## Meilah Daf 14a

###### Meilah 14a:1
[Meilah 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:1)

גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲסוּרָה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Connected with the mishna’s discussion of idol worship it **was stated:** In the case of an object of **idol worship that broke by itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It is **prohibited** to derive benefit from it, as the fact that it is broken does not constitute nullification, **and Reish Lakish says:** It is **permitted** to derive benefit from it.


###### Meilah 14a:2
[Meilah 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:2)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲסוּרָה – דְּלָא בַּטְּלַהּ גּוֹי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת – מֵימָר אָמַר: הִיא גּוּפַהּ לָא מַצְּלָה, לְדִידִי מַצְּלָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies their opinions: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** it is **prohibited, as a gentile did not nullify** the object of idol worship, and its status is nullified only if a gentile broke it with the intention of nullifying it. **And Reish Lakish says** it is **permitted,** as it can be presumed that its gentile owner, upon seeing that it was broken, would have nullified it, **saying** to himself: If the object of idol worship could **not** even **save itself** from destruction, will it **save me** from harm?


###### Meilah 14a:3
[Meilah 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַקֵּן שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ הָאִילָן שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – אֵין נֶהֱנִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין. שֶׁבָּאֲשֵׁירָה יַתִּיז בְּקָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan** from the mishna: With regard to **the** bird’s **nest that is atop the consecrated tree,** one **may not derive benefit** from it *ab initio*, **but** if he derived benefit from it he is **not** liable for its **misuse.** In order to acquire a bird’s nest **that is** atop **the tree worshipped as idolatry one should dislodge** the nest by striking it **with a pole.**


###### Meilah 14a:4
[Meilah 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:4)

מַאי לָאו דְּאִיתְּבַר מִגּוּפַהּ, וְקָתָנֵי, יַתִּיז בְּקָנֶה? לָא, דְּאַיְיתִי עֵצִים מֵעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish analyzes the second *halakha*: **What, is it not** referring to a case where the nest was built from branches **that broke** off **from** the worshipped tree **itself, and** yet the mishna **teaches: One should dislodge** it by striking it **with a pole?** This indicates that branches that are broken off are permitted, despite the fact that they were not broken off by a gentile. Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: **No,** there is no proof from the mishna, as it is referring to a case **where** the bird **brought branches from elsewhere,** not from the worshipped tree itself.


###### Meilah 14a:5
[Meilah 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:5)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין נֶהֱנִין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish rejects this answer: **If so, why** does the mishna teach in the parallel case **of a consecrated** tree, where presumably the nest was likewise built of branches brought from elsewhere, that one **may not derive benefit** from it *ab initio*, **but** if one derived benefit from it he is **not** liable for its **misuse?** If the nest was built from non-sacred material, why is one not permitted to derive benefit from it *ab initio*?


###### Meilah 14a:6
[Meilah 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:6)

אֶלָּא, בְּגִידּוּלִין הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר מִכָּאן, וְקָסָבַר אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּגִידּוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the mishna must be discussing cases where the nest was constructed from branches that came from the tree in which it was built, and it is referring **to growths** of consecrated property **that came afterward,** i.e., after the property was consecrated. **And** the *tanna* of the mishna **holds** one is **not** liable for **misusing growths** of consecrated property, but it is prohibited to derive benefit from them *ab initio*.


###### Meilah 14a:7
[Meilah 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:7)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאַיְיתִי מֵעָלְמָא, אַמַּאי יַתִּיז בְּקָנֶה? לִשְׁקְלֵיהּ מִשְׁקָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **This, too, stands to reason,** that the mishna is referring to a case where the nest was built of branches from the tree in which it is located, **as, if** it **enters your mind** that the mishna is referring to a case **where** the bird **brought** the branches **from elsewhere, why,** in the case of the tree worshipped as idolatry, must one **dislodge** it from its place by striking it **with a pole? Let him take it** directly without using a pole.


###### Meilah 14a:8
[Meilah 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם דְּאַיְיתִי מֵעָלְמָא, וּמַאי ״יַתִּיז״? יַתִּיז אֶפְרוֹחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in response to this question: **Actually,** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the bird **brought** the branches **from elsewhere, and what** is the meaning of the clause: **One should dislodge?** It does not mean he should dislodge the nest with a pole, but rather he **should dislodge** the **chicks** that are in the nest. Since it is difficult to take the chicks without climbing the tree, as they can move, there is more of a concern in this case that he might climb the tree, in which case he would be deriving benefit from it, which is prohibited.


###### Meilah 14a:9
[Meilah 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אֶפְרוֹחִים כָּאן וְכָאן – מוּתָּרִין. בֵּיצִים, כָּאן וְכָאן – אֲסוּרִין. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם אֶפְרוֹחִים צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן – כְּבֵיצִים דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya:** With regard to **chicks** that can fly away and are not confined to this specific tree, both **here and there,** i.e., both in the case of a consecrated tree and in the case of a worshipped tree, it is **permitted** to derive benefit from them. But with regard to **eggs,** both **here and there,** it is **prohibited** to derive benefit from them, as they are dependent on the prohibited tree. **Rav Ashi** further **says: If** the **chicks** are young and still **need their mother** to survive they **are considered like eggs,** i.e., they have the same status as eggs and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.


###### Meilah 14a:10
[Meilah 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַגִּזְבָּרִים שֶׁלָּקְחוּ עֵצִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּעֵצִים, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין לֹא בַּשִּׁיפּוּיי וְלֹא בַּנְּבִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **the** Temple **treasurers who purchased** non-sacred **logs** to use for repairs in the Temple, one is liable for **misusing the wood** itself, **but** one is **not** liable for **misusing** the **sawdust, nor** is he liable **for** the **leaves [*baneviyya*]** that fall from the log, as the treasurers purchased for the Temple only those materials fit for use in its construction.


###### Meilah 14a:11
[Meilah 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹנִין בַּחוֹל וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says** that the method of construction in the Temple, for repairs or improvements, is as follows: One **builds** the structures in the Temple **with non-sacred** materials, **and afterward consecrates** those materials upon completion of the work.


###### Meilah 14a:12
[Meilah 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:12)

מַאי טַעְמָא? מַאן דְּמִתְנַדֵּב מָעוֹת מַקְדֵּשׁ לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר: ״תֵּיחוּל קְדוּשַּׁת מָעוֹת אַבִּנְיָן״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that one does not consecrate the materials immediately? **One who donates money** for Temple maintenance **consecrates** the money and it is therefore subject to the *halakha* of misuse of consecrated property. Consequently, one may not use this money to purchase items for Temple maintenance, as the supplier would be liable for misuse as soon as he received the money as payment. The only way to use donations for Temple maintenance is **if** the Temple treasurer **said** that the **sanctity of** this **money** which was consecrated by the donor shall **take effect on** the completed **structure,** rather than on the construction materials or the wages of the artisans during the construction.


###### Meilah 14a:13
[Meilah 14a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/14a:13)

וִיהֵיב לְהוֹן לְאוּמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, once the construction is completed, the sanctity is transferred from the money to the structure, and then the money is non-sacred. **And** at that point, the Temple treasurers **give** the money **to the artisans** and the suppliers **as their wages.**