Komentarz do Meila 5:1
הַנֶּהֱנֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָגַם, מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶשׁ בּוֹ פְגָם, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְגָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה, מָעַל. כֵּיצַד. נָתְנָה קַטְלָא בְצַוָּארָהּ, טַבַּעַת בְּיָדָהּ, שָׁתְתָה בְכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מָעֲלָה. לָבַשׁ בְּחָלוּק, כִּסָּה בְטַלִּית, בִּקַּע בְּקֻרְדֹּם, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. תָּלַשׁ מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה, מָעָל:
Ten, kto uzyskał nawet perutę [monetę o minimalnej wartości] z majątku Świątyni, nawet jeśli nie zmniejszył jej wartości, naruszył meilah , to są słowa rabina Akivy. Mędrcy mówią: wszystko, co może zdewaluować, nie naruszyło meilah, dopóki jego wartość nie spadła gwałtownie. Wszystko, czego nie można zdewaluować, gdy tylko odniesie z tego korzyść, naruszyło meilah . Jak to? Jeśli [kobieta] umieściła naszyjnik [należący do skarbca świątyni] na szyi lub pierścień [należący do skarbca świątyni] na ręce lub jeśli ktoś wypił ze złotego kielicha [należącego do skarbca świątyni], jak tylko ponieważ on [lub ona] czerpał z tego korzyść, naruszył meilah . Jeśli ktoś nosił koszulę lub okrywał się płaszczem lub rąbał [drewno] siekierą [wszystko to należało do skarbca świątyni], nie naruszył meili, dopóki nie zmniejszy jej wartości. Jeśli czerpał korzyść z czatu [ofiary za grzech], kiedy jeszcze żyje, nie naruszył meilah, dopóki nie zmniejszy jej wartości. Gdy jest martwy, gwałci meilah, gdy tylko czerpie z tego korzyści.
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
הנהנה שוה פרוטה מן ההקדש אע"פ לא פגם מעל (even though he did not cause deterioration) – it is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 18a) in regard to a garment worn between other [garments] (literally, “middle garment), for the garment deteriorates immediately, because he rubs himself against the walls. But they also don’t dispute also regarding the inner garment that is against his skin, for that one also deteriorates immediately on account of sweat, but only regarding the “middle garment” [do they dispute]. Rabbi Akiva holds for since that is a thing that does not deteriorate immediately, even though it does deteriorate after time, it is like something that has no deterioration and they commit religious sacrilege with it, because he benefited from it the equivalent of a penny. But the Rabbis hold for since there is deterioration regardless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it until he causes deterioration.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
Introduction
Today’s mishnah discusses the basic laws of sacrilege when is a person considered to have derived benefit from a sacred thing such that he is guilty of sacrilege?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
כיצד – anything that does not deteriorate, as for example, [if a woman] put a chain around her neck, a golden chain/necklace dedicated to the Temple property, or a ring in her hand or she drank from a golden cup dedicated to the Temple property (see Tractate Tamid, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4). All of these, there is no deterioration in them, but rather, since she benefitted from them the worth of a penny, she has committed religious sacrilege. And how do we estimate benefit with them? We estimate how much a woman wants to give when she lends ornaments as they are to take them to a wedding meal to be honored by them, like that measurement that she pays to the Temple property the principal plus one-fifth when she used them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva, one is liable for sacrilege by virtue of his having derived benefit from the object that was dedicated to the Temple. It is irrelevant whether the benefit that he derived diminished the value of the dedicated object. He is guilty because he should not have made such use of a holy item.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
וכל דבר שיש בו פגם – as for example, he wore a shirt or covered himself with a cloak or used an ax to split wood, because they will eventually deteriorate, he did not commit sacrilege until he caused deterioration in them the equivalent value of a penny.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. The other rabbis offer a more nuanced approach to this issue. If the object is one whose value can be diminished by use, then he is not liable for sacrilege unless he actually does cause it to be diminished. However, if the item is not generally diminished by normal use, then one who uses it is liable for sacrilege as long as he derived a perutah’s worth of benefit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
תלש – [tore] hair.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. The mishnah now illustrates which items are diminished by use and which items are not. The items in the first list are not diminished by use for they are made of metal. Therefore, as soon as the woman using them derives benefit from them, she has committed sacrilege. The items in the second list are diminished, even minimally by use. Therefore, one who uses them is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished them by the value of a perutah. It is easiest to think of the rule this way: when an item is diminished by use, we define benefit by its deterioration. For instance, one derives benefit from food, when he has eaten a perutah’s worth of food. But if the item does not deteriorate, we must evaluate it the benefit some other way. The way to do this would be to estimate how much one would pay to use the cup, necklace etc. for such a use. If it is more than a perutah, then she has committed sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
מן החטאת – we are speaking of a sin-offering of something with a defect that stands to be redeemed and it is something that has a deterioration, therefore, he did not commit sacrilege until he causes deterioration the equivalent value of a penny, but in the pure sin—offering that the pulling of wool and hair out [of the lamb], he didn’t do anything, for as such it is appropriate to be offered now, like it was at the beginning, it would be like the golden cup which is something that has no deterioration, and since he benefitted from it, he has committed religious sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it. If he shears the hatat animal while it is alive, he has diminished its value. Therefore, he is liable only if the amount he sheared is worth a perutah. In contrast, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a hatat animal that died (it was not slaughtered as part of the sacrificial process). Its wool has no real value because it must be buried. Therefore, we can’t say that by using the wool he has diminished the animal’s value-the animal has no value. He will be liable for having derived benefit, even without diminishing the animal’s value.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
כשהיא מתה כיון שנהנה מעל – for since it died, it is not redeemable, for we don’t redeem Holy Things to feed them to dogs, and we are speaking about whether it is was a pure sin-offering or a sin-offering with a defect (see Tractate Meilah 19a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy