json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah",
    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": true,
    "isSource": true,
    "isPrimary": true,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעילה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": {
        "Introduction": [
            "Meilah is translated either as “sacrilege” or “trespass.” It refers to one who unwittingly makes prohibited use of property that belongs to the Temple. The subject is dealt with in Leviticus 5:15-16:",
            "When a person commits trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the Lord’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the Lord a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight, as an asham (guilt offering). He make restitution for that wherein he was remiss about the sacred things, and he shall add a fifth part to it and give it to the priest. The priest shall make expiation on his behalf with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.",
            "As we can see from these verses when a person commits sacrilege he must do three things: 1) bring an asham; 2) make restitution for the amount he benefited; 3) add an extra fifth. The restitution and the added fifth are given to the Temple in place of that which he benefited.  \tOne who intentionally trespasses pays back only the principle. He does not pay back an extra fifth nor does he bring a sacrifice. There is a debate about his punishment: according to Rabbi he gets “death by the hands of heaven” whereas the other rabbis hold that he receives lashes.  \tWith that brief introduction, we are on our merry way. Good luck!  "
        ],
        "": [
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah discusses cases where the laws of sacrilege apply to animals despite the fact that the sacrifice was disqualified.",
                    "<b>Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them.</b>  Most holy sacrifices must be sacrificed on the north side of the altar (Zevahim 5:1-5). If they are sacrificed on the south side, they are disqualified. Nevertheless, if a person derives benefit from them he has committed sacrilege and must bring a sacrifice, make restitution and bring the added fifth. Despite the fact that these are disqualified sacrifices, they still retain their holiness.",
                    "<b>If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them.</b>  This section contains a list of other actions that disqualify a sacrifice. A most holy sacrifice must be slaughtered and have its blood received on the north side. It must be slaughtered and have its blood received during the day. The intention of the one performing the sacrifice must be to eat it in its proper time and place. However, if the sacrifice is disqualified, it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.</b>  Rabbi Joshua has a different rule as to when the laws of sacrilege apply to a disqualified sacrifice. If the sacrifice was at one time edible by priests, then these laws do not apply. This is the case if the blood was spilled on the altar in the correct fashion, but then the sacrifice was disqualified by becoming remnant, impure or by being taken out of the Temple. In these cases the meat was permitted and then became forbidden. However, if the meat was never permitted, such as the cases in section one, or a case where someone unfit either received the blood in a vessel or poured the blood onto the altar, in all of these cases the laws of sacrilege do apply, as we taught in sections one and two."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva argue about whether meat from most holy sacrifices that was taken out of the Temple before its blood was sprinkled on the altar is subject to the laws of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  There are two background halakhot necessary to understand this debate: 1) The flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be taken out of the Temple courtyard. 2) Once the blood of a sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice can be eaten by the priests. In this mishnah the flesh was taken out before the blood was sprinkled, such that the flesh was never edible. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if the flesh of a sacrifice was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, then it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. In our case, since the flesh was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, because it was disqualified before its blood was spilled, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. However, it is not subject to the laws of piggul (improper intention when offering the sacrifice), remnant or the prohibition of eating leftover sacrifices, because it never became edible. These prohibitions refer only to edible meat. To summarize the essential issue: according to Rabbi Eliezer, since the blood was sprinkled only after the flesh was disqualified, this meat is never considered edible.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one?</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, even though the sprinkling of the blood took place only after the flesh had left the courtyard and it does not therefore allow the flesh to be eaten, it does remove the flesh from the category of being subject to sacrilege. In other words, it counts as edible, even though it can’t be eaten for some other reason. Since it is treated as if it is edible meat (even though it can’t be eaten) it is liable for the laws of piggul, notar or defilement.",
                    "<b>Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.</b>  Rabbi Akiva now argues by analogy. If one sets aside a hatat and then it is lost, he must set aside another in its place. If the first animal is found, the second one cannot be sacrificed (see Temurah 4:3). However, if he slaughters the first and sprinkles its blood, the sprinkling removes both that hatat and the second, unusable hatat from being subject to sacrilege. In other words, here you have a case where the sprinkling of blood can exempt an animal for being subject to sacrilege, even if the sprinkling does not make the animal’s flesh edible permitted to eat. Rabbi Akiva now takes the argument one step further. If sprinkling of one animal’s blood can exempt another animal’s disqualified flesh from being subject to sacrilege, shouldn’t it be able to exempt its own flesh from being subject to sacrilege. Thus, in our case, although the flesh was disqualified by being taken out of the Temple court, once its blood has been sprinkled, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah deals with the innards of sacrifices of a lower degree of holiness. These innards are burned on the altar after the blood has been spilled. As in yesterday’s mishnah, today we discuss a case where these innards left the Temple courtyard. This disqualifies them from being able to be placed on the altar.\nAs in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi disagree about whether the laws of sacrilege apply. Their opinions are consistent with those found in yesterday’s mishnah.",
                    "<b>If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled:<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer holds that when it comes to the rules of sacrilege, the same rules that applied in yesterday’s mishnah to the flesh of most holy sacrifices, apply to the innards of less holy sacrifices. Once they were taken out of the Temple, they became disqualified from being subsequently placed on the altar. The laws of sacrilege therefore do apply, even after the blood was spilled. The other laws do not apply because this flesh was never able to have been placed on the altar.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Akiva holds that even though the innards were removed from the Temple before the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling does make them subject to the laws of sacrilege, the same as it did for the flesh in yesterday’s mishnah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah compares the effect that the sprinkling of the blood on the altar has on sacrifices of both higher and lower degrees of holiness.",
                    "<b>The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  This is an introductory note delineating the structure of the remainder of the mishnah.",
                    "<b>How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect.</b>  Before the sprinkling of the blood the flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be eaten by the priests, and its innards cannot be placed on the altar. At this point all parts are subject to the laws of sacrilege. Once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to the flesh, because it can be eaten by the priests. This is a lenient effect. The innards are still subject to sacrilege, because they can never be eaten. After the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh becomes subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, three laws which apply only to edible flesh. This is the stringent effect.",
                    "<b>With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  When it comes to less holy sacrifices, the sprinkling only has a stringent effect. Before the sprinkling, the laws of sacrilege do not apply at all, because they are not yet considered holy. We should note that the laws of meilah (sacrilege) never apply to the flesh of sacrifices of lesser holiness, because they can be eaten by anyone, and not just priests. Sacrilege applies only to food that can be eaten only by priests. Nevertheless, once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do apply to the innards. This is a stringent effect. The sprinkling also serves to make all parts subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, which again is a stringent effect. It turns out that here the sprinkling of blood only has a stringent effect."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis entire chapter discusses various states of preparation of every type of sacrifice, and when the sacrifice becomes liable for various prohibitions. As we shall see, the pattern of this mishnah is repeated throughout this highly stylized chapter. There are some halakhot that I will explain here and then refer to throughout the mishnah, so save the commentary for future reference.\nThe first topic is the bird hatat.",
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication.</b>  As soon as a bird hatat is dedicated, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege, even when it is still alive. Since it is still not edible to the priests, the laws of sacrilege apply (see 1:1).",
                    "<b>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once its neck is pinched, which is how bird sacrifices are slaughtered, it is now subject to disqualification by contact with a “tevul yom.” A “tevul yom” is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until the sun sets that evening (see Leviticus 22:7). It can also be disqualified by contact with a person who has gone through his purification process but must still bring the requisite sacrifices the next day (see Keritot 2:1). If the blood remains overnight without being sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.",
                    "<b>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Once the blood has been sprinkled, its flesh is edible and is therefore liable to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. Piggul is a disqualification that occurs if the priest sacrifices it with the intention of eating it after it can no longer be eaten. Notar is remnat, and defilement refers to the prohibition of eating a sacrifice that has been ritually defiled. Since the bird hatat can now be eaten by the priests, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication.<br>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the bird olah, a whole burnt offering. Most of its laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Sections one-three: These laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah. See there for an explanation.<br>Section four: Since an olah never becomes edible, the laws of sacrilege apply longer than they do to the hatat, which can be eaten by the priests. The flesh is still subject to sacrilege until it is burned and the ashes are removed from the altar and brought out to the “places of ashes” which was outside of the Temple/Tabernacle (see Leviticus 6:4). At this point its mitzvah has been completed and it is therefore no longer subject to the law of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.</b><br>This mishnah is very similar to the first two mishnayot of this chapter, except it deals with the bullocks and goats that are burned. There are three types of bullocks that are burned: 1) The bullock offered on Yom Kippur; 2) the bullock offered by a high priest for issuing a mistaken instruction; 3) the bullock offered by the court that makes a mistaken instruction. There are two types of goats that are burned: 1) The goat offered on Yom Kippur; 2) The goat offered by a court for making a mistaken instruction concerning a law related to idol worship.<br>Sections 1-3: See mishnayot one and two above for an explanation.<br>Section four: The law of sacrilege continues to apply to the burned bullocks and goats even after they are brought out to the place of burning. It applies until their flesh has been charred and its appearance has changed. This is when their burning is technically complete (see Zevahim 12:6) and at that point the law of sacrilege no longer applies."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication.<br>When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the animal olah.<br>Sections one-three: See mishnah two.<br>Section four: Immediately after it is slaughtered, the hide belongs to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege stops applying to the hide. However, the law of sacrilege continues to apply to its flesh, which is not eaten by the priest. It only stops when the flesh is removed from the altar and brought to the place of ashes."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.</b><br>This mishnah refers to other most holy sacrifices, namely the hatat, the asham and the public shelamim sacrifices. These are the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot. They are considered most holy sacrifices, although other shelamim sacrifices are sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness.<br>Sections one-three: See the previous mishnayot.<br>Section four: Once the animal has been slaughtered, the flesh may be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However it continues to apply to the innards until they are burned and then brought out to the place of ashes."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOn Shavuot two loaves of bread are brought with the sacrifices. Our mishnah is concerned with when the law of sacrilege applies to these loaves.",
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication.</b>  Same as mishnayot above.",
                    "<b>Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered.</b>  Once they have formed a crust, they are considered food and they are liable to become disqualified in all of these ways (see above mishnayot). Note that “remaining overnight” is not found in this mishnah because the two loaves are cooked the night before the festival. They always remain overnight. Once they have formed a crust, they are considered bread and at this point the priests can slaughter the festival sacrifices (see Leviticus 23:20).",
                    "<b>Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.</b>  Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled, one who eats them can be liable if they have been disqualified. And since the priests can now eat the loaves, they are no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah deals with the showbread that is placed on the table in the Sanctuary every Shabbat.",
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication.</b>  See above mishnayot.",
                    "<b>Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary].</b>  As with the two loaves in yesterday’s mishnah, the showbread can become disqualified once it has become crusted. It is also at this point that it can be taken out of the oven and arranged on the table.",
                    "<b>Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Two dishes of incense were placed over the showbread. If the bread was “piggul”  while he was burning the incense he had the intent of eating the bread on the next day he would be liable for eating it. Similarly, if he waited until it was remnant (notar) or ate it after it was defiled he would be liable. As is always the case, once the bread has become defiled, it is no longer subject to the law of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Our mishnah discusses how the law of sacrilege relates to menahot.<br>The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain from the moment of their dedication.</b>  See every other mishnah in this chapter.",
                    "<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once the minhah is placed in a vessel it can be disqualified. The rest of the categories are the same as those in every other mishnah in this chapter.",
                    "<b>Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.</b>  Once the handful has been removed and placed on the altar, the minhah can be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However, one who eats it in a disqualified state is now liable for the three prohibitions mentioned in all of the mishnayot above."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication.</b>  All of these menahot or other items (incense) are completely burned on the altar. No parts thereof are given to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege will always apply to them.",
                    "<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them.</b>  Most of this section is the same as that in yesterday’s mishnah except that the laws of piggul do not apply to any of these items.  The mishnah will now explain why the laws of piggul do not apply.",
                    "<b>This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.</b>  Any sacrificial item that has something else that allows it to be burned or eaten is subject to all of these laws, but only after that other thing has been done. For instance, the flesh of an animal is subject to these laws after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar (see mishnayot 1-5). The innards can be put on the altar once the blood has been sprinkled. The minhah can be eaten once the handful has been removed. The two loaves can be eaten once the blood of the lambs has been thrown on the altar, and the showbread can be eaten once the incense has been burned. All of these have other things that permit them. In contrast, the list in our mishnah “permits itself.” In other words, these things can be sacrificed immediately (none of them are eaten) without waiting for something else to be done. Therefore, they are subject immediately to the laws of notar and defilement. Piggul never applies to such items. For further discussion see Zevahim 4:3."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is found word for word in Temurah 4:1. It is brought here because it also deals with sacrilege. I have mostly replicated my commentary from there.\nIn Temurah 2:2 we learned that there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.",
                    "<b>The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.</b>  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.",
                    "<b>A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.</b>  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nWhen a nazirite finishes his term he must bring three offerings: a hatat (sin-offering), an olah (whole-burnt offering), and a shelamim (well-being offering). Our mishnah deals with how the law of sacrilege and various other laws apply to these three offerings in a case where a person set aside money to buy the sacrifices but had not yet bought them.",
                    "<b>If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim.</b>  If he set aside money, he is not allowed to use the money, but the laws of sacrilege don’t apply. This is because all of the money might end up going for shelamim (offerings of well-being), and since shelamim are sacrifices of lower sanctity, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them (see 1:4).",
                    "<b>If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.</b>  If he died and left money, but had not specified how much was to go for each type of sacrifice, then all of the money goes to the general fund in the Temple used to buy voluntary offerings.",
                    "The mishnah now deals with a case where he did specify which coins go for which sacrifices. The money set aside for a hatat must be destroyed. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a hatat whose owners have died can’t be sacrificed. While it is forbidden to derive any benefit from this money, if he does it is not sacrilege, because the money was not going to be used to buy a sacrifice. The money for the olah should be used to buy an olah. The law of sacrilege will apply to the olah, as it always does. The money set aside for the shelamim is used for a shelamim. It must be eaten by the next day, as is the law for the shelamim of a nazirite (Zevahim 5:6), but it does not need to be accompanied by a bread-offering, because the nazirite is dead and the bread offering is supposed to be put in his hands (see Numbers 6:19)."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah discusses the law of sacrilege as it relates to blood and the wine libations.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end.</b>  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah. As we have seen on many occasions, the rabbis frequently compare the laws as they apply in one case with their application in other cases.",
                    "<b>Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron.</b>  Before the blood is put on the altar, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is derived in the Talmud from a midrash. After being spilled or cast against the altar, the blood would flow out of the Temple down into Wadi Kidron. Blood found in the soil surrounding the Wadi was subject to sacrilege. This would mean that anyone using this soil, which was used for fertilizer, would have to pay for its use to the Temple.",
                    "<b>Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.</b>  Before the wine libations are put on the altar, they are subject to the law of sacrilege. This is because it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. However, after they flow out through the hole on the altar down to the “shittin” the foundations of the altar, the law of sacrilege no longer applies. The general rule is that anything which has had its mitzvah performed is not subject to the law of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The incense was burned on the inner altar, inside the Sanctuary. It is forbidden to use the ashes from this altar, and to use the wicks of the menorah. However, since their mitzvoth had already been performed, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.",
                    "<b>If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If after the ashes were removed from the Temple, someone picked them up and dedicated them to the Temple, they would then become subject to sacrilege. In other words, they would remain forbidden but one who did use them would be liable to compensate the Temple.",
                    "<b>Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  Turtle-doves can be used as sacrifices when they are mature. Pigeons can only be used when they are young. If one dedicates them before they have reached the right age, or after they have passed their age they may not be used, but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, because they are not fit to be put on the altar.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.</b>  Before turtle-doves reach the right age, they are subject to the law of sacrilege, because they will eventually become fit for the altar. However, he agrees with the previous opinion that once pigeons have passed the age at which they can be sacrificed, they are no longer subject to sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah deals with sacrilege and the products that come from animals milk and eggs.",
                    "<b>The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of [consecrated] turtle-doves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The sanctity of a consecrated female animal or turtle-dove applies to the animal itself, but not to the products that come from the animal, such as milk and eggs. While one may not derive any benefit from these items, they are not holy and therefore, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>When is this so? For things dedicated for the altar, but as for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The above exemption from the law of sacrilege applies only if the animal was dedicated for the altar. But if an animal which could not be sacrificed was dedicated, such as a chicken or a donkey, then the animal is considered to have been dedicated for Temple upkeep. This means that the animal will be sold and the profits used to maintain the Temple. In such a case, even those things which the animal produces are holy and are subject to the law of sacrilege. We shall deal more with this subject in tomorrow’s mishnah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  A person can be liable for sacrilege for things that are either fit for use on the altar, or fit for use for Temple repair, or not fit for either use. In all cases, it is possible that the law of sacrilege will apply, as the mishnah will now explain.",
                    "<b>How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  Water is fit for Temple repair but not for the altar. It can be used to make bricks, or for other uses. But this water cannot be put on the altar, because the one water libation done during the year, on Sukkot, was done with water from the Shiloah. The manure is fit for neither use. It would have to be sold and its profits used for Temple upkeep. The pigeons can be put on the altar. Some fruit, such as grapes and olives, can be put on the altar. Other fruit cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. They would be sold and the profits used for Temple upkeep. Similarly, herbs cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. In all of these cases, the law of sacrilege applies both to the container, and to that which was in it or on it. However, if one dedicates one of these things before it contains the water, manure, etc. only the container/tree/field is subject to the law of sacrilege. The general rule is that which is produced by something dedicated is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property.</b>  Rabbi Shimon partially disagrees with Rabbi Judah. He holds that if something grows from a consecrated thing, such as fruit from a tree or herbs from a plant, that which grows is subject to the law of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use.</b>  Tithed animals are sacred as are their offspring. Therefore, even their own offspring cannot nurse from them. Other people dedicate milk so that the offspring of tithed or holy animals can have milk to nurse.",
                    "<b>Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple.</b>  Workers who are working on behalf of the Temple, or a cow performing some type of labor needed for the Temple, cannot directly eat produce dedicated to the Temple. Although the Temple must feed the workers or the cow, they still can’t eat holy property. They get their pay from the Temple treasurer. They can then use these funds to buy their own food."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.<br>The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it When it has left the field it may be used.<br>The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.<br>When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.</b><br>Section one: In this case, either the tree grows on privately owned, non-sacred ground but its roots spread out onto dedicated ground, or the opposite. Since part of the tree is on sacred ground, it is forbidden to benefit from any of the tree. However, since the entire tree is not on sacred ground, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section two: This refers to a case where a person dedicated his field to the Temple, but he did not dedicate the spring. While the spring is on the field, the water may not be used because it is on dedicated ground. However, since he didn’t dedicate the spring itself, the water is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Once the water has left the field, it can be used. This is different from the case of the tree because all parts of a tree are interconnected. When its roots leave the sacred ground they are not disconnected from that ground, unlike water which is.<br>Section three: This section refers to the water used for the water libation on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9-10). The day before Shabbat, they would fill a golden jar with water drawn from the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem, so that the next day they could pour it onto the altar without having to carry from the Shiloah to the Temple. When in this jar, the water cannot be used for other purposes, but it has not yet been sanctified so it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. The golden flask was used on most days to directly draw water from the Shiloah, and on Shabbat they would pour from the golden jar into the golden flask. The flask serves to sanctify the water and therefore once in this flask it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section four: On Sukkot there was a custom to place willows on the side of the altar (see Sukkah 4:5). That willow cannot be used for other purposes, but it is not subject to the law of sacrilege, because it is not sanctified. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok notes that before putting it next to the altar, the elders used to put it with their palm branches (the lulav). This is not considered illicit use, because when one performs a mitzvah with an object, it is not considered that he has “derived benefit” from the object."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A nest which is built on the top of a dedicated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.</b>  The nest at the top of the dedicated tree is forbidden for use, but since it is not the tree itself, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>That which is on the top of an asherah, one flicks [it] off with a reed.</b>  An asherah is a tree used in idol worship (see Avodah Zarah 3:7). It is forbidden to use the tree. The nest, however, is not prohibited. If a person wants to take the nest, he can flick it off with a reed. Note that the law is stricter when it comes to Temple property there is no way to use the nest.",
                    "<b>If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it.</b>  If a person dedicates an entire forest to the Temple, every part of the tree is sacred and subject to the law of sacrilege, including the leaves.",
                    "However, if the Temple buys a forest in order to use the trees, only the parts of the tree that they intend to use, namely the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege. The chips and the fallen leaves are not subject to sacrilege because the when the treasurers bought them, they knew that they had no use for them."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis chapter deals with when things join together to create the minimum amount necessary for a violation to have been committed or an obligation to be fulfilled. We begin with the issue of sacrilege, but the following mishnayot proceed to other subjects.",
                    "<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with one another with regard to the law of sacrilege, and to render one liable over them [for the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.</b>  To be liable for sacrilege one must derive a perutah’s worth of benefit from sacred property. If one derives benefit from several different things dedicated to the altar, and separately each is not worth a perutah, but together they are, he is liable for sacrilege. They also join together to cause one to be liable for piggul (sacrifices offered with improper intent), notar (remnant) and the prohibition against eating defiled holy things.",
                    "<b>Things dedicated for Temple repair combine with one another.</b>  Things dedicated for Temple repair join together only for sacrilege, but not for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions do not apply to things dedicated for Temple repair (see Temurah 7:1).",
                    "<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with things dedicated for Temple repair with regard to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If one has a mixture of things dedicated for the Temple and things dedicated for Temple repair, they can join together to make one liable for sacrilege, because the law of sacrilege applies to them all. However, they do not join together for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions don’t apply to things dedicated for Temple repair."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah deals with which parts of a sacrifice combine to make one liable for either sacrilege, or piggul, notar or defilement. If a person eats a little of this part and a little of that part, when does he become liable.",
                    "<b>Five things in an olah combine with one another: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine and the oil.</b>  The fine flour, the wine and the oil all accompany the olah, the whole-burnt offering. If one eats less than a perutah’s worth of meat, for instance, and less than a perutah’s worth of oil, but together they are worth a perutah, he has committed sacrilege. If he eats them and together they constitute an olive’s worth, and they were piggul, notar or defiled, he has transgressed the prohibition.",
                    "<b>And six in a todah: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil and the bread.</b>  There is one more element when it comes to the todah that doesn’t exist for the olah the loaves that accompany it. These also join with the other parts of the sacrifice. We should note that since the todah (thanksgiving offering) is a sacrifice of lesser holiness, it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege. The six things join together to make one liable for piggul, notar or defilement.",
                    "<b>Terumah, terumah of the tithe, terumah of the tithe separated from demai, hallah and first-fruits combine with one another to make up the size required to render other things   forbidden and to be liable for the payment of a fifth.</b>  The items listed here, which I will explain shortly, join together to render other things forbidden, if enough of them fall into non-sacred things. For instance, if a small amount of terumah oil and a small amount of hallah dough are mixed together and together they constitute a seah then fall into less than 100 seahs of hullin (non-sacred) dough, all of the dough is forbidden to non-priests (see Orlah 2:1). They also join together to make one who eats them unwittingly liable to pay back the principle and an added fifth. One is liable for the added fifth only if he eats an olive’s worth of holy things (see Bava Metzia 4:8). I shall now briefly explain what each is. Terumah: taken from produce and given to the priest. Terumah of tithe: the Levite gives one tenth of his tithe to the priest as terumah. Demai is the tithe separated from produce bought from someone who might not have already tithed it. Terumah is then taken from this demai. Hallah: separated from dough and given to the priest. Bikkurim: first-fruits, also considered to be holy."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>All kinds of piggul can combine with one another and all kinds of notar can combine with one another.</b>  To remind ourselves, piggul is a sacrifice that was offered with the intent of eating it outside of the time in which it must be eaten. If one eats different types of piggul, for instance part that came from a most holy sacrifice such as a hatat, and part that comes from a less holy sacrifice such as shelamim, he is liable for having eaten piggul, if together they add up to the minimum measure of an olive. Notar is sacrifice that is left over after the time in which it must be eaten. The same thing here if the notar comes from different types of sacrifices, it still joins together to create the minimum measure.",
                    "<b>All kinds of carrion can combine with one another.</b>  An olive’s worth of carrion causes impurity. All types of carrion join together to convey this impurity, even if half of the measure is from a pure animal and half is from an impure animal.",
                    "<b>All kinds of sheratzim can combine with one another.</b>  There are eight forbidden sheratzim (creepy crawly things) listed in Leviticus 11:29-30 that convey impurity at the minimum measure of a lentil’s worth. They all join together to create the minimal measure.",
                    "<b>The blood of a sheretz and its flesh can combine with one another.</b>  Just as different sheretzim join together, so too does the blood of the sheretz join with its flesh to add up to the minimum measure.",
                    "<b>A general rule was stated by Rabbi Joshua: all things that are alike both in respect of [duration of] uncleanness and in respect of their minimum measure can combine with one another. Things that are alike in respect [of duration] of uncleanness but not in respect of minimum measure, in respect of minimum measure but not in respect [of duration] of uncleanness, or [if they are alike] neither in respect [of duration] of uncleanness nor in respect of measure, cannot combine with one another.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now provides a general rule as to when different things join together. There are two criteria. First of all, the minimum measure needs to be the same. Second, the rules regarding their impurity need to be the same. So a part of a sheretz and a piece of carrion do not join together because carrion has a minimum measure of an olive, whereas the minimum measure for a sheretz is a lentil. A piece of dead body and a piece of carrion share the same measure (an olive’s worth) but the piece of a dead body cause seven-day impurity, whereas the carrioin causes one day impurity, so they don’t join. All the more so a piece of a dead body won’t join with a piece of sheretz because both their impurity and their measures are different."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah we learn that different types of prohibited substances do not join together to add up to a sufficient amount for a transgression to have occurred.",
                    "<b>Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they are of two different names.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that different types of piggul can combine together, and different types of sheratzim can combine together, etc. Today we learn that differently named substances do not combine together. So if one eats half of an olive’s worth of piggul and half of an olive’s worth of notar (remnant) he is not liable, because he has not eaten enough prohibited food of one prohibition.",
                    "<b>Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to effect impurity, not even in respect of the more lenient of the two [grades] of defilement.</b>  Similarly, sheretz (a creepy crawly thing that transmits impurity see yesterday’s mishnah) and carrion, and carrion and flesh from a human corpse do not join together to create the minimum amount needed to effect impurity. This is true even with regard to the lower quantity or level of defilement. For instance, less than a lentil’s worth of a sheretz does not join together with less than an olive’s worth of carrion. Similarly, less than an olive’s worth of a human corpse does not join with less than an olive’s worth of animal carrion to transmit the type of impurity that makes on impure for only one day.",
                    "<b>Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to affect uncleanness according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.</b>  Food that has been contaminated by contact with a source of primary defilement (such as a dead body) now has first degree defilement. Food that has been contaminated with something that has secondary defilement now has second degree defilement. These different foods can combine to form the minimum amount of an egg’s worth to contaminate other foods according to the lower degree of the two. If the joined substance comes into contact with terumah, it would cause it to have third degree defilement, which is a very low level of defilement. We shall learn more about this when we learn tractate Toharot."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah teaches that different types of food and different types of drink can join together with regard to various matters.",
                    "<b>All kinds of food can combine with one another:<br>To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit</b>  One who eats half of a peras (the equivalent of two eggs) of unclean food, cannot eat terumah until the evening. The food “renders his body unfit” to eat holy food. Different types of unclean food can join to create this minimum amount.",
                    "<b>[To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv;</b>  One who wants to walk more than two thousand cubits out of his city on Shabbat puts an “eruv,” a meal, at the two thousand cubit mark and then he can walk an additional two thousand cubits. The meal must consist of a certain amount of food (see Eruvin 8:2) and different types of food can join together to create the minimum amount.",
                    "<b>To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food;</b>  Impure food conveys impurity only if there is the volume of an egg. Different impure foods can join together to create this volume.",
                    "<b>To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat;</b>  One who carries food from one domain to another on Shabbat is liable only if the food is at least the volume of a dried fig (see Shabbat 7:4).",
                    "<b>And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another:</b>  One who eats a date’s worth of food on Yom Kippur is liable. Again, all different foods join together to create this minimum amount.",
                    "<b>To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit;</b>  One who drinks a quarter of a log of impure drink is rendered unfit to eat terumah until the evening.",
                    "<b>To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.</b>  On Yom Kippur, one who drinks a mouthful is liable. In both of these matters, different foods join together."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine.</b>  According to the first opinion, orlah (fruit during its first three years) and kilayim (seeds) that grow in a vineyard combine with one another. The result is that if half of a seah of orlah and half of a seah of kilayim fall into less than two hundred seahs of regular produce, the regular produce is all prohibited. Rabbi Shimon holds that since these two prohibitions have different names, they don’t combine together. It seems that the first opinion holds that since they are so similar, they do combine.",
                    "<b>Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another.</b>  The different materials in this section have different minimum measures for being susceptible to different kinds of uncleanness. Cloth that is three handbreadths square is susceptible to the sitting impurity conveyed by a zav (one with an unusual genital discharge), and for other matters of impurity it is susceptible if it is three fingers square. Sack-cloth must be four by four handbreadths. Leather must be five square handbreadths. And matting must be six square handbreadths. These different materials can join together to create the minimum measure for the most lenient of them. For instance, one handbreadth of cloth will join with three handbreadths of sack-cloth, and one of sack-cloth will join four of leather and one of leather will join five of matting. However, two handbreadths of cloth will not join one handbreadth of sack-cloth, because the cloth is stricter. To put it another way cloth can count as sack-cloth, but sack-cloth cannot count as cloth.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason?  Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.</b>  In mishnah three we learned that different substances that do not have the same measure do not join together. Seemingly, today’s mishnah deviates from that rule. Rabbi Shimon explains that it does not actually contradict that rule because when it comes to the impurity conveyed by the sitting of a zav, they all potentially have the same measure. If a person cuts off a small piece of any of these materials, the size of one handbreadth square, and he intends to sit on that material, it is susceptible to sitting impurity when a zav sits on it. Since there is one aspect in which they are all the same, they can join together to create the minimum measure be susceptible to impurity."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’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?",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>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.</b> 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."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it.</b>  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)."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah discusses when exactly a person who takes something from Temple property is considered to have committed sacrilege.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  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.",
                    "<b>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.</b>  The same rule that we stated above with regard to the stone or beam is stated here with regard to a simple coin.",
                    "<b>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.”</b>  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."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>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.</b> 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."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the question of one who sends another person to commit an act of sacrilege: who is guilty of the sacrilege, the sender or his agent?",
                    "<b>If an agent has fulfilled his agency, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his agency, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  The general rule is straightforward if the agent fulfills the sender’s instructions and neither knew that the item (food or otherwise) he was being sent to bring had been dedicated, the sender has committed sacrilege. But if the agent does not fulfill his agency, then we can’t hold the sender responsible and the agent has committed sacrilege. The mishnah now illustrates this.",
                    "<b>How so? If he [the employer] said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “[Give] liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  “Meat” and “liver” are two different things, according to the lingo of the mishnah. If the sender sent his servant instructing him to give “meat” to the guests, and the servant gave liver (which I would have politely declined), then the agent has committed sacrilege because he did not fulfill his boss’s instructions. The same is true in the opposite case.",
                    "<b>If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the servant fulfilled the agency when he gave the guests permission to take one piece. Therefore, the host has committed sacrilege. When the servant gave the second piece, which the host did not instruct him to do, the servant committed sacrilege. And finally, when the guests took a third piece (greedy guests), they committed sacrilege as well. Note that if they had not taken thirds, they would not have been guilty. I hope it teaches them a lesson.",
                    "<b>If he [the employer] said to him, “Bring me [something] from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him [from one of these places] even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the employer sent his employee to fetch something that turned out to be holy from one of either of two places. When the employee brings him the object and the employer uses it, the employer has committed sacrilege. Since he mentioned both places, he can’t say that he really meant for the object that was in the opposite place to have been brought. However, if he specifies precisely where the object is, and the employee brings an object from somewhere else, then the employee has not fulfilled his instructions and the employee is the one that is guilty of sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person who unknowingly sends money that has been dedicated to the Temple with an agent to a storekeeper to buy something.",
                    "<b>One who has sent a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor: If they carried out their agency the employer is guilty, If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty.</b>  A deaf-mute, imbecile and minor cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. However, if they fulfill their agency, then the one who sent them is liable for sacrilege, just as he is in all cases. If they do not fulfill the agency, then when the shopkeeper spends the money that they gave him, he will be guilty of sacrilege. The money has remained holy until this point, because the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor are not capable of being liable for sacrilege. Had the agent been a person of sound senses, he would have been liable for sacrilege when he didn’t fulfill the employer’s instructions. In such a case, when the storekeeper spends the money he will not be liable.",
                    "<b>If one sent one of sound senses and remembers [that the money belongs to Temple property] before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it.</b>  Here the employer remembers that the money he gave to his agent is holy, but he remembers too late. The employee is already on his way. At this point the sender cannot be liable for sacrilege, or at least not to bring a sacrifice to atone for sacrilege, because a sacrifice is not brought by one who intentionally commits sacrilege. Although he sent it without knowing it was holy, since he knows before it is used, he is considered as one who intentionally commits sacrilege.",
                    "<b>What should he do?  He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this;” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money's worth.</b>  Don’t worry! There is a remedy to prevent the poor innocent storekeeper from committing sacrilege. The sender can redeem the coins even when they are not in his presence. All he has to do is take a perutah or a vessel that is worth at least a perutah and declare that the holiness of the coins that he already sent is transferred to the coin or vessel in his hand. The mishnah concludes by noting that Temple property can be redeemed both by coin and by things that are worth money."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Bring me for half a perutah lamps and for the other half wicks,” and he went and brought for the whole perutah wicks or for the whole perutah lamps; Or if he said to him, “Bring me for the whole lamps or for the whole wicks,” and he went and brought for half [a perutah] lamps and for the other half wicks, neither is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the employer has not committed sacrilege because the agent changed his instructions. The agent also has not committed sacrilege for he only changed the instructions by half of a perutah (by spending the whole perutah on one thing and not half on each item). In order for the agent to be liable, he has to change the instructions for the entire perutah.",
                    "<b>But if he said to him, “Bring for half a perutah lamps from one place and for half a perutah wicks from another,” and he went and brought the lamps from the place where the wicks [were to be bought] and the wicks from the place where the lamps [were to be bought], the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the agent changed the instructions completely and didn’t precisely fulfill any of the instructions that he was sent to fulfill. Therefore, he has committed sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  According to the first opinion, the employer is guilty of sacrilege with one of the perutahs, because the agent did perform the instructions to buy an etrog. The agent is guilty of sacrilege with the other perutah because he changed the instructions and bought a pomegranate with the other perutah. Rabbi Judah argues that the employer is not guilty at all, because he can claim that he wanted a two-perutah etrog, not a one-perutah etrog. Therefore, we don’t consider the agent as having fulfilled half of his instructions; rather he has not fulfilled the instructions at all and he alone is guilty of sacrilege.",
                    "<b>If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  The employer sends him with a golden denar to buy a shirt. A golden denar is worth 25 silver denars, or 6.5 silver selas. The agent uses half of the money to buy the cloak, and the other half to buy a shirt. As in the previous section, the first opinion considers them both to have committed sacrilege. The employer committed sacrilege with the first half of the money, and the agent by changing the instructions with the second half. Again, Rabbi Judah argues that only the agent committed sacrilege. The employer sent him to buy a golden denar shirt (Gucci?) and not a cheaper one (Target?), so the agent didn’t fulfill any of his instructions."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it; and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege.</b>  If one deposits dedicated money with a moneychanger and the money is tied up, the moneychanger should not use the coins. If he does use the coins, then he is guilty of sacrilege. Having tied them up, it is as if the owner told him not to use them. However, if they are loose, the owner should expect that the moneychanger might use the coins, and replace them with other coins later on when he returns them. Therefore, if the moneychanger uses them, he has not committed sacrilege. The Talmud explains that in such a case the depositor has committed sacrilege because it is as if he gave the coins to the moneychanger with the explicit permission to use them.",
                    "<b>If [the money was deposited] with a private person, he may not use it in neither case, and therefore if he did spent it he is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  A private person is not supposed to use money deposited with him. Therefore, if he does so and the money is dedicated, he is guilty of sacrilege, whether the money was tied up or given to him loosely.",
                    "<b>A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a money-changer.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a shopkeeper is like a private person. If someone gives him coins, he may not use them, whether they are tied up or loose. Therefore, in both cases, if he uses the coins he has committed sacrilege. Rabbi Judah holds that a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. Therefore, if the coins were given to him loosely he may use them and in such a case the depositor is the one who will have committed sacrilege."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a situation where one dedicated coin is in a bag full of non-sacred coins, but we don’t know which coin it is. If he uses the coins in the bag, at what point is he considered to have committed sacrilege?",
                    "<b>If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, as soon as he spends a perutah from this bag of coins, he is liable for sacrilege, lest that perutah was the holy one. As a penalty he will bring an asham talui (a suspended asham) for every perutah that he spends. This matches Rabbi Akiva’s position in Keritot 5:2 one who has committed a doubtful act of sacrilege must bring an asham talui. If he spends all of the coins in the bag, he will have to bring a certain asham because at that point we know that he has committed sacrilege. The sages hold that he is not liable for sacrilege until it is certain that he has used the dedicated coin. This is consistent with their opinion in Keritot 5:2 one does not bring an asham talui for sacrilege. He is liable for sacrilege only when he spends all of the coins.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.</b>  “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated” is interpreted to mean that the owner will give a perutah from the coins in this bag to the Temple. In other words, none of the coins are holy now, but one will be holy later on. In this case, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that the he is not liable for sacrilege unless he uses all of the coins in the bag. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Meilah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. By dedicating an entire chapter to the topic of sacrilege, we learn just how serious a crime it is to use funds in an inappropriate manner. In modern Hebrew “meilah” is the word for embezzlement, a crime that unfortunately many of our leaders cannot seem to avoid. Meilah teaches us boundaries holy property, dedicated for the spiritual use of the community cannot be used for non-sacred purposes. Furthermore, when one does so, it is not enough just to pay back the embezzled funds. One must add an additional one-fifth and bring a sacrifice to atone for the crime. Although, as always, the technical aspects of this crime overwhelm the rabbinic discussion, there is a moral lesson that lies behind them as well. I hope you have enjoyed Meilah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Tamid."
                ]
            ]
        ]
    },
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעילה",
        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah",
        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
                "enTitle": "Introduction"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "",
                "enTitle": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}