יג הדש קלעילין בשדה הקדש מעל והא בתלוש בעינן אמר רבינא ש"מ אבקה מעלי לה
13 MAY NOT ENJOY OF DRY FIGS DEDICATED TO THE TEMPLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law that labourers may eat of fruits on which they work, Deut. XXIII, 25, applies to private property only, for the text speaks of 'the neighbour's vineyard'. v. B.M. 87a.');"><sup>12</sup></span> NOR MAY A COW EAT OF THE VETCH BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A cow which belongs to private property may be muzzled while thrashing the vetch of the Temple, for the law of Deut. XXV, 4 does not apply to Temple property.');"><sup>13</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It says: 'THE YOUNG OF CATTLE SET ASIDE AS TITHE MAY NOT SUCK FROM SUCH CATTLE'. Wherefrom do we know this? Said R'Ahadboi, son of Ammi, It is derived from the first-born by textual analogy based on the word 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., occurring in Ex. XIII, 12 and Lev. XXVII, 32.');"><sup>14</sup></span> occurring in both texts]: As the first-born<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first-born is a male animal. Its sacredness appertains to the whole body, as also in the case of tithe the sanctity attaches to the whole body, including the milk.');"><sup>15</sup></span> is subject to the Law of Sacrilege, so also the milk of cattle set aside as tithe is subject to the of Sacrilege. As to milk of consecrated cattle, it is derived from the first-born [by textual analogy based on the words] 'his mother'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., occurring in Ex. XXII, 29 and Lev. XXII, 27.');"><sup>16</sup></span> [occurring in both texts]. LABOURERS MAY NOT ENJOY etc. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a cow may not eat the vetch belonging to the Temple.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Said R'Ahadboi, son of Ammi, Scripture says: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 4. uahsc');"><sup>18</sup></span> what he treadeth of your own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pronoun of is taken to refer to the owner and not to the ox.');"><sup>19</sup></span> but not of Temple property. If one threshes [his] kela'ilin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi and Tosaf.: A kind of cereall Jastrow identifies this with kela'ilin ('wool') of Men. 42b.');"><sup>20</sup></span> in a field belonging to the Temple he is guilty of sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For using property of the sanctuary.');"><sup>21</sup></span> But has it not to be detached from the ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only things detached from the ground are subject to the Law of Sacrilege. cf. infra 18b.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - Said Rabina: This proves that the dust<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is detached from the ground. He is guilty for using the dust belonging to Temple property.');"><sup>23</sup></span> is beneficial to it [kela'ilin]. [