## Meilah Daf 19a

###### Meilah 19a:1
[Meilah 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:1)

– עֵד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ לַחוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
a non-priest who partakes of *teruma* is not liable **until** the *teruma* **leaves from** the domain of **the sacred to** the domain of **the non-sacred,** as one who partakes of *teruma* becomes its owner, the same should apply to misuse.


###### Meilah 19a:2
[Meilah 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:2)

מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ לַקֹּדֶשׁ, כְּגוֹן: לָקַח קִינֵּי זָבִים, וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת, וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But in fact one is also liable for misuse if he moves an item **from** the domain of **the sacred to** the domain of **the sacred** for another purpose, **such as** if he spent funds from the Temple treasury and **acquired bird nests,** i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons or doves, **for *zavim*** (see Leviticus 15:13–15), **or the bird nests for *zavot*** (see Leviticus 15:28–30), **or the bird nests for women after childbirth** (see Leviticus 12:6–8). Although the individual is using the money of the Temple treasury for a sacred purpose, nevertheless, since these obligatory offerings should be purchased with private funds, he commits misuse by deriving personal benefit from sacred funds.


###### Meilah 19a:3
[Meilah 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:3)

וְשָׁקַל שִׁקְלוֹ, וְהֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיא – מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם. מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְעֹל מַעַל״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, with regard to one who **contributed his shekel, or brought his sin offering or his guilt offering from consecrated** property, **once he spends** the funds **he has committed misuse.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says:** He is not liable **until** the priest **sprinkles the blood** of the offerings, through which he achieves atonement, at which point he has derived his benefit from the consecrated property. The *baraita* returns to its question: **From where** is it derived that such use is also categorized as misuse? **The verse states:** “If anyone **commits a misuse.”** The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable **in any case.**


###### Meilah 19a:4
[Meilah 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:4)

אָמַר מָר: ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – אֶחָד הַיָּחִיד וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׂיא וְאֶחָד הַמָּשׁוּחַ בַּמַּשְׁמָע. שֶׁיָּכוֹל, מַאי? פְּשִׁיטָא, ״נֶפֶשׁ״ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the beginning of the *baraita*. **The Master said** above: The verse states: “If **anyone** commits a misuse” (Leviticus 5:15). All people **are included** in this *halakha*, **whether** the guilty person is **the** common **individual, and whether** he is **the king, and whether** he is **the anointed** High Priest. The Gemara asks: **What** else **might** one have thought? It is **obvious** that the king and the High Priest are included, as **it is written: “Anyone.”**


###### Meilah 19a:5
[Meilah 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:5)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ עַל זָר״, וְהַאי לָאו ״זָר״ הוּא, דְּהָא אִימְּשַׁח בְּגַוֵּויהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the statement of the *baraita* is necessary, **lest you say** that these individuals are excluded from the *halakha* of misuse because **the Merciful One states** with regard to the anointing oil: **“Or whosoever puts any of it upon a stranger,** he shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:33). **And** with regard to the anointing oil, **this** distinguished person, i.e., the High Priest or the king, is **not** considered **a “stranger,” as he is anointed with it.** Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that even a High Priest and a king are included in the prohibition of misuse.


###### Meilah 19a:6
[Meilah 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:6)

וְאַקְּשַׁהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְסוֹטָה, וְלַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְלִתְרוּמָה. לְסוֹטָה, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא פָּגַם, גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ נָמֵי, נָתְנָה טַבַּעַת בְּיָדָהּ – מָעֲלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara summarizes the derivations with regard to the *halakha* of misuse. **The Merciful One compared** the *halakha* of misuse **to** the case of **a *sota*, and to idol worship, and to *teruma*,** in order to teach several basic principles. Misuse is compared **to a *sota*,** in the verse: “If any man’s wife goes aside, and acts unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12), **as** here one is liable for committing adultery **even though** the adulteress **did not damage** her body through her actions. **With regard to consecrated** property **as well,** even without causing damage, as in the case in which a woman **placed** a consecrated gold **ring on her hand,** i.e., her finger, she has thereby become **liable for misuse.**


###### Meilah 19a:7
[Meilah 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:7)

כִּי אַקְּשַׁהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּעַד דְּאִית בַּהּ שִׁינּוּי, גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ נָמֵי, עַד דְּבִיקַּע בְּקַרְדּוֹם, וְיִפְגֹּם וּפָגוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When the Merciful One compared** misuse **to idol worship,** in the verse: “And they broke faith with the God of their fathers” (I Chronicles 5:25), this teaches **that** one is not liable for idol worship **until there is a change** effected **by** his act, as the idolater changes his worship of God for worship of idols. **With regard to consecrated** property **as well,** if the item is susceptible to damage, a person does not become liable for misuse **until** the act of misuse changes the item from being available for use for sacred purposes to being available for use only for non-sacred purposes, as in a case **where** he **chops** non-sacred wood **with** a consecrated **ax and** concurrently **damages** the ax, as the consecrated property is thereby **damaged.**


###### Meilah 19a:8
[Meilah 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:8)

אַקְּשַׁהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִתְרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה, ״כִּי יֹאכַל״ – פְּרָט לְמַזִּיק, גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ נָמֵי – כֹּל דְּבַר אֲכִילָה, כִּי מַזֵּיק לֵיהּ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, **the Merciful One compared** misuse **to** the partaking of ***teruma*** by a non-priest, through the verbal analogy of the words “sin” and “sin” (see 18b). **What** is the *halakha* with regard to ***teruma*?** The verse states: “And **if** a man **eats** of the sacred item through error, then he shall add its fifth part upon it” (Leviticus 22:14). This **excludes one who causes damage** to the *teruma* without partaking of it, e.g., by spilling it on the ground. Such a person is exempt from the payment of the additional one-fifth. **With regard to consecrated** property **as well,** in the case of **any** consecrated **edible item,** or some other item, **when** one **damages it** without deriving benefit from the damaging act, he is **exempt** with regard to misuse.


###### Meilah 19a:9
[Meilah 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:9)

כֵּיצַד? נָתְנָה קַטְלָא כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב זְבִיד: וְדַהֲבָא לָאו בַּר אִיפְּגוֹמֵי הוּא? וְהָא דַּהֲבָא דְּכַלְּתֵיהּ דְּנוּן, לְהֵיכָא אֲזַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How** is one liable for misuse of an item that is not subject to damage? For example, if a woman **placed** a consecrated gold **chain** around her neck. **Rav Kahana said to Rav Zevid: And** is it correct that **gold** is **not subject to damage? But where did the gold of the daughter-in-law of** the wealthy man **Nun go?** When Nun married off his son, he gave the bride many golden items of jewelry, which deteriorated over time. Evidently, gold is also subject to damage.


###### Meilah 19a:10
[Meilah 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא, דַּהֲבָא דְּרָמְיָין כַּלָּתָיךְ הוּא. וְעוֹד: נְהִי דְּלָא אִיכָּא נֶהֱנָה וּפָגַם לְאַלְתַּר, לְעוֹלָם מִי לָא אִיכָּא פְּגִימָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Zevid **said to** Rav Kahana: **Perhaps** the gold of Nun’s daughter-in-law suffered the fate of **the gold that your daughters-in-law cast aside.** Like your daughters-in-law, Nun’s daughter-in-law treated her gold carelessly, which is why it deteriorated. **And furthermore, granted that** gold **does not have** the status of an item that is **damaged immediately [*le’altar*]** when someone **derives benefit** from it, but even so, **does** gold **never** sustain **damage?** Even gold deteriorates slowly and suffers measurable damage over long periods of time.


###### Meilah 19a:11
[Meilah 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19a:11)

הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת וְכוּ׳. מִכְּדֵי אִי בִּבְהֵמָה תְּמִימָה, הַיְינוּ כּוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּבַעֲלַת מוּם עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: **One who derives benefit from a sin offering** or from other items of the most sacred order, as in the case of one who detaches its wool while the animal is alive, is not liable for misuse unless he causes damage of the value of one *peruta*. The Gemara asks: **Now, if** the ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to an unblemished** domesticated **animal,** which is fit for sacrifice, **this** case **is** the same as that of a consecrated **gold cup,** which is not subject to damage. Since the animal remains fit as an offering even after wool has been detached from it, why is it subject to misuse only if it is damaged? **Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a blemished** animal. Since it is unfit for sacrifice, it will be sold by the Temple treasury, and therefore the removal of wool reduces its sale price. Consequently, it is subject to misuse only if such use causes it damage.