BENEFIT FROM A SIN-OFFERING etc. Now, consider:, if this refers to an animal that has no blemish,21 [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 not to be considered a ‘stranger’ in respect of Temple property. also in the case of sacred property to edibles only. considered a material which does not deteriorate through use. vessels which after a time were found to have lost in weight. nothing remains unimpaired after a sufficiently long time. regard to its purpose. Consequently it is to be compared to the case of the golden cup.