Meilah 37

Chapter 37

א עד שיצא מן הקדש לחול

1 there is no liability except when [the food] has been transferred from sacred possession1

ב מן הקדש לקדש כגון לקח קיני זבים וקיני זבות וקיני יולדות

2 into secular ownership,2

ג ושקל שקלו והביא חטאתו ואשמו מן ההקדש כיון שהוציא מעל דברי ר' שמעון רבי יהודה אומר עד שיזרוק הדם מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ה, טו) תמעול מעל מכל מקום

3 [so also with the word 'sin' used in connection with sacrilege]; whence do we know [that the Law of Sacrilege applies] when consecrated money has been misappropriated and used for other sacred purposes; e.g. , if he purchased with it the bird-offerings of a zab or a zabah,3 or of a woman after confinement,4 or has paid therewith his shekel,5 or if one has offered his sin- or guiltoffering from sacred money, in which case one is liable to sacrilege at the moment of misappropriation according to R'Simeon and at the time of the sprinkling according to R'Judah. Whence do we know all this?

ד אמר מר נפש אחד היחיד ואחד הנשיא ואחד המשוח במשמע שיכול מאי פשיטא נפש כתיב

4 The text reads: 'Commit a trespass': whatever the form may be. The Master said: It is written, 'If any one [commit a trespass]', to imply the ordinary man as well as the Prince or the Anointed [Priest]. What else might one have assumed? Is this not obvious, 'If any one' is written [distinctly]? - I might have thought, The Divine Law says: And whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger [he shall be cut off from among his people],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 33. The text deals with the anointing oil. From which it follows that he upon whom the oil is put by law is not to be considered a 'stranger' in respect of Temple property.');">6

ה מהו דתימא אמר רחמנא (שמות ל, לג) ואשר יתן ממנו על זר והאי לאו זר הוא דהא אימשח בגוויה קמ"ל

5 and this one7 is not a stranger, since he had been anointed therewith.8

ו ואקשה רחמנא לסוטה ולעבודת כוכבים ולתרומה לסוטה דאף על גב דלא פגם גבי הקדש נמי נתנה טבעת בידה מעלה

6 Therefore the amplification mentioned was necessary. The Divine Law has drawn an analogy between [the Law of Sacrilege on the one hand] and [the laws concerning] the suspected woman,9 idolatry and terumah [on the other].

ז כי אקשה רחמנא לעבודת כוכבים דעד דאית בה שינוי גבי הקדש נמי עד דביקע בקרדום ויפגם ופגום

7 [It is compared] to the law concerning the suspected woman: [Just as the law applies] even though there was no deterioration,10

ח אקשה רחמנא לתרומה מה תרומה (ויקרא כב, יד) כי יאכל פרט למזיק גבי הקדש נמי כל דבר אכילה כי מזיק ליה פטור

8 so also with consecrated property;11

ט כיצד נתנה קטלא כו' אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב זביד ודהבא לאו בר איפגומי הוא והא דהבא דכלתיה דנון להיכא אזל

9 if [a woman] has [e.g. ,] put a ring on her finger she is guilty of sacrilege. And the Divine Law compared it to the law of idolatry: Just as the latter [applies] only when a change has taken place,12 so also in the case of consecrated property.13 One is not guilty when one has chopped wood with an axe [belonging to the Temple] unless it has been impaired.

י אמר ליה דלמא דהבא דרמיין כלתיך הוא ועוד נהי דלא איכא נהנה ופגם לאלתר לעולם מי לא איכא פגימה

10 The Divine Law was compared to the law of terumah: Just as in the case of terumah [the words] 'if one has eaten'14 exclude the one who damages [terumah],15 so also with consecrated things: If one has damaged anything eatable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah, from which this restrictive law is derived, consists always of edibles. The derived rule applies, therefore, also in the case of sacred property to edibles only.');">16 he is exempted from the Law of Sacrilege.

יא הנהנה מן החטאת וכו' מכדי אי בבהמה תמימה היינו כוס של זהב א"ר פפא בבעלת מום עסקינן

11 FOR INSTANCE, IF [A WOMAN] HAS PUT A NECKLACE. Said R'Kahana to R'Zebid: Does gold indeed not deteriorate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general rule of the Mishnah is exemplified by a golden cup. It must, therefore, be assumed that gold is considered a material which does not deteriorate through use.');">17 Whither, then, has the gold of Nun's daughter-in-law gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This alludes according to Rashi and Tosaf. to a man called Nun who presented his daughters-in-law with golden vessels which after a time were found to have lost in weight.');">18 - He retorted: Perhaps the gold was thrown about19 as your daughter in-law used to do. And besides, admitted this is not a case where there is enjoyment and immediate deterioration [of the used article], but [can you say] it will never deteriorate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus lit.: When the rule of the Mishnah speaks of deterioration it can only mean immediate deterioration, for nothing remains unimpaired after a sufficiently long time.');">20 IF ONE HAS DERIVED A BENEFIT FROM A SIN-OFFERING etc. Now, consider:, if this refers to an animal that has no blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is to be offered upon the altar, whether it be fat or grows lean, any deterioration of the animal is irrelevant with regard to its purpose. Consequently it is to be compared to the case of the golden cup.');">21 [do you not agree that] it would be analogous to the case of the golden cup? - Said R'Papa: It refers indeed to one with a blemish.22

Previous Chapter Next Chapter