## Meilah Daf 19b

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

**מַתְנִי׳** נֶהֱנָה כְּבַחֲצִי פְרוּטָה וּפָגַם כַּחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד וּפָגַם בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר – לֹא מָעַל, עֵד שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וְיִפְגֹּם בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one derived benefit** equal **to half** of **a *peruta*** from a consecrated item **and caused** it **half of a *peruta* of damage, or if he derived benefit** equal to **the value of one *peruta* from** a consecrated **item** that has the potential to be damaged **and caused damage of the value of one *peruta* to another** consecrated **item** but derived no benefit from it, he is exempt. The reason is that **one is not liable for misuse until he derives benefit of the value of one *peruta*** from a consecrated item **and causes damage of the value of one *peruta* to one,** i.e., the same **item.**


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

אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין אֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּלְבַד. כֵּיצַד? רָכַב עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב – כּוּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. שָׁתָה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה – כּוּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. תָּלַשׁ מִן הַחַטָּאת, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ – כּוּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פִּדְיוֹן – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One is liable for **misuse after misuse in consecrated items only** in the case of **an animal and** in the case of **service vessels.How so?** If **one rode upon** a sacrificial **animal, and another** person **came and rode** upon that animal, **and** yet **another came and rode** upon it as well, **all of them are liable for misuse** of the animal. In the case of service vessels, if **one drank from a gold cup, and another came and drank** from that cup, **and** yet **another** individual **came and drank** from it, **all of them are liable for misuse** of the cup. If **one removed** wool **from a sin offering, and another came and removed** wool from that animal, **and** yet **another** person **came and removed** wool from it, **all of them are liable for misuse** of the animal. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** With regard to **any** consecrated **item that is not subject to redemption, there is** liability for **misuse after misuse with regard to it.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי? מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הִיא: דְּתַנְיָא אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** According to the mishna, one can be liable for misuse after misuse only in the case of an animal or service vessels. The Gemara inquires: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 2:6): One is liable for **misuse after misuse only in** the case of **an animal alone.** Since an animal designated for sacrifice is not awaiting redemption or sale, its sanctity is not compromised when someone misuses it. It is therefore susceptible to repeated misuse. But with regard to service vessels, as according to the first *tanna* of the *baraita* they may be redeemed, their sanctity is compromised after they are misused even once, and they are no longer subject to misuse. **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** One is liable for misuse both in the case of **an animal and** in the case of **service vessels.**


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? קָסָבַר: בְּעִנְיָינָא דִבְהֵמָה כְּתִיב, דִּכְתִיב בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of the first *tanna*** in the *baraita*, who rules that service vessels are not susceptible to repeated misuse? The Gemara answers that **he holds** that the *halakha* of misuse is **written with regard to the case of an animal. As it is written:** “If anyone commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord…and the priest shall make atonement for him **with the ram of the guilt offering,** and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:15–16). It is derived from here that the liability for repeated misuse applies only to an animal.


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

וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אָמַר לָךְ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר: אִם אֲחֵרִים מֵבִיא לִקְדוּשָּׁתָן, הוּא עַצְמוֹ – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Neḥemya** could have **said to you,** in response, the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **If** a service vessel **brings other** materials placed in them **to their** state of **sanctity,** thereby rendering those materials susceptible to misuse after misuse, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that the vessel **itself** should be susceptible to misuse after misuse.


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

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פִּדְיוֹן, יֵשׁ כּוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אָמַר רָבָא: אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עֵצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** With regard to **any** consecrated **item that is not subject to redemption,** there is liability for misuse after misuse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This opinion **is** the same as that of **the first *tanna*.** Why is this ruling presented as a dissenting opinion? **Rava said:** There is a difference **between them** in the case of donated **wood.** The first *tanna* maintains that wood does not have the status of an item consecrated as an offering; rather, it has the status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and is therefore not subject to repeated misuse. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood has the status of items consecrated as an offering, which is not subject to damage and is therefore subject to repeated misuse.


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

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גְזִירִין. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עֵצִים – קׇרְבָּן הֵן, וּטְעוּנִין מֶלַח, וּטְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says,** in the form of a vow: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **wood** to the Temple, he must **not** bring **fewer than two logs** for the arrangement on the altar. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Wood is** considered **an offering,** as it is placed upon the altar, **and** therefore **it requires salt, and** it **requires waving,** like a meal offering.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים טְעוּנִין עֵצִים. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים צְרִיכִין קְמִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **wood** donated in this manner **requires** more **wood** as an accompaniment, so that the donated sacrificial wood is sacrificed in the same manner as other donated offerings. **And Rav Pappa** further **says: According to the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **wood** donated in this manner **requires** the **removal of a handful.** Similar to the rite of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and burned first.


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ תְּמִימִין וְנַעֲשׂוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וְעָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that there is another difference between the opinion of the first *tanna* and that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If there were **unblemished** animals **consecrated for the altar, and they became blemished** and were disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings, **and** someone **transgressed and slaughtered them** before they were redeemed, in this case there is a difference **between the opinion of** the first *tanna* and that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ תְּמִימִין, וְנַעֲשׂוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וְעָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבְרוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** indeed, **it is taught** in a *baraita* that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis engage in a dispute in that case: If there were **unblemished** animals **consecrated for the altar, and they became blemished, and** someone **transgressed and slaughtered them, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The consecrated animals may no longer be redeemed, as it is written: “He shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). A dead animal cannot be stood before the priest, and therefore the animal carcasses **must be buried.**


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִפָּדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But the Rabbis say:** The animals **should be redeemed.** Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains the animals may not be redeemed, this indicates that they have inherent sanctity, and therefore they are subject to repeated misuse. By contrast, the first *tanna*, like the Rabbis, holds that their sanctity is a function of their value, and consequently they are not subject to repeated misuse.


###### Meilah 19b:12
[Meilah 19b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/19b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָטַל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where **one took** for his use **a consecrated stone or a beam, that** person **is not liable for** its **misuse.**