## Meilah Daf 18b

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

אֲבֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**their fathers, and went astray after** the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them” (I Chronicles 5:25). Likewise, one who misuses consecrated property deviates from the purpose for which the particular item was meant to be used.


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

יָכוֹל פָּגַם וְלֹא נֶהֱנָה, אוֹ נֶהֱנָה וְלֹא פָּגַם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that the comparison between misuse and idol worship teaches that one is liable for misuse even if he **damaged** the consecrated item **but did not derive benefit** from it, as that is the *halakha* with regard to idol worship, where one changes worship of God to idol worship without deriving benefit. **Or,** in light of the comparison between misuse and suspected adultery, it might have been thought that one would be liable for misuse if **he derived benefit** from the consecrated item **but did not damage** it, just as the adulteress derives benefit from the illicit act of intercourse without suffering any physical damage.


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

וּבִמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע, וּבְשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** perhaps one should be liable for misuse **of** an item **attached to the ground. And in** the case of **an agent who** committed misuse while **he performed his** assigned **agency,** it might be thought that the agent himself, rather than the one who appointed him, should be liable for the misuse.


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְחָטְאָה״. נֶאֱמַר: ״חֵטְא״ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְנֶאֱמַר: ״חֵטְא״ בִּמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *halakha* in these cases is derived from the fact that **the verse states:** “If anyone commits a misuse, **and sins** through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). The word **“sin” is stated with regard to *teruma*,** in the verse: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, as you have set apart from it its best” (Numbers 18:32); **and “sin” is** also **stated with regard to misuse** of consecrated property. Several *halakhot* are derived from this verbal analogy.


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

מָה ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּתְרוּמָה, פּוֹגֵם וְנֶהֱנֶה, וּמִי שֶׁפָּגַם נֶהֱנֶה, וּבַדָּבָר שֶׁפּוֹגֵם בּוֹ נֶהֱנֶה, וּפְגִימָתוֹ וַהֲנָאָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע, וּבְשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **Just as** with regard to the word **“sin” stated with regard to *teruma*,** when someone sins by partaking of forbidden *teruma*, it is a circumstance in which one **damages and derives benefit, and** the **one who damaged** the *teruma* is the same person who **derived benefit; and** with regard to *teruma*, one is liable only if **he derives benefit from the same item that he damages; and** he is liable in the case of *teruma* only if **his damage and his benefit** occur **simultaneously; and** the status of *teruma* applies only **to** an item **detached from the ground; and** the status of *teruma* takes effect **in** the case of **an agent who performed his** assigned **agency** in designating an item *teruma*, the same applies to misuse.


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

אַף ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּמְעִילָה, פּוֹגֵם וְנֶהֱנֶה, וּמִי שֶׁפָּגַם נֶהֱנֶה, וּבַדָּבָר שֶׁפּוֹגֵם בּוֹ נֶהֱנֶה, וּפְגִימָתוֹ וַהֲנָאָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד, וּבְתָלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע, וּבְשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further explains: **So too,** the word **“sin” stated with regard to misuse** applies specifically when the individual both **damages and derives benefit** from consecrated items; **and** when the **one who damaged** also **derived benefit** from it himself; **and he derives benefit from the** same **item that he damages; and his damage and his deriving benefit** occur **simultaneously; and** misuse applies only **to** an item **detached from the ground; and** misuse is committed by the one appointing the agent **in** the case of **an agent who performed his** assigned **agency.**


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

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל, וְנֶהֱנֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְּגָם, מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: From the verbal analogy **I have** derived **only** that one is liable for misuse if **he eats** consecrated items when he is not permitted to do so, similar to the case of *teruma*. **But** with regard to one who **derives benefit from an item that does not have** the potential to be **damaged, from where** do I derive that this also constitutes misuse?


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

אֲכִילָתוֹ וַאֲכִילַת חֲבֵרוֹ, הֲנָיָיתוֹ וַהֲנָיַית חֲבֵרוֹ, הֲנָאָתוֹ וַאֲכִילַת חֲבֵרוֹ, אֲכִילָתוֹ וַהֲנָיַית חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, אֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה, מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if one eats from a consecrated item and gives to another person to eat, where there is **his consumption and another’s consumption;** or if he derives benefit and gives to another to derive benefit, where there is **his** deriving **benefit and another’s** deriving **benefit;** and likewise **his** deriving **benefit and another’s consumption;** and **his consumption and another’s** deriving **benefit;** the *halakha* is **that** in all these cases, benefit and consumption **combine with one another, even** over **a long** period of **time** on the same day, to amount to the value of one *peruta* that effects liability for misuse. **From where** is this *halakha* derived?


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְעֹל מַעַל״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states:** “If anyone **commits a misuse.”** This general and inclusive clause teaches that one is liable for misusing one *peruta* worth of consecrated property **in any case,** i.e., even if he gave it to another and one of them ate while the other derived benefit, and even if it took some time on that day to use the value of one *peruta*.


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

אִי מָה ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּתְרוּמָה – לֹא צֵירַף שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת כְּאֶחָד, אַף ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּמְעִילָה – לֹא צֵירַף שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת כְּאַחַד. מִנַּיִן אָכַל הַיּוֹם וְאָכַל לְמָחָר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְעֹל מַעַל״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further states: **If** there is a comparison between *teruma* and misuse, one can claim as follows: **Just as** in the case of the word **“sin” that is stated with regard to *teruma*,** the Torah does **not combine two** distinct acts of **consumption as one** prohibited act, **so too,** perhaps with regard to the word **“sin” that is stated with regard to misuse,** the Torah does **not combine two** acts of **consumption as one. From where** is it derived that if one **ate** half of the minimum amount of an olive-bulk **today and ate** another half **tomorrow, even if much time** has passed, the distinct acts of misuse combine and are considered one act, which means that the one who did so is liable for misuse? **The verse states:** “If anyone **commits a misuse.”** The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable **in any case.**


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

אִי מָה ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּתְרוּמָה – פְּגִימָתוֹ וַהֲנָאָתוֹ כְּאֶחָד, מִנַּיִן לַאֲכִילָתוֹ וַאֲכִילַת חֲבֵרוֹ? וַאֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְעֹל מַעַל״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** there is a comparison between *teruma* and misuse, one can claim as follows: **Just as** in the case of the word **“sin” that is stated with regard to *teruma*,** the **damage to** the *teruma* **and** the individual’s **deriving benefit** from the *teruma* occur **simultaneously,** the same should apply to misuse of consecrated items. **From where** is it derived that one is liable for misuse **for his consumption and another’s consumption,** when each person alone has eaten less than the value of one *peruta*, **and even** if the two acts of consumption are separated in time **from now until three years** later; **from where** is it derived that the instances of misuse combine? **The verse states:** “If anyone **commits a misuse.”** The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable **in any case.**


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

אִי מָה ״חֵטְא״ הָאָמוּר בִּתְרוּמָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** it is derived from the verbal analogy that there are several *halakhot* common to both *teruma* and committing misuse, one can claim as follows: **Just as** in the case of the word **“sin” that is stated with regard to *teruma*,**