## Meilah Daf 20a

###### Meilah 20a:1
[Meilah 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:1)

נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ – הוּא מָעַל, וַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. בְּנָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל, עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he gave** the stone or the beam **to another, he is liable for** its **misuse and the other** person **is not liable for** its **misuse.** If **he built** the stone or the beam **into his house, he is not liable for** its **misuse until he resides beneath it** and derives benefit equal to **the value of one *peruta*** from it.


###### Meilah 20a:2
[Meilah 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:2)

נָטַל פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל. נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ – הוּא מָעַל, וַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. נְתָנָהּ לְבַלָּן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הַמֶּרְחָץ פָּתוּחַ לְפָנֶיךָ, הִכָּנֵס וּרְחוֹץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one took** for his use **a consecrated *peruta*, that** person **is not liable for** its **misuse.** If **he gave** the *peruta* **to another, he is liable for** its **misuse and the other** person **is not liable for** its **misuse.** If **he gave** the *peruta* **to a bathhouse attendant [*levallan*], although he did not bathe, he is liable for misuse** of the *peruta*. The reason is **that** at the moment he receives the *peruta*, the attendant in effect **says to** the owner of the *peruta*: **The bathhouse is open before you, enter and bathe.** The benefit derived from that availability is worth one *peruta*.


###### Meilah 20a:3
[Meilah 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:3)

אֲכִילָתוֹ וַאֲכִילַת חֲבֵרוֹ, הֲנָיָיתוֹ וַהֲנָיַית חֲבֵרוֹ, אֲכִילָתוֹ וַהֲנָיַית חֲבֵרוֹ, הֲנָיָיתוֹ וַאֲכִילַת חֲבֵרוֹ – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One’s consumption** of half of a *peruta* of consecrated food **and another’s consumption** of half of a *peruta* of consecrated food that the first person fed him; and likewise **one’s benefit** of half of a *peruta* derived from a consecrated item **and another’s benefit** of half of a *peruta* derived from a consecrated item that the first person provided him; and similarly **one’s consumption and another’s benefit** derived or **one’s benefit** derived **and another’s consumption,** all these **join together** to constitute the requisite measure of one *peruta* for liability for misuse, **and** that is the *halakha* **even if much time** has passed between these various acts of consumption and deriving of benefit.


###### Meilah 20a:4
[Meilah 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי שְׁנָא הוּא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֲבֵירוֹ?! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּגִזְבָּר, הַמְּסוּרוֹת לוֹ, עָסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if one takes a stone or a beam belonging to the Temple treasury, he is not liable for misuse, but if he gives it to another he is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: **What is different** with regard to **him** retaining possession of the item, **and what is different** with regard to him giving it to **another,** that he is rendered liable when he gives it to another? **Shmuel said: We are dealing with a treasurer [*begizbar*]** of the Temple, **to whom** the consecrated property **is given.** Since all the consecrated property is meant to be in his possession and charge, he is not guilty of misuse, provided that he does not transfer it to another.


###### Meilah 20a:5
[Meilah 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:5)

בְּנָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב כּוּ׳. לְמָה לִי עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ? כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁנְּיַהּ – מָעַל! אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ עַל פִּי אֲרוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **he built** the stone or the beam **into his house, he is not liable for** its **misuse** until he resides beneath it and derives benefit equal to the value of one *peruta* from it. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna to state that the individual is not liable **until he resides beneath it?** That is not precise, **as once he** has **changed it,** by chiseling it for the purpose of fitting it into the structure, he has already **committed misuse. Rav says:** In this instance, the individual in question did not change the item in order to build with it. Rather, this is referring to a case **where he placed it upon a window.** Since mere placement does not constitute a change, there is no misuse until he lives beneath it.


###### Meilah 20a:6
[Meilah 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:6)

וְכֵיוָן דְּבָנֵי לַהּ, מִיהַת מָעַל. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבַיִת – אֲסָרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** nevertheless, **once he built it** and subsequently derived benefit from it, **in any event he** has **committed misuse.** Although the *halakha* is that misuse does not apply to items that are attached to the ground, this does not apply to an item built into a structure. **Let us say** that this statement **supports** the opinion **of Rav, as Rav said:** With regard to **one who prostrates** himself **to a house** in an act of idolatry, **he renders** the house **prohibited.** The house assumes the status of a worshipped item, from which one may not derive benefit. Notwithstanding the *halakha* that an item attached to the ground does not become prohibited as an object of idolatry, the house does not assume the status of an item attached to the ground, since it is built of materials that were earlier detached from the ground.


###### Meilah 20a:7
[Meilah 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:7)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: הֲנָאָה הַנִּרְאֵת לָעֵינַיִם אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** The mishna does not necessarily support the opinion of Rav. It can be claimed that the item is subject to misuse even if one maintains that a detached item which becomes attached gains the status of an attached item, in accordance with the opinion that if someone worships a house, he does not render it prohibited. Nevertheless, in the case of the stone or beam the individual is liable for misuse, due to another principle: With regard to misuse, the **Torah prohibited** all **benefit that appears** readily **to the eyes,** e.g., one who uses consecrated property as building materials. It makes no difference that the item is now attached to the ground.


###### Meilah 20a:8
[Meilah 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:8)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַדָּר בְּבַיִת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִמֶּנָּה – מָעַל. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָתָם בְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישׁוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof for Rav’s opinion that an item which was previously detached and then becomes attached to the ground retains the status of a detached item. **Let us say** that a *baraita* **supports** the opinion of Rav: With regard to **one who resides in a house consecrated** to the Temple treasury, **once he derives benefit from** the house he has **committed misuse.** Evidently, the built house is considered detached, which is why it is subject to misuse. **Reish Lakish said:** This *baraita* does not support the opinion of Rav either. **There,** the *baraita* is speaking of a case **where he consecrated** the detached building materials **and ultimately built** the house. Since the items were detached when he consecrated them, the prohibition of misuse applies even if they were subsequently attached to the ground.


###### Meilah 20a:9
[Meilah 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:9)

אֲבָל בְּנָאוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישׁוֹ, מַאי – לֹא מָעַל? מַאי אִירְיָא רָהֵיט וְתָנֵי הַדָּר בְּבַיִת שֶׁל מְעָרָה – לֹא מָעַל. לֵימָא הַדָּר בְּבַיִת שֶׁל אֲבָנִים שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישׁוֹ – לֹא מָעַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of Reish Lakish’s interpretation, the Gemara objects: **But** if **he built** the house **and ultimately sanctified it** when it was attached to the ground, **what** is the *halakha*? Evidently, **he has not committed misuse.** If so, **why** does the *tanna* of the *baraita* **run specifically to teach** the subsequent case: With regard to **one who resides in** a consecrated **house of a cave,** i.e., a domicile that has always been attached and was not built from detached components, **he** has **not committed misuse,** as an attached item is not subject to misuse. Why does the *baraita* mention this very different case? **Let** the *baraita* **say** simply: With regard to **one who resides in a stone house, which he built and ultimately sanctified, he** has **not committed misuse.**


###### Meilah 20a:10
[Meilah 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:10)

אָמְרִי: הָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ., הָא לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: One can **say** that although the *tanna* could have taught the case of the built house instead of a cave, he preferred to mention a cave, as **this** case of the cave is **conclusive for him.** Under all circumstances, one who lives in a consecrated cave is exempt from misuse, because the cave was always attached to the ground. By contrast, **that** case of the built house is **not conclusive for him,** as a consecrated house is not always exempt from misuse. If the house is built from previously consecrated materials, one who lives within it is liable for misuse.


###### Meilah 20a:11
[Meilah 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:11)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַנֶּהֱנֶה**


###### Meilah 20a:12
[Meilah 20a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:12)

**הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה** שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **an agent who performed his agency** properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, **the homeowner,** who appointed him, **is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he **did not perform his agency** properly, **the agent is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him.


###### Meilah 20a:13
[Meilah 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/20a:13)

כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִים״, וְנָתַן לָהֶם כָּבֵד; ״כָּבֵד״, וְנָתַן לָהֶם בָּשָׂר – הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לָהֶם חֲתִיכָה חֲתִיכָה״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: טְלוּ שְׁתַּיִם! וְהֵם נָטְלוּ שָׁלֹשׁ – כּוּלָּם מָעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** If the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver;** or if he said: Give them **liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Give them** meat, **a piece** for this guest and **a piece** for that guest, **and** the agent **says:** Each of you **take two** pieces, **and** each of the guests **took three** pieces, **all of them are liable for misuse.** The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent.