💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Tresp… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:18:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6 [1] There are different situations in which the prohibition against *me'ilah* applies. There are some articles from which a person benefits that are not ordinarily damageable, e.g., one who uses a pure golden utensil. There are other articles that are damageable, e.g., garments, and utensils made from silver, copper, iron, and the like.
When a person derives a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit from a consecrated substance that is not attached to the ground, if he benefits from an article that is not ordinarily damageable, e.g., he used a consecrated golden utensil, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If he benefits from an article that is damageable, e.g., he wore consecrated garments or chopped with a consecrated axe, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* until he causes a *p'rutah's* worth of damage to consecrated property, i.e., the article from which he benefited itself, with the intent to benefit from it even though it causes damage at that time.
If he derived a half a *p'rutah* of benefit and damaged a half a *p'rutah* or he derived a *p'rutah* of benefit and damaged a *p'rutah's* worth of another article, but did not benefit from what he damaged or did not damage the article from which he benefited, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* unless he derives a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit and causes a *p'rutah's* worth of damage to that article while deriving benefit from it.
What is implied? A person removed a patch from a consecrated garment and sewed it unto his garment and wore it, deriving a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit and causing a *p'rutah's* worth of damage to the garment from which he removed it, without damaging the patch at all. He does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because he derived benefit from one article and damaged another. We already explained, that when a person derives benefit and causes a colleague to derive benefit, the two can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a *p'rutah's* worth even if there is a long interval between them. [2] When a person removes wool from unblemished animals consecrated as sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, since he derived a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah* even though he did not damage the animals. The animals are comparable to a cup of gold, for the removal of their wool does not prevent them from being offered. If, however, sacrificial animals incurred a physical blemish, since they are designated to be sold and being shorn causes their worth to decrease, the prohibition against *me'ilah* applies. Nevertheless, one does not violate that prohibition unless he derives a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit and causes that amount of damage.
If one removes wool from a sacrificial animal after it dies, since he derived benefit, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, for there is no conception of reducing an animal's value once it has died. In this instance, this prohibition against *me'ilah* is of Rabbinic origin, as we explained. [3] When a person misappropriates articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple unintentionally, since he did not act intentionally, the consecrated article loses its holiness. Anyone who benefits from it afterwards is not liable. If one intentionally misappropriates a consecrated article, since he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice to atone for *me'ilah*, the consecrated article does not lose its holiness. Instead, it remains in its consecrated state. Hence, if another person comes and benefits from it unintentionally, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*.
When does the above apply? When one misappropriated the article while it was consecrated, used it as if it was an ordinary article, and transferred ownership to another person. If, however, one derived benefit from it and damaged it, but did not transfer ownership to another person, there is the possibility of another person violating the prohibition against *me'ilah* with it, even though it has already been violated previously. [4] The concept of a second person violating the prohibition against *me'ilah* with a consecrated article after someone has already done so applies only with regard to an animal and a utensil.
What is implied? One chopped with an axe that was consecrated, derived a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit, and damaged the axe. Then his colleague came, chopped with it, derived benefit, and damaged the axe; both violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but his colleague does not.
If one drank from a golden goblet and derived a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit, his colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, and then another colleague came, drank, and derived benefit, they all violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If he took the goblet and gave it to his colleague as a present or sold it to him, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but his colleague does not.
If one rode on a donkey, derived a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit, and damaged the donkey, his colleague rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, and then another colleague came, rode on it, derived benefit, and damaged it, they all violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If he gave it to his colleague as a present, sold it to him, or rented it to him, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but his colleague does not.
Similarly, if he lends out a consecrated axe, he is considered to have misappropriated the amount of satisfaction he received from having lent out the axe. His colleague is permitted to chop with it even as an initial preference. Similar laws apply with regard to an animal. [5] These laws do not apply to an animal consecrated to the altar. Instead, there is the possibility for several individuals to violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*, one after the other.
What is implied? One removed wool from an animal that is a sin-offering, his colleague came and removed wool, and a third colleague came and removed wool, they all violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. Similarly, if one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, they all violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. It appears to me that the laws applying to meal-offerings, offerings of fowl, libations, and sacrificial utensils are the same as those applying to an animal to be offered as a sacrifice, for in all these instances, the very physical person of the entity is consecrated. [6] When an animal consecrated as a sacrifice of the most sacred order becomes blemished and it is fit to be redeemed, it is considered like an entity consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, whose worth is consecrated. If one gave it to a colleague and the colleague gave it to a third individual, only the first violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. [7] Our Sages declared that one who takes a consecrated stone or beam intentionally and gives it to a colleague, they both violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If he gives it to the treasurer in whose possession the article was, that person violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but the treasurer does not.
It appears to me that these concepts were stated only with regard to a person who willfully misappropriates a consecrated object, in which instance the holiness of the consecrated article does not depart.
When a person takes a consecrated *p'rutah* with the conception that it is his own, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* until he uses it for his own desires or gives it as a present. If he gives it to his colleague as a present, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but his colleague does not. For, with regard to other consecrated articles, one person violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but the one following him does not, as we explained. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [8] If he takes a consecrated stone or beam, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because he has not benefited as of yet. If he builds it into his home, he violates that prohibition. If he places it on top of a window in the room without attaching it, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* until he dwells under it for a *p'rutah's* worth of benefit, because merely placing it there is not considered as discernible benefit. [9] If one took a consecrated *p'rutah* gave it to a bath attendant, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah* even though he has not bathed yet, for he benefits in that he could bathe whenever he desires. Similarly, if he gives it to another type of craftsman as payment for his services, he violates the prohibition even though the craftsman has not performed any work. [10] The following rules apply if one purchased an article with a consecrated *p'rutah*, but did not draw the article after him. If he purchased it from a gentile, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*; if, from a Jew, he does not violate that prohibition. [11] When a person spends consecrated money for his own needs with the understanding that they are ordinary funds, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah* even though he did not spend the money for ordinary matters.
What is implied? A person who brings his sin-offering, guilt-offering, or Paschal sacrifice from consecrated funds or a person who is lacking atonement who brings his atonement offering from consecrated funds violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. None of the above violate the prohibition until the blood is cast on the altar. Therefore one who brings meal-offerings, libations, or the bread for a thanksgiving offering does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* even though he violates a transgression. The rationale is that these offerings do not involve casting blood on the altar to atone for the person. [12] If a person pays his half-*shekel* from consecrated funds, when money is taken from the collection of funds and even one animal is purchased and its blood is cast on the altar, the person who paid with the half-*shekel* violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because he has a portion in the animal whose blood was cast. [13] When a person sets aside his half-*shekel* and then uses it for his personal needs both he and his colleague violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*.
The following laws apply when one gives a half-*shekel* to a colleague to donate on the principal's behalf and the agent donates it on his own behalf. If the money for the sacrifices was already set aside, the agent who made the donation violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, for the priest who sets aside the money takes also on behalf of the money that will be collected in the future, as we explained in *Hilchot Shekalim*. Thus it is considered as if this *shekel* already reached the treasury. Therefore the agent violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If the money was not taken yet, he does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*.
The prohibition against *me'ilah* does not apply to money that remains in the chamber.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC