json/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Meilah/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Meilah",
    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
    "status": "locked",
    "priority": 2.0,
    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה מעילה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "<b>Offerings of the most sacred order that</b> were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if <b>one slaughtered them in the south</b> of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as required, are subject to the following <i>halakha</i>: One is liable for <b>misusing them,</b> i.e., one who derives benefit from them must bring a guilt offering and pay the principal and an additional one-fifth of their value. If he improperly <b>slaughtered them in the south</b> of the courtyard <b>and</b> properly <b>collected their blood in the north, or</b> even if he properly slaughtered them <b>in the north</b> of the courtyard <b>but</b> improperly <b>collected their blood in the south,</b> although the more significant rite was performed improperly, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. The same <i>halakha</i> that applies if the location of the sacrificial rites was altered likewise applies if the time of those rites was altered. Accordingly, if <b>one</b> properly <b>slaughtered</b> them <b>during the day and</b> improperly <b>sprinkled</b> their blood <b>at night,</b> or if he improperly slaughtered them <b>at night and</b> properly <b>sprinkled</b> their blood <b>during the day,</b> one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. <b>Or</b> in a case <b>where one slaughtered them</b> with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> rendering it <i>piggul</i>, <b>or outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> disqualifying the offering, he is liable for <b>misusing them</b> if he derives benefit from the animals. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle</b> with regard to misuse of disqualified sacrificial animals: With regard to <b>any</b> sacrificial animal <b>that had a period of fitness to the priests</b> before it was disqualified, one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing it.</b> Misuse applies specifically to items consecrated to God, which are not permitted for human consumption at all. Once the offering was permitted for consumption by the priests, it is no longer in that category. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>any</b> sacrificial animal <b>that did not have a period of fitness for the priests</b> before it was disqualified, one is liable for <b>misusing it</b> if he derives benefit from it, as it remained consecrated to God throughout. <b>Which is</b> the sacrificial animal <b>that had a period of fitness for the priests?</b> This category includes a sacrificial animal <b>whose</b> meat <b>remained overnight</b> after its blood was presented on the altar and therefore came to have the status of <i>notar</i> and was therefore disqualified, <b>and</b> one <b>that</b> was disqualified when it <b>became ritually impure, and</b> one <b>that left</b> the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. All of these disqualifications transpired after consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted, and therefore one who derives benefit from these offerings is not liable for misuse. <b>And which is</b> the sacrificial animal <b>that did not have a period of fitness for the priests?</b> It is a sacrificial animal <b>that was slaughtered</b> with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> or <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area, or</b> one <b>that</b> those <b>unfit</b> for Temple service <b>collected and sprinkled its blood.</b> All of these disqualifications took effect before consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted. The offerings therefore remain consecrated to God, and one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from them.",
            "The mishna presents a dispute with regard to the status of offerings of the most sacred order, which normally are not subject to the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse once their blood has been sprinkled and they have been permitted to the priests. The case of the mishna is <b>the meat of offerings of the most sacred order,</b> whose consumption is permitted from the moment their blood was sprinkled, <b>that left</b> the Temple courtyard <b>before the sprinkling of the blood,</b> and then reentered the courtyard. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The sprinkling of this blood does not permit its consumption by the priests. Consequently, one is liable for <b>misusing it. And</b> he is <b>not liable for</b> eating <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> if he partook of it after it was slaughtered with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood beyond its designated time, <b>or</b> of <b><i>notar</i>,</b> if he partook of the meat after it remained overnight, <b>or</b> of partaking of the meat while <b>ritually impure.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says:</b> The sprinkling is effective despite the fact that the meat left the Temple courtyard and was disqualified, and therefore one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing it.</b> Likewise, other <i>halakhot</i> that apply to offerings whose blood was sprinkled apply to it, <b>and</b> consequently <b>one is liable for</b> eating <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of partaking of meat that is <b><i>piggul</i>, or <i>notar</i>, or</b> remained overnight, <b>or</b> of partaking of the meat while <b>ritually impure.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said,</b> in support of his opinion: <b>But</b> there is the case of <b>one who designated</b> an animal as <b>his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another</b> animal <b>in its stead, and thereafter the first</b> sin offering <b>was found and both of them are standing</b> fit for sacrifice. If he slaughtered both animals at the same time and sprinkled the blood of one of them, which means that the second was disqualified as a leftover sin offering, the question arises as to the status of the meat of the second animal with regard to the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse. <b>Is it not</b> the case that <b>just as</b> the <b>blood</b> of the animal whose blood was sprinkled <b>exempts its meat from</b> liability for its misuse, <b>so</b> too <b>it exempts the meat of the other</b> animal? Since he could have chosen to sprinkle the blood of either animal, they are considered as though they were one offering. If so, one may learn from there by an <i>a fortiori</i> inference with regard to the case of sprinkling the blood of meat that left the courtyard and returned: <b>If</b> the sprinkling of <b>its blood exempted the meat of the other</b> animal <b>from</b> the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>misuse,</b> it is only <b>right that it</b> should <b>exempt its own meat</b> that left the courtyard.",
            "The mishna adds that just as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether the sprinkling of blood exempts meat that left the courtyard from liability for its misuse, so too, they disagree with regard to <b>the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity</b> consumed on the altar <b>that left</b> the Temple courtyard <b>before the sprinkling of the blood.</b> The dispute is whether the subsequent sprinkling of the blood generates liability for misuse of those portions. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective in rendering those portions consecrated to the Lord. Consequently, one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing them. And</b> similarly, <b>one is not liable for their</b> consumption <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i>, <i>notar</i>, or</b> of partaking of meat while <b>ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva says:</b> The sprinkling is effective, and therefore one is liable for <b>misusing them. And</b> likewise, <b>one is liable for its</b> consumption <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i>, <i>notar</i>, or</b> of partaking of the meat while <b>ritually impure.</b>",
            "With regard to establishing liability for misuse of consecrated items, <b>there is</b> an aspect of <b>leniency and</b> an aspect of <b>stringency in the act</b> of sprinkling the <b>blood of offerings of the most sacred order. But</b> with regard to the sprinkling of the blood <b>in</b> the case of <b>offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> it contains <b>in its entirety</b> aspects of <b>stringency,</b> i.e., there are only aspects of stringency. <b>How so?</b> The status of <b>offerings of the most sacred order</b> is that <b>before the sprinkling of blood, one is</b> liable <b>for misusing their sacrificial portions</b> that are to be burned on the altar, <b>and for</b> misusing <b>the meat</b> that is to be eaten by the priests. Since the meat is prohibited prior to sprinkling the blood, it is in the category of items consecrated to God, which are subject to the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse. <b>After the sprinkling of the blood</b> of offerings of the most sacred order, <b>one is</b> still liable <b>for misuse of their sacrificial portions,</b> as they remain prohibited to be eaten and are in the category of items consecrated to God, <b>but one is not</b> liable <b>for misuse of the meat,</b> as it is now permitted for consumption by the priests. This explains how there is an aspect of leniency in the sprinkling of the blood of offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, <b>for</b> consumption of both <b>this,</b> the sacrificial portions, <b>and that,</b> the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, <b>one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition against consumption of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition against consumption of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure.</b> Consequently, <b>the act of</b> sprinkling <b>blood of offerings of the most sacred order</b> is <b>found</b> to contain an aspect of <b>leniency and</b> an aspect of <b>stringency.</b> <b>But with regard to</b> the sprinkling of the blood of <b>offerings of lesser sanctity, all of their</b> aspects are of <b>stringency. How so?</b> The status of <b>offerings of lesser sanctity</b> is that <b>before the sprinkling of</b> the <b>blood, one is not</b> liable for <b>misuse, not for</b> their <b>sacrificial portions nor for the meat. After the sprinkling of</b> the <b>blood, one is</b> liable for <b>misuse of</b> their <b>sacrificial portions, but one is not</b> liable for <b>misuse of the meat.</b> This explains how the sprinkling of the blood in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity causes a stringency in terms of the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse. And <b>for</b> consumption of both <b>this,</b> the sacrificial portions, <b>and that,</b> the meat, after the sprinkling of the blood, <b>one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition against consumption of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and of the prohibition against consumption of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> of the prohibition against consumption of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure.</b> Consequently, in <b>the act of</b> sprinkling the <b>blood of offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> it is <b>found</b> that <b>all of their</b> aspects are of <b>stringency.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>One</b> who derives benefit <b>from a bird sin offering is</b> liable for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property <b>from</b> the moment <b>that it was consecrated.</b> Once the nape of its neck <b>was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one</b> who was ritually impure <b>who immersed</b> in a ritual bath <b>that day</b> and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, <b>and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a <i>zav</i> and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; <b>and through</b> it being <b>left overnight,</b> i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset. Once <b>its blood was sprinkled, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure. But there is no</b> liability for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misusing a bird burnt offering from</b> the moment <b>that it was consecrated.</b> When the nape of its neck <b>was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed</b> in a ritual bath <b>that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight.</b> Once <b>its blood was squeezed out, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure. And</b> as it may not be eaten, <b>one is</b> liable for <b>its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes,</b> where it is burned.",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated.</b> Once <b>they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight.</b> Once <b>its blood was sprinkled, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure. And one is</b> liable for <b>its misuse</b> even when it is <b>in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been</b> completely <b>scorched.</b>",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the burnt offering from</b> the moment <b>that it was consecrated.</b> Once <b>it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight.</b> Once <b>its blood was sprinkled, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure. And one is not</b> liable for <b>misuse of the hides, but one is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.</b>",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated.</b> Once <b>they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight.</b> Once <b>their blood was sprinkled, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>them, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while <b>ritually impure. One is not</b> liable for <b>misuse of the flesh, but one is</b> liable for <b>misuse of their sacrificial portions,</b> i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, <b>until they leave to the place of the ashes.</b>",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the two loaves</b> brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> <b>from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated.</b> Once <b>they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight, and</b> they are rendered eligible <b>to slaughter with them the</b> accompanying <b>offering</b> of the two lambs. Once <b>the blood of</b> the <b>lambs is sprinkled, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating the loaves, <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while <b>ritually impure. And they are not</b> subject to the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>misuse,</b> as at that point their consumption is permitted.",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the shewbread,</b> which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, <b>from</b> the moment <b>that it was consecrated.</b> Once <b>it formed a crust in the oven</b> it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that <b>it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and</b> it is rendered eligible <b>for arrangement upon the Table</b> in the Sanctuary. Once <b>the bowls</b> of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week <b>were sacrificed, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating the loaves <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while <b>ritually impure. But it is not</b> subject to the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>misuse,</b> as at that point its consumption is permitted.",
            "<b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the meal offerings from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated.</b> Once <b>they were consecrated</b> through placement of the flour <b>in</b> a service <b>vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight.</b> <b>Once the handful</b> taken from the meal offering <b>was sacrificed, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating the meal offering <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> and the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while <b>ritually impure. And one is not</b> liable for <b>misuse of the remainder</b> of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, <b>but one is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the handful</b> that is sacrificed, <b>until it leaves to the place of the ashes.</b>",
            "The mishna lists sacrificial items that are consumed in their entirety on the altar and of which the priests have no share. <b>One is</b> liable for <b>misuse of the handful</b> taken from the meal offering, <b>and the frankincense</b> burned with the handful on the altar, <b>and the incense</b> burned each day on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, <b>and the meal offering of priests,</b> from which a handful is not taken but which is burned in its entirety, <b>and the meal offering of the anointed priest,</b> i.e., the High Priest, <b>and the meal offering</b> sacrificed with the <b>libations</b> that accompany offerings. In all these cases, one is liable for misuse <b>from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated</b> through declaration. Once <b>one consecrated them</b> by placing them <b>in</b> the appropriate service <b>vessel,</b> each <b>was rendered susceptible to disqualification</b> for sacrifice <b>through</b> contact with <b>one who immersed</b> in a ritual bath <b>that day, and through</b> contact with <b>one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, <b>and through</b> its blood being <b>left overnight, and one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and due to</b> the prohibition of partaking of it while <b>ritually impure; but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>piggul</i> in</b> each of these cases. <b>This is the principle</b> that applies to <i>piggul</i>: With regard to <b>any</b> consecrated item <b>that has permitting factors,</b> i.e., there is another item whose sacrifice renders it permitted for consumption by the altar or by an individual, <b>one is not liable due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>, and</b> the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of it while <b>ritually impure, until they sacrifice</b> the <b>permitting factors.</b> <b>And</b> with regard to <b>any</b> item <b>that does not have permitting factors,</b> e.g., the handful and the frankincense, as they render other items permitted whereas no other items are needed to render them permitted, <b>once one sanctified</b> them <b>in the</b> appropriate service <b>vessel, one is liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> eating <b>it, due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and</b> the prohibition of partaking of it while <b>ritually impure; but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>piggul</i> in</b> those cases."
        ],
        [
            "This mishna, which also appears in tractate <i>Temura</i>, deals with the five sin offerings left to die. It is cited here because of its relevance to the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse. The mishna first mentions three of those offerings: <b>The offspring of a sin offering, and</b> an animal that is <b>the substitute for a sin offering,</b> whether or not the owners achieved atonement by means of another offering, <b>and a sin offering whose owners have died</b> before the offering was sacrificed, <b>shall die.</b> <b>And</b> the other two sin offerings left to die are the sin offering <b>whose year</b> since birth <b>passed</b> and is therefore unfit for sacrifice, <b>and</b> a sin offering <b>that was lost and</b> when it was <b>found</b> it was <b>blemished,</b> with regard to which the <i>halakhot</i> are as follows: <b>If</b> the sin offering was found <b>after the owner achieved atonement</b> through the sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, then the blemished animal <b>shall die, and it does not render</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute,</b> as it is has neither inherent sanctity, which would make it fit for sacrifice on the altar, nor sanctity that inheres in its value. <b>And</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from the found animal <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if he derived benefit from the animal he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse.</b> <b>And if</b> the animal whose year passed was found <b>before the owner achieved atonement,</b> the found animal <b>shall graze until it becomes blemished [<i>shetista’ev</i>],</b> at which point it may not be sacrificed; <b>and it shall be sold and</b> the owner <b>shall purchase another</b> animal <b>with</b> the <b>money</b> received from <b>its</b> sale. The animal that was found blemished may be sold immediately, and the owner shall purchase another animal with the money received from its sale. In both cases, the animal <b>renders</b> a non-sacred animal exchanged for it <b>a substitute,</b> and one who derives benefit from it is liable for <b>misusing it.</b>",
            "In the case of a nazirite <b>who designated money for</b> the three offerings he is obligated to bring upon completion of <b>his naziriteship,</b> a sin offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering, but he did not specify which money was designated for which offering, since it is not clear what the money is intended for, one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from the money <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if he derived benefit from the money he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse.</b> This is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that all</b> the money <b>is fit</b> for purchase of the <b>peace offering,</b> for which one is liable for misuse only after its blood is sprinkled, and therefore there is no liability for its misuse. If the nazirite <b>died and he had undesignated funds,</b> meaning he did not specify which money was for each of the three offerings, all the money <b>will be allocated for</b> purchase of communal <b>gift</b> offerings. If the nazirite died and he had <b>specified money,</b> the <b>money</b> specified for purchase <b>of</b> the <b>sin offering shall go to the Dead Sea</b> for disposal, because one <b>may not derive benefit</b> <i>ab initio</i> from the money of a sin offering whose owner has died. But if it was not disposed of, <b>and</b> one derived benefit from the money, he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse.</b> With the <b>money</b> specified for purchase <b>of</b> the <b>burnt offering, one shall bring</b> a gift <b>burnt offering, and one is liable for misusing</b> the funds. With the <b>money</b> specified for purchase <b>of</b> the <b>peace offering, one shall bring</b> a gift <b>peace offering.</b> Although it is a gift offering, the restrictions of the peace offering of the naziriteship apply, <b>and</b> therefore it is <b>eaten for one day</b> and that same night, not the standard two days and one night of a regular peace offering. <b>And</b> nevertheless the peace offering <b>does not require</b> the bringing of the <b>loaves</b> that accompany the peace offering of naziriteship, as it is written with regard to the loaves: “And shall place them on the hands of the nazirite” (Numbers 6:19), and in this case the nazirite is dead.",
            "<b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> With regard to misuse of <b>the blood</b> of offerings that is to be sprinkled on the altar, the <i>halakha</i> is <b>lenient</b> with regard to the status of the blood <b>at the outset and stringent at its conclusion.</b> With regard to misuse of the wine of the <b>libations</b> that accompany the offerings, the <i>halakha</i> is <b>stringent</b> with regard to the status of the wine <b>at their outset and lenient at their conclusion.</b> The mishna explains: With regard to <b>blood, at its outset,</b> before it is sprinkled on the altar, <b>one is not liable for misusing</b> it; but once its remainder has been poured on the base of the altar and it <b>emerges</b> via the canal that runs through the Temple <b>to the Kidron Valley</b> at the foot of the Temple Mount, <b>one is liable for misusing it.</b> With regard to <b>libations, at their outset,</b> from the moment they were consecrated, <b>one</b> is liable for <b>misusing them,</b> but once <b>they</b> have <b>descended to the drainpipes</b> built into the altar and which extend beneath it, through which the libations flowed out of the Temple, <b>one is no</b> longer liable for <b>misusing them,</b> as their mitzva was fulfilled and therefore their sanctity has ceased.",
            "With regard to <b>the removal of ash</b> from <b>the inner altar</b> to the place where the ashes lifted from the outer altar are deposited, <b>and</b> similarly with regard to the wicks of <b>the Candelabrum,</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from them <i>ab initio</i>; <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from them he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b> In the case of <b>one who consecrates anew</b> the <b>ash</b> that has been <b>removed,</b> he is liable for <b>misusing it.</b> With regard to <b>doves whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has not arrived,</b> as they are too young, <b>and pigeons whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has passed,</b> as they are too old, one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from them <i>ab initio</i>; <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from them he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b> mishna The previous mishna teaches that one may not derive benefit from doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not arrived and from pigeons whose time of fitness for sacrifice has passed, but one who derived benefit from them is not liable for their misuse. <b>Rabbi Shimon</b> disagrees with this ruling and <b>says:</b> With regard to <b>doves whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has not arrived,</b> one is liable for <b>misusing them.</b> With regard to <b>pigeons whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has passed,</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from them he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the milk of sacrificial</b> animals <b>and the eggs of</b> sacrificial <b>doves,</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from them <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from them after the fact he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b> <b>In what</b> case <b>is this statement,</b> that if one derived benefit from the eggs or milk of sacrificial animals, he is not liable for their misuse, <b>said?</b> It is stated <b>in</b> the case of <b>sacrificial</b> animals offered on the <b>altar,</b> as their eggs and milk are not brought to the altar and therefore they are considered distinct from the offerings themselves. <b>But</b> this is not the <i>halakha</i> <b>in</b> the case of animals that are not sacrificed and are <b>consecrated</b> only <b>for Temple maintenance.</b> For example, if one <b>consecrated a hen</b> he is liable for <b>misusing it and for</b> misusing <b>its egg;</b> if one consecrated <b>a donkey</b> he is liable for <b>misusing it and for</b> misusing <b>its milk,</b> as the animal and its milk, and likewise the hen and its eggs, are both consecrated for Temple maintenance and are deemed a single unit.",
            "With regard to <b>any</b> consecrated item <b>that is fit for</b> sacrifice on <b>the altar</b> <b>but is not</b> fit <b>for Temple maintenance,</b> or if it is fit <b>for Temple maintenance but not for</b> sacrifice on <b>the altar,</b> or fit <b>neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance,</b> nevertheless one is liable for <b>misusing it.</b> The mishna clarifies each of these categories: Fit for Temple maintenance but not for sacrifice on the altar, <b>how so?</b> In a case where <b>one consecrated a cistern full of water,</b> the water is not fit for sacrifice on the altar, as only water from the Siloam pool is used for the altar. Nevertheless, it is fit for Temple maintenance, e.g., to knead clay with it for use in reinforcing the walls of the Temple. What is the case of an item fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated <b>garbage</b> dumps <b>full of manure,</b> the place and its contents are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance. Rather, they are sold and the money received from the sale is donated to the Temple. What is the case of an item fit for sacrifice on the altar but not fit for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated <b>a dovecote full of pigeons,</b> the pigeons are fit for the altar while the dovecote is not fit even for Temple maintenance. Or if one consecrated <b>a tree full of fruit,</b> as the fruit is fit for the altar whereas the tree is not fit even for Temple maintenance. For example, grapes are fit for the altar as wine, but the vines are not fit for Temple maintenance, as they are too flimsy for construction. Another case where the consecrated item is fit for neither the altar nor Temple maintenance is <b>a field full of grass.</b> In all those cases, one is liable for <b>misusing</b> both <b>them and that which is within</b> them, as those that are unfit for use in the Temple will be sold and their money will be used for the altar or for Temple maintenance. <b>But if one consecrated</b> an empty <b>cistern and it was subsequently filled with water,</b> or if one consecrated an empty <b>garbage</b> dump <b>and it was subsequently filled with manure,</b> or an empty <b>dovecote and it was subsequently filled with pigeons,</b> or <b>a tree</b> without fruit <b>and it was subsequently filled with fruit, or</b> an empty <b>field and it was subsequently filled with grass;</b> in all these cases one is liable for <b>misusing them but</b> one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing that which is within</b> them. There is no misuse with regard to enhancements that developed in consecrated property. <b>Rabbi Yosei</b> disagrees in two of the above cases and <b>says:</b> In the case of <b>one who consecrates the</b> empty <b>field</b> in which grass grew <b>or the</b> empty <b>tree</b> on which fruit grew, he is liable for <b>misusing</b> both <b>them and their growth, because these are growths of consecrated</b> property, despite the fact that they grew there only after the property was consecrated. Apropos the growths of consecrated property, the mishna states that <b>an offspring</b> born <b>to a tithed</b> animal before it was tithed <b>may not</b> be given to <b>suckle from the tithed</b> mother, as it is a non-sacred animal that may not be allowed to derive benefit from consecrated property. <b>And</b> there are <b>others</b> who <b>stipulate</b> in <b>this</b> manner, i.e., that the consecration does not apply to the milk. The same is true of the <b>offspring of sacrificial</b> animals born to them before their consecration; they <b>may not suckle from the sacrificial</b> animal. <b>And</b> in this case as well, there are <b>others</b> who <b>stipulate</b> in <b>this</b> manner, i.e., to enable the offspring to suckle. <b>The laborers,</b> who are generally permitted to eat the food of their employer, <b>may not eat from consecrated dried figs,</b> if they work with Temple produce. Rather, they can buy food with the money they are paid. <b>And likewise, a cow</b> working with consecrated property, e.g., threshing Temple produce, may not eat <b>from consecrated vetch [<i>mikarshinei</i>].</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the roots of</b> the non-sacred <b>tree of an ordinary person that enter into consecrated</b> land, <b>and</b> the roots of <b>a consecrated</b> tree <b>that enter into</b> the non-sacred land <b>of an ordinary person,</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from them <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if he derived benefit from them he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b> With regard to water of <b>a spring</b> that flows in a non-sacred field but <b>which emerges from</b> that field and flows <b>into a consecrated field,</b> when it is in the consecrated field one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from it <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from it he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse.</b> Once the spring <b>emerges outside</b> the consecrated field <b>one may derive benefit from</b> the water. With regard to <b>the water that</b> was drawn from the Siloam pool <b>into</b> the <b>golden jug,</b> which was not consecrated as a service vessel, to bring it to the altar for libation on the festival of <i>Sukkot</i>, one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from the water <i>ab initio</i>, as it was drawn for use in the Temple service. <b>But</b> if one derived benefit from it he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse,</b> since it was not consecrated in a service vessel. Once <b>one places</b> the water from the jug for libation <b>into the flask,</b> which is a service vessel, the water is consecrated and he is liable for <b>misusing</b> the water. With regard to the <b>willow</b> branches that are placed on the sides of the altar on the festival of <i>Sukkot</i>, before their placement one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from them <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if he derived benefit from them he is <b>not</b> liable for their <b>misuse.</b> After their placement their mitzva has been fulfilled, and therefore at that time one may derive benefit from the willow branches <i>ab initio</i>. <b>Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The elders were accustomed to derive benefit from</b> the willow branches even before their placement on the sides of the altar, by cutting small branches for use <b>in their <i>lulav</i>,</b> in fulfillment of the mitzva of the four species.",
            "With regard to a bird’s <b>nest that is atop the consecrated tree,</b> one <b>may not derive benefit</b> from it <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if one derived benefit from it he is <b>not</b> liable for its <b>misuse.</b> In order to acquire a bird’s nest <b>that is</b> atop <b>a tree worshipped as idolatry,</b> from which one may not derive benefit even by climbing it, <b>one should dislodge</b> the nest from its place by striking it <b>with a pole.</b> In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> his <b>forest, one is</b> liable for <b>misusing</b> everything <b>in the entire</b> forest. In the case of <b>the</b> Temple <b>treasurers who purchased</b> non-sacred <b>logs</b> to use for repairs in the Temple, one is liable for <b>misusing the wood</b> itself, <b>but</b> one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing</b> the <b>sawdust, nor</b> is he liable <b>for</b> the <b>leaves [<i>baneviyya</i>]</b> that fall from the log, as the treasurers purchased for the Temple only those materials fit for use in its construction."
        ],
        [
            "All items <b>consecrated</b> to be sacrificed on the <b>altar join together</b> to constitute the measure with regard to liability <b>for misuse</b> of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one <i>peruta</i>. <b>And</b> they join together <b>to</b> constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one <b>liable due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i>, or <i>notar</i>, or</b> partaking of the item while <b>ritually impure.</b> All items <b>consecrated</b> for <b>Temple maintenance join together</b> to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. <b>Both</b> items <b>consecrated</b> to be sacrificed on the <b>altar and</b> items <b>consecrated</b> for <b>Temple maintenance join together</b> to constitute the measure with regard to liability <b>for misuse.</b>",
            "<b>Five items in the burnt offering</b> and the accompanying meal offering and libation <b>join together</b> to constitute the one <i>peruta</i> measure with regard to liability for misuse, and the olive-bulk measure with regard to liability for <i>piggul</i>, <i>notar</i>, and partaking of sacrificial foods while ritually impure. They are: <b>The flesh; the fat</b> of the burnt offering that is sacrificed on the altar; <b>the fine flour</b> of the accompanying meal offering; <b>the wine</b> of the accompanying libation; <b>and the oil</b> of the accompanying meal offering. <b>And there are six</b> items <b>in the thanks offering</b> that join together: <b>The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves</b> accompanying the thanks offering. Teruma<b>, and <i>teruma</i> of the tithe, and <i>teruma</i> of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [<i>demai</i>], and <i>ḥalla</i>, and first fruits</b> all <b>join together with one another</b> to constitute the requisite measure <b>to prohibit</b> a mixture with non-sacred produce, <b>and</b> to form the requisite measure of an olive-bulk that serves <b>to</b> render one <b>obligated for their</b> consumption in payment <b>of</b> an additional <b>one-fifth</b> over and above the principal. ",
            "<b>All</b> the pieces of sacrificial meat that are <b><i>piggul</i> join together with one another</b> to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, <b>and all</b> sacrificial meat that is <b><i>notar</i> joins together with one another</b> to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability. <b>All animal carcasses,</b> whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact with them and through carrying, <b>join together with one another</b> to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. <b>And all repugnant creatures join together with one another</b> to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. The eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah join together to constitute the measure of a lentil-bulk, which transmits impurity through contact, and to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. <b>The blood of</b> one of <b>the</b> eight <b>creeping animals</b> listed in the Torah <b>and</b> their <b>flesh join together</b> to constitute the lentil-bulk measure to impart impurity. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> items <b>whose impurity,</b> in terms of degree and duration, <b>and measure</b> to impart impurity, <b>are equal,</b> e.g., two halves of an olive-bulk from two corpses or two animal carcasses or two halves of a lentil-bulk from two creeping animals, <b>they join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure. Rabbi Yehoshua continued: By contrast, with regard to items whose <b>impurity</b> is equal <b>but</b> their <b>measure</b> is <b>not</b> equal, e.g., a creeping animal and an animal carcass, each of which renders one impure until the evening, but the measure of a creeping animal is a lentil-bulk, whereas that of an animal carcass is an olive-bulk; or items whose <b>measure</b> is equal <b>but whose impurity</b> is <b>not</b> equal, e.g., a corpse and an animal carcass, with regard to which the measure of each is an olive-bulk, but the duration of the impurity imparted by a corpse is one week and the duration of the impurity imparted by an animal carcass is until the evening; or items that are equal <b>neither in</b> terms of <b>their impurity</b> nor in terms of <b>their measure, they do not join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure. ",
            "Sacrificial meat that is <b><i>piggul</i> and</b> sacrificial meat that is <b><i>notar</i> do not join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk, <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that they</b> belong to <b>two</b> separate <b>categories</b> of prohibition. The flesh of the carcass of <b>the creeping animal and</b> the flesh of <b>the animal carcass, and likewise</b> the flesh of <b>the animal carcass and the flesh of the corpse, do not join together to transmit ritual impurity,</b> not <b>even for the</b> more <b>lenient of the two</b> impurities, i.e., the impurity that requires the greater measure. <b>The food that became ritually impure</b> through contact <b>with a primary source of ritual impurity,</b> thereby assuming first-degree ritual impurity, <b>and</b> the food <b>that became ritually impure</b> through contact <b>with a secondary source of ritual impurity,</b> thereby assuming second-degree ritual impurity, <b>join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk <b>to transmit impurity in accordance with the</b> more <b>lenient of the two,</b> i.e., second-degree ritual impurity. ",
            "<b>All the</b> ritually impure <b>foods join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure <b>to disqualify the body [<i>hageviyya</i>]</b> of one who eats <b>half of a half-loaf-bulk [<i>peras</i>]</b> of the impure foods from partaking of <i>teruma</i>. Likewise, all foods join together to constitute the requisite measure <b>of food</b> sufficient for <b>two meals, to</b> establish <b>a joining of</b> Shabbat <b>boundaries; and</b> to form the requisite measure <b>of an egg-bulk, to render</b> an item <b>impure</b> with <b>the ritual impurity of food; and</b> to form the measure <b>of</b> a dried <b>fig-bulk,</b> which establishes liability <b>for carrying out</b> food on <b>Shabbat; and</b> to form the volume <b>of a large date,</b> which establishes liability for eating <b>on Yom Kippur. All the liquids join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure <b>to disqualify the body of</b> one who drinks <b>a quarter-<i>log</i></b> of ritually impure liquid from partaking of <i>teruma</i>; <b>and</b> to constitute the measure <b>of a cheekful,</b> which establishes liability for drinking <b>on Yom Kippur.</b> ",
            "<b>The fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [<i>orla</i>]</b> (see Leviticus 19:23), <b>and diverse kinds,</b>i.e., grain sown <b>in a vineyard</b> (see Deuteronomy 22:9) <b>join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture that they are mixed into. This applies when the volume of the permitted produce is less than two hundred times the prohibited produce. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: They do not join together.</b> A garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity, by means of ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a <i>zav</i>. A sack made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths, while an animal hide must be five by five, and a mat six by six. <b>The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide,</b> and <b>the hide and the mat all join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure to become ritually impure in accordance with the material of the greater measure. <b>Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason</b> that they join together, despite the fact that their requisite measures are not equal? <b>Because</b> all the component materials <b>are fit to become ritually impure</b> through the ritual impurity imparted <b>to a seat</b> upon which a <i>zav</i> sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since the measure of all these materials is equal in the case of a <i>zav</i>, they join together for other forms of ritual impurity as well."
        ],
        [
            "<b>One who derives benefit equal to</b> the value of <b>one <i>peruta</i> from a consecrated item, even though he did not damage</b> it, is <b>liable for</b> its <b>misuse;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> consecrated <b>item that has</b> the potential to be <b>damaged,</b> one is <b>not liable for misuse until he</b> causes it one <i>peruta</i> of <b>damage; and</b> with regard to an item <b>that does not have</b> the potential to be <b>damaged, once he derives benefit</b> from it he is <b>liable for misuse.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>How so?</b> If a woman <b>placed</b> a consecrated gold <b>chain [<i>ketala</i>] around her neck,</b> or a gold <b>ring on her hand,</b> i.e., her finger, or if <b>one drank from</b> a consecrated <b>gold cup,</b> since they are not damaged through use, <b>once he derives benefit</b> equal to the value of one <i>peruta</i> from them, he is <b>liable for misuse.</b> If <b>one wore</b> a consecrated <b>robe, covered</b> himself <b>with</b> a consecrated <b>garment,</b> or <b>chopped</b> wood <b>with</b> a consecrated <b>ax,</b> he is <b>not liable for misuse until he</b> causes them one <i>peruta</i> of <b>damage.</b> <b>One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive</b> is <b>not liable for misuse until he</b> causes it one <i>peruta</i> of <b>damage. When it is dead, once he derives benefit</b> equal to the value of <b>one <i>peruta</i></b> from it, he is <b>liable for misuse.</b>",
            "If <b>one derived benefit</b> equal <b>to half</b> of <b>a <i>peruta</i></b> from a consecrated item <b>and caused</b> it <b>half of a <i>peruta</i> of damage, or if he derived benefit</b> equal to <b>the value of one <i>peruta</i> from</b> a consecrated <b>item</b> that has the potential to be damaged <b>and caused damage of the value of one <i>peruta</i> to another</b> consecrated <b>item</b> but derived no benefit from it, he is exempt. The reason is that <b>one is not liable for misuse until he derives benefit of the value of one <i>peruta</i></b> from a consecrated item <b>and causes damage of the value of one <i>peruta</i> to one,</b> i.e., the same <b>item.</b>",
            "One is liable for <b>misuse after misuse in consecrated items only</b> in the case of <b>an animal and</b> in the case of <b>service vessels.How so?</b> If <b>one rode upon</b> a sacrificial <b>animal, and another</b> person <b>came and rode</b> upon that animal, <b>and</b> yet <b>another came and rode</b> upon it as well, <b>all of them are liable for misuse</b> of the animal. In the case of service vessels, if <b>one drank from a gold cup, and another came and drank</b> from that cup, <b>and</b> yet <b>another</b> individual <b>came and drank</b> from it, <b>all of them are liable for misuse</b> of the cup. If <b>one removed</b> wool <b>from a sin offering, and another came and removed</b> wool from that animal, <b>and</b> yet <b>another</b> person <b>came and removed</b> wool from it, <b>all of them are liable for misuse</b> of the animal. <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> consecrated <b>item that is not subject to redemption, there is</b> liability for <b>misuse after misuse with regard to it.</b>",
            "In a case where <b>one took</b> for his use <b>a consecrated stone or a beam, that</b> person <b>is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> If <b>he gave</b> the stone or the beam <b>to another, he is liable for</b> its <b>misuse and the other</b> person <b>is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> If <b>he built</b> the stone or the beam <b>into his house, he is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse until he resides beneath it</b> and derives benefit equal to <b>the value of one <i>peruta</i></b> from it. If <b>one took</b> for his use <b>a consecrated <i>peruta</i>, that</b> person <b>is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> If <b>he gave</b> the <i>peruta</i> <b>to another, he is liable for</b> its <b>misuse and the other</b> person <b>is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> If <b>he gave</b> the <i>peruta</i> <b>to a bathhouse attendant [<i>levallan</i>], although he did not bathe, he is liable for misuse</b> of the <i>peruta</i>. The reason is <b>that</b> at the moment he receives the <i>peruta</i>, the attendant in effect <b>says to</b> the owner of the <i>peruta</i>: <b>The bathhouse is open before you, enter and bathe.</b> The benefit derived from that availability is worth one <i>peruta</i>.",
            "<b>One’s consumption</b> of half of a <i>peruta</i> of consecrated food <b>and another’s consumption</b> of half of a <i>peruta</i> of consecrated food that the first person fed him; and likewise <b>one’s benefit</b> of half of a <i>peruta</i> derived from a consecrated item <b>and another’s benefit</b> of half of a <i>peruta</i> derived from a consecrated item that the first person provided him; and similarly <b>one’s consumption and another’s benefit</b> derived or <b>one’s benefit</b> derived <b>and another’s consumption,</b> all these <b>join together</b> to constitute the requisite measure of one <i>peruta</i> for liability for misuse, <b>and</b> that is the <i>halakha</i> <b>even if much time</b> has passed between these various acts of consumption and deriving of benefit."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>an agent who performed his agency</b> properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, <b>the homeowner,</b> who appointed him, <b>is liable for misuse</b> of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he <b>did not perform his agency</b> properly, <b>the agent is liable for misuse</b> of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him. <b>How so?</b> If the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver;</b> or if he said: Give them <b>liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse</b> of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Give them</b> meat, <b>a piece</b> for this guest and <b>a piece</b> for that guest, <b>and</b> the agent <b>says:</b> Each of you <b>take two</b> pieces, <b>and</b> each of the guests <b>took three</b> pieces, <b>all of them are liable for misuse.</b> The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent. If the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Bring me</b> this item or this money <b>from the window</b> in the wall <b>or from the chest [<i>hadeluskema</i>], and</b> the agent obeyed and <b>brought</b> it <b>to him</b> from the place that he instructed him, <b>even though the homeowner said: In my heart,</b> my desire was <b>only</b> that he should bring me the item <b>from that</b> other place, <b>and</b> as <b>he brought</b> it <b>from</b> this place he did not fulfill my instructions, nevertheless <b>the homeowner is liable for misuse</b> if the item or money is consecrated, as the agent did in fact fulfill his instructions. <b>But</b> if the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Bring me</b> this item or this money <b>from the window</b> in the wall, <b>and</b> the agent <b>brought</b> it <b>to him from the chest; or</b> if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money <b>from the chest, and</b> the agent <b>brought</b> it <b>to him from the window, the agent is liable for misuse.</b>",
            "In a case where the homeowner <b>sent</b> consecrated money <b>in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,</b> who lack halakhic competence and cannot be commissioned as agents, in order to purchase an item from a storekeeper, <b>if they performed his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse,</b> as his instructions were fulfilled. If <b>they did not perform his agency</b> but purchased a different item from the storekeeper, <b>the storekeeper is liable for misuse.</b> If the homeowner <b>sent</b> the money <b>in the hand of</b> a halakhically <b>competent</b> person <b>and</b> the homeowner <b>remembered</b> that the money was consecrated <b>before</b> the agent <b>reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends</b> the money for his personal use. The homeowner is exempt from liability for misuse, because once he remembers that the money is consecrated his misuse is no longer unwitting, and one is liable to bring an offering for misuse only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property. <b>What shall</b> the homeowner <b>do</b> in a case where he remembers that the money is consecrated, in order to prevent the storekeeper from liability for misuse? <b>He takes one <i>peruta</i> or a vessel and says:</b> The <b>consecrated <i>peruta</i>, wherever it may be, is desacralized with this</b> <i>peruta</i> or vessel. The <i>peruta</i> is thereby desacralized, <b>as a consecrated item is desacralized with money and with</b> an item that has <b>the equivalent</b> value of <b>money.</b> The result is that the storekeeper spends non-sacred money.",
            "If the homeowner <b>gave</b> the agent <b>one</b> consecrated <b><i>peruta</i></b> and <b>said to him: Bring me lamps [<i>nerot</i>] with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, and</b> the agent <b>went and brought him wicks with the entire</b> <i>peruta</i>, <b>or lamps with the entire</b> <i>peruta</i>; <b>or</b> in a case <b>where</b> the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Bring me lamps with the entire</b> <i>peruta</i> <b>or wicks with the entire</b> <i>peruta</i>, <b>and</b> the agent <b>went and brought</b> him <b>lamps with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, both of them are not liable</b> for misuse of the <i>peruta</i>. In both cases, the homeowner is exempt because his instructions were fulfilled only with regard to half of a <i>peruta</i>, and the agent is exempt as he spent only half of a <i>peruta</i> on his own initiative. <b>But if</b> the homeowner <b>said to</b> the agent: <b>Bring me lamps from such and such place with one-half of</b> the <i>peruta</i> <b>and wicks from such and such place with one-half of</b> the <i>peruta</i>, <b>and</b> the agent <b>went and brought him lamps from the place</b> that he designated for <b>wicks, and wicks from the place</b> that he designated for <b>lamps, the agent is liable for misuse,</b> as he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by the sum of an entire <i>peruta</i>.",
            "If the homeowner <b>gave</b> the agent <b>two</b> consecrated <b><i>perutot</i>, and said to him: Go and bring me an <i>etrog</i>, and he went and brought him an <i>etrog</i> with one</b> <i>peruta</i> <b>and a pomegranate with one</b> <i>peruta</i>, <b>both of them are liable for misuse.</b> The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the sum of one <i>peruta</i>, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions with one <i>peruta</i>. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he</b> can <b>say to</b> the agent: <b>I was seeking a large <i>etrog</i></b> worth two <i>perutot</i>, <b>and you brought me a small, inferior</b> <i>etrog</i> worth one <i>peruta</i>. If the homeowner <b>gave</b> the agent a consecrated <b>gold dinar,</b> which is worth twenty-five silver dinars, as four silver dinars constitute a <i>sela</i>; <b>and said to</b> the agent: <b>Go and bring me a robe,</b> <b>and</b> the agent <b>went and brought him a robe with three</b> <i>sela</i> <b>and a cloak with three</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>both of them are liable for misuse.</b> The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the purchase of the robe for three <i>sela</i>, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by purchasing the cloak. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The <b>homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he</b> can <b>say to</b> the agent: <b>I was seeking a large robe</b> worth a gold dinar <b>and you brought me a small, inferior</b> robe worth three <i>sela</i>, i.e., twelve silver dinars.",
            "With regard to <b>one who deposits</b> consecrated <b>money with a money changer, if</b> the money <b>is bound,</b> the money changer <b>may not use it. Therefore, if</b> the money changer <b>spent</b> the money, <b>he is liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> If the money <b>was unbound he may use it,</b> and <b>therefore if</b> the money changer <b>spent</b> the money, <b>he is not liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> By contrast, if one deposited money <b>with a homeowner, whether</b> it <b>is bound or whether</b> it <b>is unbound,</b> the one with whom it was deposited <b>may not use it,</b> and <b>therefore if he spent</b> the money, <b>he is liable for misuse.</b> In this regard, the halakhic status of <b>a storekeeper is like</b> that of <b>a homeowner;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The halakhic status of a storekeeper is <b>like</b> that of <b>a money changer.</b>",
            "If <b>a consecrated <i>peruta</i> fell into one’s purse,</b> in which there were non-sacred <i>perutot</i>, <b>or</b> in a case <b>where one said: One <i>peruta</i> in this purse is consecrated, once he spent the first</b> <i>peruta</i> from the purse for non-sacred purposes, <b>he is liable for</b> its <b>misuse.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say:</b> He is not liable for misuse <b>until he spends</b> all the <i>perutot</i> <b>in the entire purse,</b> as only then is it certain that he spent the consecrated <i>peruta</i>. <b>And Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in</b> a case where <b>one says: One <i>peruta</i> from</b> the coins in <b>this purse is consecrated, that he may continue spending</b> the <i>perutot</i> in the purse for non-sacred purposes and becomes liable for misuse only <b>once he spends</b> all the <i>perutot</i> <b>in the entire purse.</b> His formulation indicates that his desire was that the final remaining <i>peruta</i> in the purse would be consecrated, and therefore one is liable for misuse only when he spends that <i>peruta</i>."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}