## Meilah Daf 18a

###### Meilah 18a:1
[Meilah 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [*orla*]** (see Leviticus 19:23), **and diverse kinds,**i.e., grain sown **in a vineyard** (see Deuteronomy 22:9) **join together** 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. **Rabbi Shimon says: They do not join together.**


###### Meilah 18a:2
[Meilah 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** וּמִי צָרִיךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְצָרוֹפֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַכּוֹת? תְּנִי: אֵין צְרִיכִין לְצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Shimon, do** the two half-measures **need to join** together, in order for one who eats them to be liable? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** One who eats **any measure** of a prohibited food is liable **to** receive **lashes,** as the Sages stated the measure of an olive-bulk only with regard to the requirement to bring an offering? The Gemara answers: The wording of the mishna is not precise and must be emended, to **teach** that Rabbi Shimon says: **They do not need to join together,** as one is flogged even for less than the minimum measure.


###### Meilah 18a:3
[Meilah 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק, הַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר, הָעוֹר וְהַמַּפָּץ – כּוּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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 *zav*. 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. **The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide,** and **the hide and the mat all join together** to constitute the requisite measure to become ritually impure in accordance with the material of the greater measure.


###### Meilah 18a:4
[Meilah 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה טַעַם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִן לִיטָּמֵא בְּמוֹשָׁב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason** that they join together, despite the fact that their requisite measures are not equal? **Because** all the component materials **are fit to become ritually impure** through the ritual impurity imparted **to a seat** upon which a *zav* 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 *zav*, they join together for other forms of ritual impurity as well.


###### Meilah 18a:5
[Meilah 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: קִיצַּע מִכּוּלָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן בֶּגֶד לְמִשְׁכָּב – שְׁלֹשָׁה, לְמוֹשָׁב – טֶפַח, לַאֲחִיזָה – כׇּל שֶׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** A Sage **taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where one **cut from each of** the materials listed in the mishna, i.e., the garment, the sack, the hide, and the mat, a piece of less than **three** by three handbreadths, **and** sewed them together, thereby **fashioning a garment from them;** if he formed the garment **for lying** upon it, then the minimum measure for it to become a primary source of ritual impurity is **three** handbreadths. If he intended it **for sitting,** the minimum measure is one **handbreadth.** If he intended to use it **for holding,** it becomes impure in **any measure.**


###### Meilah 18a:6
[Meilah 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:6)

מַאי לַאֲחִיזָה? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: שֶׁכֵּן עוֹמֵד לְנַוְולָה. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְקוֹצְצֵי תְאֵנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the reason for the *halakha* in the case where one intended to use it **for holding?** Why is this cloth classified as a garment? **Reish Lakish says** that **Rabbi Yannai says:** It is considered a garment **because it stands** to be used as protection for the hands **when weaving [*lenavla*],** so that the weaver does not cut his fingers when straightening the threads. It **was taught in a *baraita*:** It is considered a garment **since it is suited for fig cutters** to place the material on their hands, to prevent them from getting dirty.


###### Meilah 18a:7
[Meilah 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:7)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ**


###### Meilah 18a:8
[Meilah 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:8)

**הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ** שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגַם – מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ פְּגָם – לֹא מָעַל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְּגָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה – מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who derives benefit equal to** the value of **one *peruta* from a consecrated item, even though he did not damage** it, is **liable for** its **misuse;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say:** With regard to **any** consecrated **item that has** the potential to be **damaged,** one is **not liable for misuse until he** causes it one *peruta* of **damage; and** with regard to an item **that does not have** the potential to be **damaged, once he derives benefit** from it he is **liable for misuse.**


###### Meilah 18a:9
[Meilah 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:9)

כֵּיצַד? נָתְנָה קַטְלָא בְּצַוָּארָהּ, טַבַּעַת בְּיָדָהּ, שָׁתָה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה – מָעַל. לָבַשׁ בְּחָלוּק, כִּסָּה בְּטַלִּית, בִּיקַּע בְּקַרְדּוֹם – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna elaborates: **How so?** If a woman **placed** a consecrated gold **chain [*ketala*] around her neck,** or a gold **ring on her hand,** i.e., her finger, or if **one drank from** a consecrated **gold cup,** since they are not damaged through use, **once he derives benefit** equal to the value of one *peruta* from them, he is **liable for misuse.** If **one wore** a consecrated **robe, covered** himself **with** a consecrated **garment,** or **chopped** wood **with** a consecrated **ax,** he is **not liable for misuse until he** causes them one *peruta* of **damage.**


###### Meilah 18a:10
[Meilah 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:10)

הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת, כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה – מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive** is **not liable for misuse until he** causes it one *peruta* of **damage. When it is dead, once he derives benefit** equal to the value of **one *peruta*** from it, he is **liable for misuse.**


###### Meilah 18a:11
[Meilah 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:11)

**גְּמָ׳**: תָּנָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַחֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ פְּגָם. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Sages **taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in** the case of **an item that has** the potential to be **damaged** through its use that one is liable for misuse only if he causes one *peruta* of damage. The Gemara asks: Since this is apparently exactly the same as the opinion of the Rabbis, **with regard to what** do Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis **disagree?**


###### Meilah 18a:12
[Meilah 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: בִּלְבוּשׁ מְצִיעָאָה, וּמַלְמְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** With regard to outer garments such as coats, which are exposed to the weather and other elements, and garments worn touching the skin, which can be damaged by perspiration, Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis agree that one is liable for misuse only when the garments are damaged at least by the value of one *peruta*. They disagree **in** the case of **a middle garment,** i.e., that which is neither an outer garment nor one that is worn against the body. **And** they also disagree in the case of a garment made of ***malmala*,** very thin fabric; since this garment is expensive, one who wears it would be very careful not to let it be damaged, and consequently it is not subject to measurable depreciation each time it is worn. In these cases, Rabbi Akiva holds that one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit equal to the value of one *peruta* even though the garments were not depreciated by one *peruta*, whereas the Rabbis maintain that as there is cumulative depreciation, one is liable for misuse only when he causes one *peruta* of damage.


###### Meilah 18a:13
[Meilah 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – אֶחָד הַיָּחִיד, וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׂיא, וְאֶחָד הַמָּשִׁיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to misuse of consecrated property, the verse states: “If **anyone** commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). It is derived from the general term “anyone” that this *halakha* applies **whether** the guilty person is a common **individual, and whether** he is **the king, and whether** he is **the anointed** High Priest. Although in other contexts they have obligations to bring different offerings, these individuals have a uniform liability with regard to the sin of misuse.


###### Meilah 18a:14
[Meilah 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/18a:14)

״כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל״, אֵין ״מַעַל״ אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מַעַל״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵּאלֹהֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further interprets the verse: “If anyone **commits a misuse [*ma’al*],** and sins” (Leviticus 5:15). The term ***ma’al* means nothing other than deviation** from the norm. **And similarly,** the verse **states** with regard to a woman suspected of adultery: **“If any man’s wife goes aside, and acts unfaithfully [*ma’al*] against him”** (Numbers 5:12). **And** it **states** with regard to idol worship: **“And they broke faith [*vayimalu*] with the God of**