json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Bartenura_on_Mishnah_Meilah",
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום – even though that their law is to be slaughtered in the north [part of the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), do not say that is like the one that is strangled (see Talmud Meilah 2a) for they were like Holy Things that died when they left the realm of religious sacrilege according to the Written Torah, that it comes to tell us that Holy Things/sacrifices that died are not worthy at all. But the south [part of the Temple courtyard] assuming that it is not appropriate for the Holy of Holies but is appropriate for offerings of lesser sanctity, therefore, they commit religious sacrilege with them, but a person who benefits from them the equivalent of a perutah/penny brings the sacrifice for religious sacrilege. But not only that they were slaughtered in the south and their blood was received In the north that one commits religious sacrilege because the essence of Divine service in the north is [according to law], and from the received tradition and onward, it is the commandment of the priesthood, but even if they were slaughtered in the north and the received their blood in the south, even though tha t the essence of the Divine service is in the south not according to the law, even so, they commit religious sacrilege through them.",
                "וזרק דמו בלילה – even though that night is not the time of offering [of the sacrifice), one commits religious sacrilege with them",
                "בלילה וזרק דמן ביום – his all the more so that one is committing religious sacrilege, because he sprinkled [the blood] during the day, which is the essence of Divine service. But it is taught “this but one doesn’t have to state that.”",
                "או ששחטן – [slaughtered them] in the north , and he thought about eating them outside of their time which is פיגול/an offering disqualified by improper intention which is punishable by extirpation/כרת , or outside of their place which is disqualified which does not have [punishment of] extirpation, one commits religious sacrilege through them.",
                "כלל אמר ר' יהושע כל שהיה לה שעת היתר לכהנים – even though it once again became disqualified and they are not permitted to eat them, nevertheless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with them.",
                "שלנה – after sprinkling, or that it became defiled or that went outside of the courtyard after the sprinkling [of the blood], even though that it is not appropriate for the Kohanim, since it had one hour of availability to [for use[ prior to being left overnight, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it, for we don’t call it “God’s holy things,” for it was appropriate for the Kohanim.",
                "ושקבלו פסולים וזרקו את דמה (the blood of which disqualified men have received or tossed) – the ineligible had received its blood, even though that those that sprinkled/tossed it were fit, or that those who sprinkled it were disqualified, even though who received it were fit. But if after the disqualified had received the blood and sprinkled it, the fit [priests] returned and received the rest of the lifeblood (i.e., the last blood that exits before the animal is dead -which is about one-fourth of a LOG – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1 ) and sprinkled it, thereby the sprinkling by the fit is makes inappropriate use of sacred property, but permits the meat to the Kohanim, there isn’t religious sacrilege. And these words refer to the rest of the disqualified, other than those who are ritually impure, but someone ritually impure who received the blood and sprinkled it, even though the fit returned and received the rest of the lifeblood [of the animal] and sprinkled it, the meat did not have a period of availability [for use by the Kohanim] and one commits religious sacrilege, for the ritually impure, since is appropriate for the Divine Service of the community, as the sacrifice of the community postpones the ritual defilement, when he he tossed the blood, the rest of he blood became remnants, and furthermore, the tossing by the fit of the blood is not an inappropriate use of sacred property to permit the meat, and among the disqualified, you don’t have an individual who makes the blood of the remnants other than the ritually impure alone."
            ],
            [
                "בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים (beyond the veils of the courtyard) – and afterwards it (i.e., the meat) came in and afterwards tossed/sprinkled the blood.",
                "ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בו – even though he tossed/sprinkled the blood, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] does not take effect/benefit to [meat] that leaves to exclude something from religious sacrilege.",
                "ואין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for since it (i.e., the meat) left [the courtyard]. For tossing/sprinkling is fit for it establishes פיגול/an offering disqualified by proper intention, but it is not disqualified.",
                "רבי עקיבא – Rabbi Akiva holds that we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it. For he holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] takes effect for [the meat] that goes out to exclude it from religious sacrilege.",
                "אבל חייבין כו' – but, the language of “surely!”/”truly!”- like truthfully. But when Rabbi Akiva said that tossing/sprinkling [the blood] take effect for [the meat] that leaves [from the courtyard], as for example, that part of the meat went out but not all of it, that because it is effective for that part that is inside [the courtyard], it is effective also for that part [of the meat] that left [the courtyard] to the outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.",
                "אמר ר' עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה – now he brings a proof to that which he sasid that tossing/sprinkling effects that [meat] which left [the Temple courtyard].",
                "והרי שתיהן עומדות (both of them are available)– are both slaughtered and their blood was received in two cups and he tossed/sprinkled the blood from one of them.",
                "לא כשם שדמה – of that one.",
                "פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.",
                "כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה– whose blood was not tossed/sprinkled, since he was able to sprinkle/toss the blood of which of them that he wanted.",
                "ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה – even though it is disqualified, that it is permitted as a sin-offering. Does it not follow that it will exempt its own flesh, even though it was disqualified when it went out [of the courtyard?” But Rabbi Akiva did not say that just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its fellow [sacrifice], but rather, when he slaughtered two sin-offerings as one, because if he wanted, he toss/sprinkles from this one, if he wanted, he sprinkles/tosses from that one, but [in the case of] one after another, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the blood would exempt the flesh of its fellow [animal sacrifice]."
            ],
            [
                "אימורי קדשים קלים – we don’t commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things other than after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, as we stated at the end of the chapter (see Mishnah 4), and if they went out [from the Temple courtyard] before the sprinkling/tossing of the blood.",
                "ר' אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן – just as that Rabbi Eliezer has [the opinion] that the sprinkling [of the blod] does not effect [meat] that leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the most Holy Things from becoming religious sacrilege, here too, it does not take effect [for meat] that leaves to include the parts of the sacrifice offered on the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege, and just as Rabbi Akiva has the opinion that sprinkling/tossing of the blood effects that [meat] which leaves [the Temple courtyard] to exclude the meat of the Most Holy Things from religious sacrilege, it effects that [meat] which leaves to include the portions of the sacrifice offered o the altar of lesser Holy Things regarding religious sacrilege."
            ],
            [
                "מעשה דמים – this sprinkling/tossing of the blood.",
                "ואין מועלין בבשר – after the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there is no religious sacrilege with the flesh/meat, for already it has its hour of availability [for use by] the Kohanim (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter), which isits leniency, for because of the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, there comes the leniency that we don’t have religious sacrilege with it.",
                "על זה ועל זה – whether for those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar whether on the flesh/meat after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood[.",
                "חייבין משום פיגול – if he had the wrong intention in one of the four [Divine] Services, for sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] establishes for the wrong intention and also establishes for remnants/left-overs and that which is ritually impure, and this is make a stringemcy.",
                "ובקדשים קלים – after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood].",
                "כולו להחמיר – and they commit religious sacrilege with those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, for it is was already appropriate to “on High” (i.e.,God), and these are Holy Things and not the money of the owners.",
                "ועל זה ועל זה – whether on the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar or on the meat/flesh, they are liable for it because of improper intention, left-overs/remnants, and that which is impure. And that means all of it is for stringency."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "חטאת העוף. הוכשרה ליפסל – that is to say, from when the bird is killed by pinching its neck with a finger nail, holiness is added to it, and it becomes disqualified if a טבול יום /a Kohen who has immersed himself that day, but is awaiting sunset, had come in contact with it or someone lacking atonement/מחוסר כפורים (i.e., like a woman after childbirth, a male or woman with a flux, a healed leper who have to bring a sacrifice to complete their purification). But especially if It was disqualified by a Tevul Yom. But it does not become unclean to make others unclean, for just as the Tevul Yom disqualifies the heave-offering/Terumah, so it also disqualifies that which is holy.",
                "הוזה דמה חייבין עליה משום פגול – for it refers to the sprinkling of the sin offering of a bird in the place of sprinkling of an animal/cattle, for sprinkling [of the blood] establishes disqualification of an offering of inappropriate intention when he thought about it prior to this like the sprinkling of the blood of cattle and furthermore, there is the prohibition of remnant and impurity.",
                "ואין בה מעילה – for since its blood had been sprinkled there is [in it] a moment of availability for the Kohanim."
            ],
            [
                "מיצה דמה (the wringing/squeezing out of the blood) – the squeezing/wringing out of the burnt offering of the bird refers to the place of the sprinkling of the [blood] of the animal and the sprinkling of the sin-offering of the bird, for concerning the burnt-offering of the bird it is written (Leviticus 1:15 – also see Tractate Zevakhin 6:5): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”",
                "עד שתצא לבית הדשן – for since all of it is burnt entirely, and there is no moment of availability [for use by the priests] at the end, one always commits religious sacrilege with it until it is burned entirely, and one takes from its ashes in the removal of the ashes from the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 6:3) “and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt- offering on the altar [and place them beside the altar].”"
            ],
            [
                "פרים הנשרפים – for the Kohanim do not have a moment of availability [for use] at all.",
                "הוזה דמן כו' – the sprinkling of their blood establishes them for inappropriate intention to be punishable by extirpation for a person who eats of them, if he had in mind an undue intention [in the performance of a sacrificial ceremony] at the time of the ritual slaughter to offer their portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar outside of their appropriate time, for since there is no moment of availability [for use] by the Kohanim, they commit religious sacrilege with them in the house of the ashes outside of the camp where they were burned if he benefited from them.",
                "עד שיתך הבשר (until the flesh is charred in small lumps) – that is to say, that it will be burned and become charcoal/used for kindling. But after it is charred into small lumps, furthermore, there is no sacrilege, for there is nothing where its command is performed where one commits religious sacrilege."
            ],
            [
                "ואין מועלין בעורה – because it belongs to the Kohanim, as it is written (Leviticus 7:8): “the priest [who offers a man’s burnt offering] shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered.”",
                "אבל מועלין בבשר – all the time that is burnet on the altar, it is burnt entirely.",
                "עד שתצא לבית הדשן – when they lift all the ashes from top of the altar and cast them in the ash heap. And furthermore, there is no sacrilege, for its command had already been done/fulfilled."
            ],
            [
                "אין מועלין בבשר – for there is a period of availability for the Kohanim, for the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering and communal sacrifices of peace-offerings, are consumed by the Kohanim.",
                "אבל מועלין באימורים – for there is no period of availability for the Kohanim."
            ],
            [
                "שתי הלחם – that we bring on Shavuot/Atzeret.",
                "קרמו פני הלחם בתנור (when they have formed a crust in the oven) – which is the beginning of their establishment, but this formation of a light crust on the dough is considered rendering fit to be made invalid by a Tevul Yom/one who immersed himself that day [but had to wait until sunset to be pure] and those lacking atonement [through bringing a sacrifice], like the ritual slaughtering of something of the Holy of Holies. But here, we don’t have the reading, \"ובלינה\" /being left overnight (which is found in the earlier Mishnayot of this chapter), because the “two loaves” are baked from the eve of the Festival [of Shavuot] and their baking does not supersede the festival and are eaten on the morrow on the Festival. But they are rendered fit to slaughter upon them the sacrifice, for since they have formed a light crust on their face, they are called, “bread.”",
                "ואין בהם מעילה – for there is no period of availability for the Kohanim, and their commandment has already been fulfilled."
            ],
            [
                "לחם הפנים – here also we don’t have the reading \"ובלינה\"/being left overnight, because it is baked on Friday (i.e., the Eve of the Sabbath) and is not consumed until the following Sabbath.",
                "קרבו הבזיכין (when dishes of incense have been offered) – that is, its preliminary acts, that on Shabbat at the time of the removal of the bread, they would offer dishes of incense of frankincense.",
                "ואין בו מעילה – for it was permitted to the Kohanim and its command had been performed."
            ],
            [
                "המנחות מועלין בהן משהוקדשו – through the sanctification of the mouth [enunciating it].",
                "ואין מועלין בשיריים – because there is a period of availability to the Kohanim.",
                "אבל מועלין בקומץ (with the handful of the meal offering the priest takes to be put on the altar) = until it is burned completely and it leaves to the ash heap according to the law of the parts of the sin-offering and guilt-offering burned on the altar. And after that, there is no sacrilege with it, for its commandment had been performed."
            ],
            [
                "ומנחת נסכים – the meal offering that comes with the sacrifice where there are no remnants, and all of these are burned entirely.",
                "משהוקדשו – mere sanctification by mouth.",
                "ופגול אין בהן – because they don’t have permitting factors",
                "(i.e., in animal sacrifices the blood is the permitting factor while in meal offerings it is the handful of flour; an offering whose permitting factor was not offered is not rendered unfit by improper intention), as for example, peace-offerings and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, that their blood permits the portions of offerings consumed on the altar and the meat/flesh to the Kohanim, or something that has a permitting factor to the altar alone, such as the burnt-offering of birds and oxen that are burned, that their blood is a permitting factor to the altar alone, as for example, the two loaves (brought as a communal sacrifice on Shavuot) that the blood of the lambs is the permitting factor, and the shewbread (see Leviticus 24:5-9) that are in the dishes are a permitting factor, as for example, the meal offerings that have a permitting factor through a handful of the meal offering which the priest takes to put on the altar. All of these, there is no liability because of inappropriate intention and left-over and impure until the permitting factors are offered, for this is written regarding inappropriate intention (Leviticus 7:18): “[If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day,] it shall not be acceptable; [it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing],” and we stated the same ceremonies which are needed for the atoning efficacy of the legally performed offering, are required for making it an unfit offering (the eating of which is punishable by extirpation). But the remnant and impure we derive from פיגול /offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention in Tractate Zevakhim in chapter two “All of the Sacrifices” /כל הזבחים (Talmud Zevakhim 28b and 45b).",
                "כל דבר שאין לו מתירין – like those of the handful of the meal offering which the priest takes to put on the altar and the frankincense which are themselves permitting factors themselves but they do not permit any other thing.",
                "חייב משום עליה משום נותר וטמא – because impure things we include them, from what is written (Leviticus 22:3): “if any man among your offspring, while in a state of impurity , partakes of any sacred donation that the Israelite people may consecrate to the LORD, that person shall be cut off [from before Me,” the Biblical verse speaks of all of the Holy Things to make one liable because it is impure, and that which is remnant is derived from the impure (see Talmud Zevakhim 45b)."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ולד חטאת וכו' יומתו – that these are from five sin-offerings that we derive that they died, and these three have always died, whether prior to atonement or after atonement [of the person who brought them], for they are not offered. And this Mishnah is taught at the beginning of the fourth chapter of [Tractate] Temurah and there I have explained it."
            ],
            [
                "המפריש מעות לנזירותו – but he didn’t specify, “these for my burnt-offering (he-lamb), and these for my sin-offering (ewe-lamb) and these for my peace-offering (ram).” (see Numbers 6:14)",
                "לא נהנים ולא מועלים – with all of these monies.",
                "מפני שהן ראויין להביא אותן שלמים – that is to say, that for each and every Me’ah (a small silver coin worth 32 Perutot or one-sixth of a Denar), we are able to say that he set them aside for peace-offerings. But peace-offerings are Lesser Holy Things and they don’t have the law of religious sacrilege associated with them, as is taught at the end of the first chapter [of Meilah, Mishnah 4], for Lesser Holy Things prior to the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, one does not commit sacrilege. But even though there is also among them the sin-offering and burnt-offering which are eligible for religious sacrilege, since there are also the monies for the peace-offerings which are not eligible for religious sacrilege, if he brought upon them the sacrilege sacrifice, we find that he brings unconsecrated things into the Temple courtyard, therefore, they are not available for benefit nor religious sacrilege.",
                "מת – A person who sets aside money, and these monies were undefined, as he did not specify that these were for the sin-offering and these for the burnt-offering and these for the peace-offering, all these monies would all [to the Temple treasury] as a donation.",
                "דמי חטאת ילכו לים המלח – for a sin-offering whose owners died.",
                "דמי עולה יביאו עולה – as we state [Tractate Kinim, at the end of Chapter 2 – Mishnah 5]: “The woman who died let her heirs bring her bunt-offering,” for it is a mere gift.",
                "ונאכלין ליום אחד – like the law regarding the peace-offering of the Nazir (see Mishnah Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6 - also found in a standard traditional Siddur as part of the morning service).",
                "ואינן טעונין לחם – for regarding bread, it is written (Numbers 6:19): ”and he shall place them (the shoulder of the ram, one unleavened cake and one unleavened wafer) and place them on he hands of the nazirite [after he has shaved his consecrated hair],” but he is not there since he died."
            ],
            [
                "הדם בתחילה אין מועלין בו – that is prior to its (i.e., the blood’s) sprinkling/tossing, as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[For the life of the flesh is in the blood,] and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation I have given it but not for sacrilege.",
                "יצא לנחל קדרון ומועלין בו – that is after the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood on the altar]. As it is taught in the Mishnah (see Tractate Yoma, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6): “The two streams of blood that mingled together in the [flow of the] surrounding channel and flowed down into the Kidron Brook and are sold to gardeners for fertilizer and the law of sacrilege applies to them [until the sale].” This religious sacrilege is from the Rabbis and not from the Torah, for there is nothing where its command is performed and the law of religious sacrilege applies.",
                "יצאו לשיתין – a perforation was in the altar through which the libations would descend to pits, and these are the foundations of the altar which are hollow and very deep. But if he placed his hand inside and received the libations prior to their descending into the pit, he does not commit religious sacrilege, for their command had already been fulfilled."
            ],
            [
                "דשון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה – their ashes [of the incense] and the remnants of the wicks of the Menorah he would remove [from the inner altar] and place them near the outer altar, the place where he places there the removal of the ashes from altar of the outer altar, and after he took them out to there, they are not available for benefit nor do the laws of sacrilege apply, for in these, it is not written (Leviticus 6:3): “and place them beside the altar” as with the ashes of the incense of the burnt-offering.",
                "המקדיש דשון בתחילה מועלים בו – this is what he said: a person who dedicates the monetary value of he ashes, at the outside, prior to his removing it to the Temple courtyard, the laws of sacrilege apply, as for example, that he said, “the monetary value of the ashes is upon me,” and afterwards he removed it outside and another person came and benefitted from the ashes, even though its commandment had already been performed, nevertheless, the laws of sacrilege apply, for since he benefitted from it and there is what is missing from the ashes, again, one cannot estimate how much they were worth when it is being evaluated, and is found that he is causing loss to that which is dedicated and because of this, he immediately commits sacrilege when he benefits from it.",
                "תורין – when he sanctified them (i.e., the turtledoves) prior to their maturation and the pigeons after their maturation.",
                "לא נהנין ולא מועלים – and this is not similar to lacking time (i.e., an offering cannot be made because its time to be offered has not yet arrived) for an animal/cattle which is holy prior to its appropriate time and it he offered it after his time, for an animal/cattle because this legal status required might easily have been attained because it is considered that it has sanctity when it possesses a defect in order to need redemption, it also has sanctify even when it is not at the appropriate time, but birds which one cannot say about them this regarding this legal status, for the defect does not invalidate the birds and they don’t have redemption, for redemption is only mentioned regarding cattle, that is so that theey don’t have the sanctity of being offered too early.",
                "תורין שלא הגיע זמנן מועלין בהן – since later on they are appropriate, they have the application of the laws of sacrilege now. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח – since milk and eggs are not appropriate for the altar, therefore they are not available for benefit and the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them.",
                "אבל בקדשי בדק הבית – that is so that the laws of sacrilege apply to them, since they are the sanctify of money, and are appropriate for the repair of the Temple house. But in the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 12b) it explains that this Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: When is this said? When they sanctified the things of the body to the altar, but if their monetary value is dedicated for the altar, such as if he said, “the value of this bird,” or “the value of this animal is dedicated to the Temple” to bring from them a burnt offering, it is made as if one dedicated them for the repair of the Temple house, for certainly the dedication of the monetary value of the altar, the laws of religious sacrilege apply to the eggs and the milk."
            ],
            [
                "כל הראוי למזבח – it states that their body is appropriate.",
                "בור מלא מים – their body is appropriate for the repair of the Temple house for building, but their body is not appropriate for the altar, for it is not appropriate for the libation of waters but rather potable, running spring water, for they would not make water libations in the Temple other than from the waters of the Shiloah.",
                "אשפה מלאה זבל – its body is not appropriate either for the altar nor for repair of the Temple house but rather for its monetary value.",
                "שובך מלא יונים – it is appropriate for the altar but not for the repair of the Temple house.",
                "אילן מלא פירות – it is appropriate for the altar for First Fruits but not for the repair of the Temple house.",
                "שדה מלאה עשבים –  it is not appropriate either for the altar nor for the repair of the Temple house.",
                "ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן – they are not subject to the law of sacrilege in what they became more valuable after it was dedicated [to the Temple].",
                "ולד מעושרת (offspring of the tithe of cattle) – if a female cow came out tenth that passes under the shepherd’s staff (see Leviticus 27:32 – “All tithes of the herd or the flock – of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD”), and it had a male issue prior to that, it cannot suck any further from her, for her male issue is unconsecrated, and she (i.e., the mother) is tithe, and it is found that he would be benefitting from the milk of something dedicated, for the tithing of cattle is something holy.",
                "ואחרים מתנדבים כן – meaning to say, this one “that passed under the shepherd’s staff” undefined, It should not suck from it (i.e., the tithe of cattle), but others that had donated [their beasts] beforehand, are permitted to make a condition prior to tithing that if the tithe of their cattle should be a female beast, its milk would be unconsecrated in order that its young can suck from her with legal permission, and similarly also with the offspring of that which is dedicated, that they would not dedicate the milk of their mother. Such is what my Rabbis/Teachers have explained, but it is spoken with an expression of uncertainty. But Maimonides explained [that the expression] “and others donate,” that whomever whose heart causes him to donate who donate milk to cause to suck the offspring of a tithed and dedicated animal, because it is forbidden for offspring to suck from them, for the Rabbis declared that it should be considered like shearing and Divine service that is forbidden with Holy Things. Therefore, they don’t have a remedy other than that others will donate milk to cause them (i.e., the offspring) to suck, since they were forbidden from sucking from the milk of their mother. And this is correct.",
                "לא יאכלו מגרוגרות של הקדש – and even if they made a condition that they would perform the work of their meals, we don’t eat from the dried figs of that which is dedicated [to the Temple], but rather, the treasure gives them the cost of food from that which is dedicated and they purchase [food] from the market.",
                "וכן פרה – that threshes in the vetches of that which is dedicated [to the Temple], we muzzle its mouth so that it doesn’t eat from that which is dedicated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” with threshing that is appropriate for it you don’t muzzle, but you do muzzle [an ox] with threshing of dedicated/sacred things that is not appropriate for it, for it is not permitted to eat that which is dedicated/consecrated [to the Temple]."
            ],
            [
                "שרשי אילן של הדיוט באין בשל הקדש (the roots of a privately owned tree that come into consecrated ground) – they do not benefit nor do the laws of sacrilege apply, for we follow after the tree, and this refers to the tree of a private person. But these words, when there is nothing between the tree of a private person and the sanctified property other than sixteen cubits or less. But if there is between them more than sixteen cubits, the laws of sacrilege apply with the roots that are growing in the sanctified field, for it no longer follows after the tree.",
                "ושל הקדש באין בשל הדיוט לא נהנין ולא מועלין – (see the Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra 26b) as for example that there is between a consecrated tree and the ground of a private person more than sixteen cubits, that the roots that are growing are of the private person and they don’t follow after the consecrated tee since they are distanced from it by so much, therefore, the laws of sacrilege do not apply, But if there isn’t between them sixteen cubits or less, the laws of sacrilege apply.",
                "מעין שהוא יוצא מתוך שדה הקדש – My Rabbis/Teachers explained for me, as for example, that a well that is unconsecrated flows/gushes forth in a privately owned field, but it continues and goes out and passes through a consecrated field. We don’t derive benefit from it within the consecrated field. But the laws of sacrilege do not apply, because it is through a private [field] that it gushes forth.",
                "יצאו – the water that is in this well that flows/gushes forth from the field of a private individual and passes in a consecrated field and leaves from the consecrated field, we derive benefit from it ab initio.",
                "המים שבכד של זהב – this is concerning the libation of water in the seven days of the Festival [of Sukkot] as is taught in the Mishnah (in Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 10): “As the rite concerning it [is performed] on a weekday, so the rite concerning it [is performed] on the Sabbath. But on the Eve of the Sabbath one would fill with water from the Shiloah a gold jug which was not sanctified [and he would leave it in a chamber (in the Temple)],” but from those waters, they would not derive benefit nor would the laws of religious sacrilege be applicable, for they were not sanctified for the water libation for religious sacrilege until they were placed in a golden flask, which is a sanctified utensil.",
                "ערבה – that they would lean them upright near the altar (literally, at the sides of the altar), as it is taught in the Mishnah in the Chapter “The Lulav and the Willow” (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5).",
                "נותנים היו ממנו בלולב – at the outside before they would lean it. For even though they did not gather it other than in order to lean it on the altar."
            ],
            [
                "קן שבראש אילן של הקדש – that the bird bruilt it from the wood and chips that it brought from another place.",
                "שבאשרה יתיז בקנה – he should cause the nest to fall to the ground with a reed, and specifically, cause it to fly off, but he should not ascend on the Asherah/idolatrous tree, for if he ascends to take the nest, it is found that he is benefitting from the Asherah. But the eggs and the chicks that are in the nest, all the time that they need their mother, it is forbidden, whether at the top of a sanctified tree or whether at the top of an Asherah.",
                "המקדיש את החורש – the Aramaic translation of “forest,” thicket, wild-growing bushes.",
                "מועלים בכולו – in the trees and on the branches and on the leaves.",
                "",
                "הגזברים שלקחו את העצים – Maimonides explained, to include the pieces of wood that they cut with a saw at the time when they prepare them for beams, that they commit religious sacrilege with them.",
                "ולא בשפויין (but not with their shavings/planings/chips) – thin boards that they planed/sawed from the trees when they split them.",
                "נויה (sproutings, leaves and flowers) – leaves that are on the trees of the forest."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "קדשי המזבח מצטרפים זה עם זה למעילה – if he benefitted from two kinds of Holy Things of the altar at the equivalent of a penny, he has committed religious sacrilege/misappropriation. But they combine also up to an olive’s bulk because of eating from sacrileges offered with the inappropriate intention or remnants or something impure, or to make one liable above an olive’s bulk outside the Temple courtyard.",
                "קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה – for religious sacrilege. But there is no inappropriate intention or remnant with them.",
                "קדשי מזבח וקדשי בדק הבית מצטרפים זה עם זה למעילה – but not for another thing, as we have said, that the Holy Things dedicated for the repair of the Temple do not have [the prohibitions] of offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention and remnant and ritual impurity."
            ],
            [
                "חמשה דרים בעולה מצטרפים זה עם זה – to an olive’s bulk, to make one liable because of offering them outside the Temple courtyard, and to make one liable because of offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention, and remnant and [ritual] impurity, and for religious sacrilege if he benefitted from all of them the equivalent of a penny.",
                "והסולת – the meal offering that comes with the burnt offering.",
                "והיין – for the libations, for the burnt offering requires a meal-offering and libations.",
                "וששה בתודה – for the offering of thanksgiving requires bread added to the five things that are associated with the burnt-offering (i.e., meat, fat, fine flour, wine and oil). But all of them combine up to an olive’s bulk for offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention, and remnant and ritual impurity, but not for religious sacrilege, for the thanksgiving offering and the Lesser Holy Things do not have religious sacrilege, as is taught at the end of the first chapter [of Tractate Meilah, Mishnah 4).",
                "התרומה ותרומת מעשר – which is one one-hundredth of unconsecrated produce, and similarly, the tenth of the tenth of Demai/doubtfully tithed produce (see parallel text found in Tractate Orlah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1).",
                "והחלה – for even it is called Terumah/heave-offering, as it is written (Numbers 15:20): “as the first yield of your baking, you shall set aside a loaf as a gift.”",
                "וביכורים – they are called Terumah/heave-offering, as the Master stated: (Deuteronomy 12:17): “or of your contributions”/\"ותרומת ידך\" – these are the first fruits, as it is written regarding them (Deuteronomy 26:4): “The priest shall take the basket from your hand [and set it down in from of the altar of the LORD your God].” (see Talmud Meilah 15b and Makkot 17a and parallels)",
                "מצטרפים זה עם זה לאסור – that if [one part of] leaven fell from all of them in order to make leavened bread within the started dough of unconcentrated produce [of ninety-nine parts], it is forbidden.",
                "ולחייב עליהן את החומש – he who eats from all of them inadvertently an olive’s bulk pays the one-fifth [in addition to the principal]."
            ],
            [
                "כל הפיגולים – from burnt-offerings, from sin-offerings, and from guilt-offerings and peace-offerings.",
                "מצטרפים זה עם זה – to consuming from them an olive’s bulk to becoming liable for extirpation. And similarly, all the remnants.",
                "כל הנבילות מצטרפים – and even the carrion of an unclean animal with the carrion of a pure animal, combine to an olive’s bulk regarding ritual impurity. But not in regard to flogging, for he is not flogged until he consumes an olive’s bulk of the carrion of only a pure animal, or an olive’s bulk from only an impure animal, because they are two categories/denominations, for one who consumes the flesh of an ritually impure animal is not flogged because of carrion other than because of his eating the flesh of an ritually impure animal.",
                "וכל השרצים מצטרפים זה עם זה – for an olive’s bulk, to make those who consume them liable for flogging, and the eight reptiles that are written in the Torah (Leviticus 11:29-30) combine with each other, to make those who consume them liable for a lentil’s bulk. According to the measure of their ritual impurity, so is the measure of their consumption.",
                "דם השרץ ובשרו מצטרפים – for we extend the scope/include them from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 11:29): “the following shall be impure for you from among the things that swarm on the earth,” to include he blood of that which swarms that it will defile like its flesh.",
                "כל שטומאתו ושיעורו שוין (all things that are alike in [duration of] uncleanness and in requisite measure)– as, for example, carrion with carrion, or reptile/creeping animal with reptile/creeping animal.",
                "טומאתו ולא שיעורו ([in duration of] uncleanness but not in requisite measure) – as, for example, carrion and reptile as their uncleanness is similar, and both of them there are ritually unclean until evening, but not their requisite measure, [since] for carrion, the measure of its uncleanness is an olives bulk, whereas for reptiles, its measure is a lentil’s bulk.",
                "ושיעוריו ולא טומאתו – as for example, a carrion and a dead person, for both of them defile in an olive’s bulk. But not in its defilement, for whereas defilement with a dead person is seven [days], and defilement with a carrion is only until the evening.",
                "לא טומאתו ולא שיעורו – as for example, a dead person and a reptile, for defilement with a dead person is seven days, but defilement with a reptile is only until the evening. But with its requisite measure also, they are not equal/equivalent, for the measure of defilement with the dead is an olive’s bulk, and the measure of a reptile is as a lentil’s bulk.",
                "אלו אין מצטרפין זה עם זה – since they are separate entities."
            ],
            [
                "שני שמות (two categories) – two separate negative commandments.",
                "בקל שבשניהם (the lesser of the two of them)- that is to say, it combines for [ritual] defilement even with the lesser requisite measurement, as for example, that it would combine for less than the equivalent of a lentil’s bulk of a creeping reptile to complete the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of a carrion, and all the more so, that it would not combine to the requisite greater measurement. And similar, half of an olive’s bulk of a dead corpse does not combine to a half of an olive’s bulk of carrion to become impure, even for the impurity until evening.",
                "אוכל שנטמא באב – this is the offspring of a first degree of uncleanness.",
                "שנטמא בולד הטומאה – this is the offspring of second degree of uncleanness.",
                "מצטרפין זה עם זה – to the equivalent of an egg’s bulk, which is the measurement of impurity for foodstuffs.",
                "לטמא בקל שבשניהם – to become third-degree [of uncleanness] in the manner that the second [degree of uncleanness] becomes third [degree of uncleanness], which is the lesser of the two of them. But it does not combine to that which would become second [degree of uncleanness] like it makes the first [degree of uncleanness] become second [degree of uncleanness], for if so, it was like the greater/more stringent of the two of them."
            ],
            [
                "לפסול את הגויה – a person (i.e., a Kohen) who consumes ritually impure foods at the volume of half-a-loaf [of bread] which is an egg and a half [in volume] according to the words of Maimonides, and two eggs’ [bulk] according to the words of my Rabbis/Teachers, his body is made invalid from eating heave-offering/Terumah and invalidates the Terumah through his contact until he immerses [in a Mikveh].",
                "במזון שתי סעודות לעירוב (see also Tractate Eruvin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2) – A person who wants to walk more than two-thousand cubits on Shabbat makes a joining of borders/ עירובי תחומין and places the food for two [Sabbath] meals in the place where he desires that he will establish his Eruv, and he walks from the place of his Eruv and beyond [another] two-thousand cubits. And this is six eggs according to Maimonides and eight eggs according to my Rabbis/Teachers.",
                "בכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלין – for food does not defile with less than an egg, as it is written (Leviticus 11:34): “As to any food that may be eaten, [if shall become impure if it came in contact with water],” that implies a food that is eaten at once, and the Sages estimated that the esophagus does not hold more than the egg of a chicken.",
                "בכגרוגרת להוצאת שבת (see also Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4) – a person who removes foodstuffs on the Sabbath from one domain to another is not liable with less than a dry fig’s bulk.",
                "בככותבת ביום הכיפורים (see also Tractate Yoma, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2)– The Biblical verse changed it and wrote (Leviticus 16:29): \"תענו\" /”you shall practice self-denial,” but did not write “תאכלו “/”you shall [not] eat,” that implies that the All-Merciful was not stringent other than with self-denial/affliction, and the Sages estimated that with a date a person’s mind is set at ease, ut less than a date, a person’s mind is not set at ease.",
                "לפסול את הגויה ברביעית – a person who drinks impure liquids at a volume of a quarter-LOG, his (i.e., the Kohen’s) body is invalidated from consuming heave-offering/Terumah and invalidates Terumah through his contact until he immerses [in a Mikveh]",
                "וכמלוא לוגמיו (a mouthful, a quantity of liquid filling up one’s cheek) – that he drinks a quantity filling up his cheek on Yoom Kippur is liable. Less than this, he is exempt (see Tractate Yoma, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2)."
            ],
            [
                "הערלה וכלאי הכרם מצטרפין (see also Tractate Orlah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) – that if he consumed half-of-a-measure from this one (i.e., Orlah/fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted) and half-of-a-measure from that one (i.e., Kilei HaKerem/food crops in a vineyard – which unlike the prohibition of a mixture of seeds, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the crop grown in the vineyard and all of the produce must be burned – see Tractate Kilayim), they combine [together to make that person liable] to be flogged [forty times – actually, forty minus one). Alternatively, Orlah and Kilei HaKerem are mixed together that fell into something permitted, they combine [to become prohibited] with dry produce in one out of two hundred, and with moist produce, if it provides a taste/flavor.",
                "אינן מצטרפין – since they are two distinctive categories, but if there is in a pot to nullify her taste of the Orlah/fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted, on its own, and the taste of Kilei HaKerem/food crops in a vineyard on its own, everything is permitted. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.",
                "הבגד – which defiles [through the treading of someone with a flux] three handbreadths by three handbreadths.",
                "והשק – that it defiles [through the treading of someone with a flux or other impurities] four handbreadths by four handbreadths.",
                "והעור – five handbreadths by five handbreadths.",
                "והמפץ (poor-man’s mattress) – six handbreadths by six handbreadths. The cloth/בגד combines with the sack/שק – that is less than it, to become defiled by four handbreadths by four handbreadths. And similarly, each other combines to that which is a less than it, and all of them combine with each other to defile according to the lesser measurement of defilement, but not the lesser with the greater.",
                "מפני שהן ראוים לטמא מושב (suitable to be made unclean as that used for sitting) – that is to say, even though we have stated above (see Mishnah 3 of this chapter) that everything where their measurements are not equivalent they do not combine, here they combine even though their measurements are not equivalent, for since they are equivalent for this things – each one of them suitable to be made ritually impure as that used for the sitting of the person with a flux, therefore, they combine for the defilement of sitting."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "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.",
                "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.",
                "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.",
                "תלש – [tore] hair.",
                "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.",
                "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.",
                "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.",
                "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."
            ],
            [
                "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.",
                "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.",
                "נתנה לבלן – in order that he would permit him to bathe in the bathhouse."
            ],
            [
                "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.",
                "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."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "השליח – the owner of the house/householder gave him (i.e., the agent) something that is dedicated to a sacred purpose of monies dedicated to the Temple to remove them in the designation of unconsecrated [things], and the agent performed his agency.",
                "בעל הבית מעל – for in regards to religious sacrilege, there Is a deputy to an illegal act (i.e., in this case, the responsibility for an illegal act can be shifted to the employer – as opposed to the normal scenario where it cannot – see Talmud Kiddushin 42b). But in entire Torah, there is no deputy for an illegal act except for the case of religious sacrilege/misappropriation because it is written concerning it (Numbers 5:6): “and that person realizes his guilt,” the person who acted inadvertently firs , which is the person who sent the individual representing him.",
                "תן בשר לאורחים – from that meat that is dedicated to a sacred purpose.",
                "ונתן להם כבד – [liver] dedicated to a sacred purpose.",
                "והוא אומר טלו שתים – but only/provided that the agent would say, “take two [pieces],” from my own intention, then the owner of the house committed sacrilege/misappropriation , for the agent did not abrogate his agency even though he added on to the words of the person sending him, therefore, the person sending him misappropriated/committed sacrilege for his agency had been fulfilled, and the agent [himself] misappropriated/committed sacrilege because he added of his own consent/knowledge, and the guests also are liable on the third piece [of meat] that they took from their own consent/knowledge. But if the agent did not say, “take two [pieces of meat] from my own knowledge,” but rather [said], “take two [pieces of meat] through the agency of the owner of the house,” the person who sent him committed sacrilege for his words had been fulfilled, but the agent is exempt because he [merely] added upon the agency of the owner of the house and did not abrogate his agency – but what he had added, he did not add with his own consent.",
                "גלוסקמא (chest/case) – in the Greek language, they call a chest/case a גלוסקמא (Genesis 50:26): “and placed in a coffin [in Egypt],” the Aramaic Targum/translation “and they placed him in a chest.”",
                "אע\"פ שאמר בעל הבית לא יה בלבי אלא מזה כו' מעל – because the agent acted according to his statement/word, but matters that are in the heart are not matters (as he had abrogated his agency)."
            ],
            [
                "ביד חרש שוטה וקטן – who are not capable of carrying out a commission/agency, nevertheless, since his agency was done, the person who sent him committed sacrilege/misappropriation.",
                "החנוני – who received the money from the hand of the deaf-mute/חרש, imbecile/שוטה or the minor/קטן, is liable when he spends the monies of sacred property on his possessions.",
                "ונזכר – the householder [is reminded] prior to the monies reaching the hand of the storekeeper, and since he remembered, he furthermore is not liable for a sacrifice of sacrilege/misappropriation, for there is no sacrifice of misappropriation/sacrilege for a wanton act.",
                "החנוני חייב – and this is the case where the houseowner and the agent were reminded, for here, there is no one who acted inadvertently other than the storekeeper. But if the houseowner is reminded but the agent is not reminded, the agent committed misappropriation because inadvertently erred first.",
                "כיצד יעשה – that is to say if the storekeeper knew about this penny that it is holy prior to his spending it or that it became combined with the rest of the pennies that he has, how should he act and be free to use his pennies."
            ],
            [
                "שניהם לא מעלו – the houseowner did not commit sacrilege for his agency was not performed with a penny, but the agent did not commit misappropriation because he did not abrogate his agency of the houseowner with a penny, but for less than a penny, there isn’t an liability for sacrilege.",
                "השליח מעל – that he abrogated the agency of the houseowner, whether with wicks or with candles, and there is In both of [the expenditure of] a penny."
            ],
            [
                "שניהם מעלו – as long as that Etrog/citron would be worth two pennies like the houseowner gave him. The houseowner committed sacrilege since the agent purchased for him according to what he said and worth as he gave him, he thusly performed his agency, but the agent committed a misappropriation for he purchased of his own intention a pomegranate with a penny that was not in the agency of the houseowner.",
                "ר' יהודה אומר בעה\"ב לא מעל – for he (i.e., the houseowner) said to the agent, If you would purchase an Etrog/citron for two pennies like I gave to you, you would bring me a large Etrog/citron worth four pennies, [but] now that you didn’t give other than a penny, you brought me an Etrog/citron worth two pennies which is a small and bad, it is found that you did not perform my agency. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "אם צרורין – tied up with an unusual knot even though it doesn’t have upon it a seal, or knots like the other knots and seals.",
                "לא ישתמש בהן – for he (i.e., the owner) revealed his intention that it was not appropriate that he should use that which was deposited, for since, he bound them in an unusual knot or placed upon it a seal.",
                "מותרין – it is called (i.e., loose), all the time that it is not tied with an unusual knot but rather it is tied like other ties and lacks a seal upon it.",
                "לפיכך אם הוציא מעל – for it is like the depositor said to him that he can use them, since they are not bound up, and he had indeed performed his agency, and the depositor also did not commit an act of sacrilege for he did not state explicitly that he (i.e., the money changer) can use them.",
                "החנוני – who sells produce or spices in the store.",
                "כבעל הבית – if he deposited with him (i.e., the storekeeper) money, even though they are not tied up, he may not use them, therefore if they were monies devoted to a sacred purpose and they were used, he has committed religious sacrilege/misappropriation.",
                "כשלחני – and he is permitted to use the monies that were deposited with him when they are not bound up, therefore, he did not commit a religious sacrilege."
            ],
            [
                "כיון שהוציא את הראשונה – for the needs of his use, he has committed religious sacrilege.",
                "וחכמים אומרים – he did not commit religious sacrilege ",
                "until he spent all the money that was in the purse for the needs of unconsecrated products. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.",
                "פרוטה מן הכיס זה – that is to say, do not use up the penny from this purse until there will be in it something consecrated."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
            "http://sefaria.org"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ברטנורא על משנה מעילה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Bartenura",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}