Meilah 39
נטל פרוטה של הקדש ה"ז לא מעל נתנה לחברו הוא מעל וחברו לא מעל
IF HE TOOK A PERUTAH FROM TEMPLE PROPERTY HE HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, BUT AS SOON AS HE GAVE IT TO HIS FELLOW HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, WHILE HIS FELLOW IS NOT GUILTY; IF HE GAVE IT TO THE BATHING KEEPER, HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT BATHED, FOR [THE MASTER] CAN SAY TO HIM, BEHOLD THE BATH IS READY FOR YOU, GO IN AND BATHE.
נתנה לבלן אע"פ שלא רחץ מעל שהוא אומר לו הרי המרחץ פתוח לפניך הכנס ורחוץ
THE PORTION WHICH A PERSON HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN TO HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS EATEN HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO MAKE USE OF, OR THE PORTION WHICH HE HAS MADE USE OF HIMSELF AND THAT WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS NEIGHBOUR TO EAT CAN RESPECTIVELY COMBINE WITH ONE ANOTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make up the requisite value of a perutah.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ש הוא ומ"ש חבירו
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why should not the mere appropriation of consecrated goods be a culpable act.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
בגזבר המסורות לו עסקינן
- Said Samuel: It refers to the Temple treasurer in whose trust these articles were.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as the treasurer has not parted with the article it is considered as if it was deposited with him.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
למה לי עד שידור תחתיה
[Should he not be guilty of sacrilege at all events] since the beam has been transformed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., cut and planed and adapted to the measures of the building. The change of form of a misappropriated object effects its definite transfer into the possession of the illegitimate holder in so far as he is no longer obliged to return the object itself, but may pay its value. Cf. B.K. 65b.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר רב
When, however, he built it in, it is agreed that he is guilty of Sacrilege;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the beam is now something attached to the ground. The Law of Sacrilege does not apply to things attached to the ground. v. supra 18b.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
וכיון דבני לה מיהת מעל
For Rab said: If a man worships a house, he renders it prohibited for use?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 47a. He holds that movable things. such as stones and mortar, which are fixed to the ground. retain their status of movables and are forbidden for any use if worshipped. Originally immovable things are not prohibited for use if worshipped. V. ibid. 45a.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לימא מסייע ליה לרב דאמר רב
Said R'Aha son of R'Ika: As to sacrilege, the Torah has prohibited any benefit which is visible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ruling of our Mishnah does not result from the fact that the beam is still considered a movable object, but that any visible benefit, whether derived from consecrated property. whether movable or immovable, is regarded as sacrilege.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
הנאה הנראת לעינים אסרה תורה
he is guilty of sacrilege as soon as he has derived therefrom the benefit [of a perutah's worth]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the material of a house is considered movable though it is built into the house.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
הדר בבית של הקדש כיון שנהנה ממנה מעל
was consecrated and then [the house] built.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the Law of Sacrilege has already taken full effect upon the object, before it was fixed to the ground. Different it might be with immovable property, such as houses, which were consecrated when already attached to the ground. The latter case seems to be implied in Rab's interpretation of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>13</sup></span>
מאי איריא רהיט ותני הדר בבית של מערה לא מעל לימא הדר בבית של אבנים שבנאו ולבסוף הקדישו לא מעל
Why not state [instead]: If one has dwelt in a house of stones which he had first built and then consecrated, he is not liable to the Law of Sacrilege? - They replied: That instance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that of the cave.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
מתני׳ <big><strong>השליח</strong></big> שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו השליח מעל כיצד אמר לו תן בשר לאורחים ונתן להם כבד כבד ונתן להם בשר השליח מעל אמר לו תן להם חתיכה חתיכה והוא אומר טלו שתים והם נטלו שלש כולם מעלו:
IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT IF HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man has charged another person to make use on his behalf of consecrated things, both of them being ignorant of the transgression that they were committing thereby, and the agent carried out his commission exactly as he was told, his employer is guilty, because the Law of Sacrilege prescribing a guilt-offering as atonement for sacrilege applies only to an act committed in error as indicated in Lev. V, 15, and it was the employer who first trespassed in error. In this respect the Law of Sacrilege is an exception, for the general rule is that one cannot appoint a deputy for an unlawful act, v. supra 18b. If, however, the agent departed substantially from the task with which he was charged, his act is considered independent of his commission, and he is himself subject to the Law of Sacrilege.');"><sup>19</sup></span> FOR INSTANCE: IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: GIVE FLESH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to Temple property.');"><sup>20</sup></span> TO THE GUESTS AND HE OFFERED THEM LIVER, LIVER AND HE OFFERED THEM FLESH, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: 'GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH', AND HE SAID TO THEM: 'TAKE TWO PIECES EACH', WHILE THE GUESTS THEMSELVES TOOK THREE PIECES EACH, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRllege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer, because in respect of the first piece his order has been carried out, the agent because he exceeded his power in respect of the second piece and the guests because they misappropriated the third piece on their own accord.');"><sup>21</sup></span>