Комментарий к Меила 5:7

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

תלש – [tore] hair.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

שנהנה בשוה פרוטה דבר אחד – that it has in it deterioration but he didn’t cause deterioration.

ופגם בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחר – as, for example, he spilled liquid of Holy things but did not benefit.

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).

במקודשין אלא בבמה וכלי שרת – a pure animal/beast, a pure animal/beast that is of the Holy Things of the altar. For these don’t exist for the redemption and are not eligible for deterioration, for even if one person rode on the animal/beast and it became weak or he tore out [hair] from its wool, it is still worthy for sacrifice, but there is sacrilege after another sacrilege in it. And similarly, if one person drank from a golden cup, even if he caused it deterioration and it became worse, because it has the holiness [of the body], and does not refer to redemption, it is still appropriate for [Divine] service and there is in it one sacrilege after another. But the Holy Things of keeping the Temple in repair, as, for the example, the beasts/animals of the Holy Things of Temple repair, there is no religious sacrilege after religious sacrilege, because they are things that are redeemed, but because one person committed sacrilege with it when he removed it to unconsecrated use, furthermore, it lacks religious sacrilege.

One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry. Once a person has made non-holy use of an item dedicated to the Temple, the item becomes non-sacred and therefore the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege. This is true, however, only of items that become non-sacred (hullin) after secular use has been made of them. Animals that can be used as sacrifices and the vessels of ministry used in the Temple can never become hullin. Therefore, even after sacrilege has already been committed with them, they are still subject to the laws of sacrilege.

רבי אומר כל דבר – that has no deterioration and is not disqualified, which is every thing that has no redemption, like those that we mentioned, even if he caused deterioration to it, there is sacrilege following sacrilege. But there is a distinction between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi [Judah the Prince], regarding the pure Holy things of the Altar that were made in them defects, and he transgressed and slaughtered them prior to redemption. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] states that they should be buried, because they required placement and appraisement and that is not possible because they died Therefore, they should be buried, for since they no longer are capable of being redeemable, there is sacrilege following sacrilege, when someone benefits from them after ritual slaughter (and he adds the issue of the dedication of wood to the altar, for according to him, their law is like a sacrifice). But the Sages say that they should be redeemed (see Talmud Meilah 19b and Tractate Menahot 106b), for they don’t require placement and appraisement, and si the holiness of these monies there is no religious sacrilege following religious sacrilege. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.

How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. The mishnah now cites three examples of sacrilege done either with a sacrificial animal or with a vessel of ministry. In all three of these cases, those who use the animal or vessel after the first sacrilege has already been performed are still liable for sacrilege.

Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] adds that anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to multiple acts of sacrilege, because it too, like the vessels, cannot become hullin. This would include birds set aside to be sacrifices, wood and incense (see Menahot 12:1).

הרי זה לא מעל – In the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 20a), it establishes it with the treasurer of the that which is consecrated, as they were the stone or beam that were transmitted to his hand from the outset, but when he took them for himself, they still were in the domain of that which is consecrated, for where he carried them in his house, they were in the domain of the consecrated as at first, but if he gave it to his fellow, he removed it from his domain and changed it from that which is consecrated to unconsecrated and he committed religious sacrilege, but his fellow did not commit sacrilege for it had already gone to unconsecrated matters.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses when exactly a person who takes something from Temple property is considered to have committed sacrilege.

בנאה בתוך ביתו – he didn’t build it within the structure of his house in actuality , for if so, he would benefit immediately when he added it to the building of his house. But rather, as for example, when he placed it in the aperture in the roof looking to the ground floor that is not in the building, for now, he has no benefit until he will live underneath it and benefit from it the equivalent of a penny, such as that his produce were placed underneath the aperture in the roof, but rains were dripping upon them, but he closed the mouth of the aperture in the roof with a sanctified stone, since it protected them for the equivalent of a penny, he committed religious sacrilege.

If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. Simply removing a stone or a beam from Temple property is not considered sacrilege, because he has not yet benefited from it. However, all he has to do is give it to his friend and he has committed sacrilege because his friend will think highly of him for having given him a present. This is considered enough benefit for him to be considered as having committed sacrilege. His friend who receives the stone or beam cannot be guilty of sacrilege because as we learned in mishnah three, once sacrilege has been committed with an item it becomes hullin and the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege.

נתנה לבלן – in order that he would permit him to bathe in the bathhouse.

If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah. Using the stone or beam to build his house does not constitute sacrilege until he actually lives in the house with the holy stone or beam.

If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. The same rule that we stated above with regard to the stone or beam is stated here with regard to a simple coin.

If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.” If he gives it to the bathhouse keeper, he is liable for sacrilege even before he takes a bath. Once he has paid for his bath, he has a right to take his bath whenever he so wishes. This right is considered to be benefit, and therefore he has committed sacrilege.

אכילתו ואכילת חברו – he ate one-half a measure and fed his fellow one-half a measure, or he benefitted one-half a measure and caused his fellow to benefit one-half a measure. And similarly, his benefit and the eating of his fellow, such as an amount which is one-half a measurement and his fellow ate half-a measurement or the opposite, all these combine to make him liable for a guilt-offering for sacrilege.

The portion which a person has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to eat, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given to his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given his friend to eat can combine with one another even after the lapse of a lot of time. If a person eats half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food (something subject to the laws of sacrilege), and gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food to eat, the two half-perutah’s join together to cause him to be liable for sacrilege. The same is true if he derives half of a perutah’s worth of benefit and he gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of the dedicated thing. The mishnah now goes through all of the various permutations of this law. To put it briefly, benefit and eating can join together, whether they were directly done by the person, or they were given by one person to another. This is true even if a lot of time lapsed in between the two events. As long as they both occurred in one period of lack of knowledge that the food was dedicated, they can join to make one liable for sacrilege.

ואפילו לזמן מרובה – as for example, that he ate one-half of a measurement today and one-half of a measurement the next day in one act of forgetfulness, or he ate or benefitted like one-half a measurement today and he friend or caused his fellow to benefit like a half-measurement for the morrow, they combine and even for an extended period of time, and as long as they would be in one act of forgetfulness, as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “ When a person commits a trespass,” nevertheless, that he will commit a religious trespass, he would be liable for a guilt offering.