Commentaire sur Méila 5:2
נֶהֱנָה בְכַחֲצִי פְרוּטָה וּפָגַם בְּכַחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד וּפָגַם בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל, עַד שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְיִפְגֹּם בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד:
Si quelqu'un tirait un avantage [d'un élément de la propriété du trésor du Temple] valant un demi- perutah et causait sa dévaluation d'un demi- perutah ou s'il tirait un avantage d'une valeur de perutah d'un élément [de la propriété du trésor du temple] et diminuait la valeur de un autre objet par un perutah , il n'a pas violé la meilah jusqu'à ce qu'il en tire un bénéfice d' une perutah et cause une perte d' une perutah au même objet.
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
ופגם כחצי שיעור – as, for example, he wore Holy clothing with the benefit of the measurement equivalent to one-half of a penny and deterioration of one-half of a penny, that he tore it and caused deterioration to it like the measurement of one-half of a penny.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If one derived half a perutah's worth of benefit and impaired [the value of the used article] by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he had not committed sacrilege, until he benefits a perutah's worth and diminishes the value of a perutah of the same thing. In order to be liable for sacrilege one has to derive a perutah’s worth of benefit and cause the value of the object used to be diminished by the value of a perutah. If both of these elements do not exist, sacrilege has not been committed (assuming that the item is one that does deteriorate with use). Let’s use the case of an ax. If one benefits a perutah’s worth, meaning a person would pay at least a perutah to use the ax for as long as he did, and he at the same time he caused the ax to deteriorate in value by at least a perutah, then he is liable for sacrilege. However, if he derives only half a perutah’s worth of benefit and causes the value to deteriorate by only half of a perutah, he has not committed sacrilege. We don’t add the benefit to the deterioration to arrive at the requisite perutah. If he uses the ax and derives a perutah’s worth of benefit but doesn’t cause it to deteriorate by a perutah, and at the same time he causes some other holy item to deteriorate, for instance he breaks a jar that has been dedicated to the Temple causing the loss of at least a perutah, he is still not liable for sacrilege. Here the benefit came with one object (the ax) and the deterioration with another (the jar). In order for sacrilege to have been committed, the benefit and loss must be with the same object.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
שנהנה בשוה פרוטה דבר אחד – that it has in it deterioration but he didn’t cause deterioration.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
ופגם בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחר – as, for example, he spilled liquid of Holy things but did not benefit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
הרי זה לא מעל עד שיהנה בשוה פרוטה ויפגום בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחד – on himself, and there will be on the thing that has in it deterioration, for regarding religious sacrilege, it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass,] being unwittingly remiss [about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” and with the consuming of heave offering, it is written (Numbers 18:32): “You will incur no guilt,” just as the sin that is stated regarding the eating of heave-offering one causes deterioration and derives benefit, and just as he caused deterioration and benefited, even the sin offering mentioned In regard to religious sacrilege, it needs to be that he causes deterioration and benefits and in that thing itself that he causes deterioration, he derived benefit and not with another thing (see Talmud Meilah 19b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy