Meilah

. BUT IF HE GAVE IT TO HIS FELLOW HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT HIS FELLOW IS NOT GUILTY. IF HE BUILT IT INTO HIS HOUSE HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SACRILEGE UNTIL HE LIVES BENEATH IT AND BENEFITS THE EQUIVALENTS OF A PERUTAH. IF HE TOOK A PERUTAH FROM TEMPLE PROPERTY HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, BUT AS SOON AS HE GAVE IT TO HIS FELLOW HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, WHILE HIS FELLOW IS NOT GUILTY; IF HE GAVE IT TO THE BATHING KEEPER, HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT BATHED, FOR [THE MASTER] CAN SAY TO HIM, BEHOLD THE BATH IS READY FOR YOU, GO IN AND BATHE. THE PORTION WHICH A PERSON HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN TO HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT CAN RESPECTIVELY COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER1 EVEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF A CONSIDERABLE TIME. GEMARA. What is the difference2 between himself and the other person?3 — Said Samuel: It refers to the Temple treasurer in whose trust these articles were.4 IF HE BUILT IT INTO HIS HOUSE HE IS NOT GUILTY etc. Why only when he has lived beneath it? [Should he not be guilty of sacrilege at all events] since the beam has been transformed?5 — Said Rab: We suppose he placed it over the roof opening.6 When, however, he built it in, it is agreed that he is guilty of Sacrilege;7 does this not confirm Rab's view? For Rab said: If a man worships a house, he renders it prohibited for use?8 Said R. Aha son of R. Ika: As to sacrilege, the Torah has prohibited any benefit which is visible.9 Shall we say the following supports him [Rab]?10 For it was taught: If one has dwelt in a house belonging to Temple property. he is guilty of sacrilege as soon as he has derived therefrom the benefit [of a perutah's worth]?11 — Said Resh Lakish: This deals with a case where [the building material]12 was consecrated and then [the house] built.13 But what would be the case if the house was first built and then consecrated? Would the Law of Sacrilege indeed not apply? Why then was it necessary to contrast:14 If, however, one has dwelt in a cave [belonging to Temple property] he is not liable to the Law of Sacrilege?15 Why not state [instead]: If one has dwelt in a house of stones which he had first built and then consecrated, he is not liable to the Law of Sacrilege? — They replied: That instance 16 is absolute,17 this one would not be absolute. MISHNAH. IF AN AGENT HAS DISCHARGED HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, THE EMPLOYER18 IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT IF HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.19 FOR INSTANCE: IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: GIVE FLESH20 TO THE GUESTS AND HE OFFERED THEM LIVER, LIVER AND HE OFFERED THEM FLESH, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: ‘GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH’, AND HE SAID TO THEM: ‘TAKE TWO PIECES EACH’, WHILE THE GUESTS THEMSELVES TOOK THREE PIECES EACH, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRllege.21 effects its definite transfer into the possession of the illegitimate holder in so far as he is no longer obliged to return the object itself, but may pay its value. Cf. B.K. 65b. the ground. v. supra 18b. of movables and are forbidden for any use if worshipped. Originally immovable things are not prohibited for use if worshipped. V. ibid. 45a. any visible benefit, whether derived from consecrated property. whether movable or immovable, is regarded as sacrilege. Different it might be with immovable property, such as houses, which were consecrated when already attached to the ground. The latter case seems to be implied in Rab's interpretation of our Mishnah. ignorant of the transgression that they were committing thereby, and the agent carried out his commission exactly as he was told, his employer is guilty, because the Law of Sacrilege prescribing a guilt-offering as atonement for sacrilege applies only to an act committed in error as indicated in Lev. V, 15, and it was the employer who first trespassed in error. In this respect the Law of Sacrilege is an exception, for the general rule is that one cannot appoint a deputy for an unlawful act, v. supra 18b. If, however, the agent departed substantially from the task with which he was charged, his act is considered independent of his commission, and he is himself subject to the Law of Sacrilege. power in respect of the second piece and the guests because they misappropriated the third piece on their own accord.