Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 14 for kids: Building Before Holy

מעילה י״ד

🧱 This daf starts with a broken idol and a bird's nest, then moves to the Temple treasurers. It explains why the Temple was built with ordinary wood first, and only made holy afterward.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 14a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 14b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Meilah 14

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 14 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 14a, in English Tab translation (14)
  1. Lemma: That he did not nullify it — for the gentile did not explicitly nullify it [the idol].
  2. Reish Lakish says it is permitted — because the gentile nullified it in his heart, for he would say to himself: This object of idol worship, which could not even save itself from breaking, [how could it save me from harm]?
  3. That it broke from the tree itself — meaning he broke off branches from the tree and built the nest from them, i.e., from the tree worshipped as idolatry which broke by itself, so that the gentile did not nullify it; yet the mishna teaches 'one should dislodge it,' implying that it is permitted to derive benefit from it.
  4. No, [it is referring to a case where] the bird brought — branches from elsewhere and built the nest from them.
  5. This is also precisely indicated — by the fact that the mishna teaches, regarding consecrated property, that one may not derive benefit from it ab initio but is not liable for its misuse. This works well if the bird brought branches from elsewhere: therefore one may not derive benefit from it ab initio by rabbinic decree, since it rests on a consecrated tree, and one is not liable for misuse, since the branches came from elsewhere. But if you say [otherwise, the difficulty remains]...
  6. Actually, I will say to you that it broke from the tree itself — but why then is one not liable for misuse? Here, regarding consecrated property, we are dealing with growths that came after the property was consecrated, and the tanna holds there is no liability for misuse of such growths. One cannot derive proof from this case to the case of an idol that broke by itself, so there is no difficulty for Rabbi Yochanan.
  7. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yochanan — explains that this word 'dislodge' does not refer to the nest itself, for since it broke off from the body of the tree worshipped as idolatry, the nest itself is forbidden to benefit from. Rather, 'dislodge' refers to dislodging the chicks with the pole. [Another version: 'this too stands to reason' — but this answer was not accepted], because the mishna teaches regarding it 'he should take it,' implying that he would climb the tree and take it by hand, and it is impossible for him not to derive benefit from the tree [by climbing it].
  8. Chicks, both here and there — whether regarding a tree consecrated to the Temple or a tree worshipped as idolatry, it is permitted, since they do not depend on the tree, as they can fly away wherever they wish. But eggs, both here and there, are forbidden, since they cannot move and depend on the tree, and are considered like the tree itself. Chicks that still need their mother, since their feathers have not yet grown and they cannot fly, are considered like eggs and are forbidden.
  9. MISHNA: The treasurers who purchased the logs — from a non-sacred forest for use as beams.
  10. One is liable for misusing the wood — the wood itself that is fit for beams.
  11. Nor for the sawdust — the sawdust that the carpenter planes off from the beam.
  12. And the leaves — these are their leaves, since the treasurers purchased and consecrated only what was needed for construction, not the shavings or the leaves.
  13. GEMARA: Shmuel says: one builds with non-sacred materials and afterward consecrates — meaning, when building for Temple maintenance, they would purchase all the building materials with non-sacred money, or obtain all the building materials on credit, and after the construction was completed they would consecrate it as follows: they would bring consecrated money equal to the value of the entire structure, including the improvement the artisans added through their work and their wages, and declare that the sanctity contained in this money should take effect on this structure. Thus the structure becomes consecrated and the money becomes non-sacred. Then they would pay the artisans' wages from the money released from sanctity through the improvement, and pay back those from whom they had borrowed non-sacred money used for the building's needs, or those who had extended credit for it.
  14. What is the reason — that they build with non-sacred materials first? Because one who donates money for Temple maintenance consecrates it immediately, and once consecrated, it can no longer be used outright to purchase non-sacred items, since the seller would become liable for misuse upon receiving it. Therefore the treasurer must declare that the sanctity will take effect in this manner, so that the money becomes non-sacred before it reaches the seller's possession.
Tosafot on Meilah 14a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Mutteret meimar amar — This explains: the idolater who worships it would say, 'It could not even save itself, will it save me?' (said with astonishment/doubt). Therefore it is known that he has thereby nullified it.
  2. She'ba'ashera yattiz bekaneh, mai lo de'itbar migufa — [Reish Lakish's challenge]: This refers to a case where the branches of which the nest was made broke off from the body of the worshipped tree itself, and the mishna says 'one should dislodge it with a pole,' and that pole itself is permitted. This shows that an object of idol worship that broke by itself is permitted. The Gemara answers: No, it refers to a case where the bird brought the branches from elsewhere — meaning the nest was made from branches other than those of the tree itself. [Reish Lakish objects:] If so, in the case of consecrated property, why is one not permitted to derive benefit from it ab initio? He asks this because, since the nest is not made from the consecrated tree itself, one should be permitted to derive benefit from it. Rather, the case must be where the branches broke off from the tree itself. And if you ask why one is not liable for misuse in that case, the answer is that this is discussing growths of consecrated property after consecration, and the tanna holds there is no liability for misusing growths. The Gemara adds: this too makes sense — that the case is one where the branches broke from the tree itself — for if it enters your mind that the bird brought them from elsewhere, why does the mishna require striking the nest with a pole? One could simply take it by hand without a pole. Rather, this proves the case is one where the branches broke from the tree itself, and therefore he is not permitted to take it by hand, lest he come to take from the body of the tree that has not broken off, since those broken branches resemble the branches still attached to the tree. But if it were discussing branches brought from elsewhere, which do not resemble the tree itself, there would be no reason to be concerned that he might take from the tree itself. So it must be discussing branches that broke from the tree itself. One might ask: why was this additional proof needed, since it was already proven from the fact that regarding consecrated property one may not derive benefit? The answer is that the first proof worked only by analogy: since the case of consecrated property (where it says 'one may not derive benefit') must be one where the branches broke from the tree itself, so too the case of the worshipped tree is understood to involve branches that broke from the tree itself. But now the Gemara derives this directly from the case of the worshipped tree itself, from the fact that it says 'dislodge with a pole,' showing that case involves branches broken from the tree itself. But this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that an object of idol worship broken by itself remains forbidden. So the Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Actually, the case is one where the bird brought branches from elsewhere, and 'dislodge' refers to dislodging the chicks — meaning that the mishna, even understood as referring to branches brought from elsewhere, poses no difficulty, since 'dislodge' does not refer to the nest (which is certainly forbidden to benefit from, whether regarding consecrated property or the worshipped tree), but rather refers to dislodging the chicks, which are permitted for benefit in both cases, as will be explained below. Now, all difficulties are resolved, since one cannot ask why he shouldn't just take them by hand — because there is concern that he might climb the tree. One might ask: according to the original understanding, that 'dislodge' referred to the nest itself, why wasn't the difficulty raised there too, that he should simply take it without climbing? The answer is that originally, when 'dislodge' referred to the nest itself, there was no concern about climbing, since one could intend to take the nest by hand without climbing the tree. But now that 'dislodge' refers to the chicks, there is indeed concern about climbing, since it is not so easy to take the chicks without the nest, as they can slip away here and there. Therefore one must dislodge the chicks with a pole, since using a pole avoids the need to climb the tree — it is easy to dislodge them with a pole even while standing on the ground. One might further ask: why, then, may one not derive benefit even from the nest itself regarding consecrated property, since we are now discussing a case where the branches came from elsewhere? The answer is that we are concerned lest people come to confuse it with branches still attached to the tree. And if you ask: since this concern applies even when the branches came from elsewhere, why did the Gemara originally ask why one may not benefit from consecrated property [implying it assumed no such concern]? The answer is that originally, the Gemara did understand that such a concern could apply, but its question was: why, regarding consecrated property, do we forbid benefit from the start, as with the worshipped tree, and not apply the same concern there? For originally it was assumed that 'dislodge with a pole' referred to the branches of the nest itself, which is permitted for benefit, and no such concern would apply. So the question was: why do we have more concern regarding consecrated property than regarding the worshipped tree? But now that the worshipped tree and the consecrated tree are treated alike — the nest itself forbidden in both cases, and likewise the eggs, as will be explained shortly, while the chicks are permitted in both, since the mishna teaches 'dislodge' regarding the chicks of the worshipped tree, and the same applies to consecrated property, as will be explained — there is no longer any difficulty, since consecrated property and the worshipped tree are now equivalent: in both cases we are concerned lest one come to confuse these branches with those still attached to the tree, as explained. This is how my teacher, Rabbi Peretz, may he live long, explained this entire passage from beginning to end.
  3. Efroḥin kan vekan muttarin — Meaning: whether regarding the worshipped tree or consecrated property, [the chicks are permitted] since they have the breath of life and do not depend on their mother, as will be explained shortly. And when the mishna says 'dislodge with a pole,' it refers to the chicks — and the same applies to consecrated property. But 'one may not derive benefit' refers to the nest and eggs — and the same applies to the worshipped tree. One might ask: why does the mishna teach permission regarding the worshipped tree but prohibition regarding consecrated property? The answer is that regarding consecrated property, the mishna wanted to teach 'one is not liable for misuse,' and therefore it stated 'one may not derive benefit [ab initio]'; whereas regarding the worshipped tree, it taught 'dislodge with a pole' — for even though it is a very repulsive thing, being an object of idol worship, nevertheless the chicks are permitted for benefit. So it appears to my teacher.
  4. Bonin beḥol ve'aḥar kakh makdishin — Meaning: when they built, they built on credit, without using consecrated money donated for the construction, until the entire building was completed. What is the reason? That is, why didn't they consecrate the stones before building? [Because] one who donates money consecrates it, and says that the sanctity of the money shall take effect upon the finished structure, and afterward gives it to the craftsmen as their wages. That is, had he consecrated the stones before building, he would not have been able to pay the craftsmen's wages from the consecrated money, since consecrated property does not become non-sacred through labor. But now that he builds with non-sacred materials, he transfers the sanctity of the money onto the entire structure, and afterward pays the craftsmen's wages from that money, which has become non-sacred, and pays for the stones according to their purchase price. One might ask: but we learned in the last chapter of Ketubot (106a) that those who correct Torah scrolls in Jerusalem take their wages from the Temple treasury fund — so why is this different from the craftsmen's wages here? The answer is that the Temple treasury fund comes from communal donations, over which the court has discretion, but such discretion does not apply to an individual's donation, even if he donated it to be transferred to the community.
Rashi on Meilah 14b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Lemma: מותר הקטרת — This refers to what remained from the 365 maneh (the incense prepared for the year). What would they do with it? Since once Nisan begins it is no longer fit for burning, because we require that the incense be new, and whatever is offered must come from the new collection (terumat halishka).
  2. Lemma: מפרישין ממנה — They would set aside from the leftover incense an amount equal to the wages of the artisans. The Gemara's initial assumption is that when the materials for construction were purchased, the Temple treasurers would immediately desacralize consecrated money onto the wood, stones, and all building materials bought, and pay for them with it. But they would not pay the artisans' wages this way, since the entire structure under construction remained consecrated except for the increase in value (the improvement) that the artisans added to the building each day. Each day the treasurer would bring consecrated money equal to the value of that day's improvement and desacralize it onto that improvement, transferring the sanctity from the building to the money. This was done daily because, as explained above, one who pledges money [to the Temple fund], the money becomes non-sacred and the structure becomes consecrated. However, the treasurer would not actually pay the artisans the money immediately, since wages are only payable at the end, when the construction is completed. This was done for each day's increase in value, but at that point there was not yet any 'leftover incense' involved with this money. But when Nisan arrives, and there is leftover incense that must be replaced from the new collection, they would desacralize that leftover incense onto the non-sacred money that the treasurer held (which had been desacralized against the artisans' daily improvement), so the incense would become non-sacred and the money would revert to its former sanctity. They would then buy back the incense from the artisans using funds from the new collection. And if you wonder: why was it necessary to desacralize the incense onto the artisans' money—why not just give the incense directly to the artisans right away? The answer is that this leftover amount was not sufficient to cover the artisans' full wages, so they had to do it this way. And if one considers that according to Shmuel, who holds that one builds with non-sacred material and consecrates it afterward, let them desacralize the incense directly onto the building itself—why do they set aside [money] this way?
  3. Lemma: ומשני דלא איכא בנין — The Gemara answers that in this case there is no construction taking place at all—they have not built anything yet.
  4. Lemma: והא על מעות האומנין קתני — But the mishna states 'equal to the artisans' wages,' which indicates that construction was indeed taking place. The Gemara answers: Yes, they certainly were building, but there was no construction equal in value to the leftover incense. The Gemara further challenges: Still, if Shmuel's view is correct, let them desacralize the incense onto that small amount of construction equal to the improvement the artisans made, even though it does not equal the full value of the incense, in line with Shmuel's statement that consecrated property may be redeemed with a lesser amount.
  5. Lemma: אבל לכתחלה לא — But one should not act this way ab initio. Therefore, they would instead desacralize the incense only onto the artisans' wages (the money), [not performing a partial redemption onto the building].
  6. Lemma: רב פפא אמר היינו טעמא דבונין בחול — Rav Pappa said this is the reason one builds with non-sacred material first [and consecrates afterward]: because the Torah was not given to ministering angels. It is inevitable that an artisan will sometimes sit, for example in the shade of the building to escape the heat, and so he might end up misusing consecrated property, since perhaps he will want to rest and sit upon the stones—meaning, if he needed to and sat on them, he would be found to have benefited from consecrated property.
  7. Lemma: אי בעצים דמכאן ואילך הכי נמי — That is to say, if these are logs which he does not intend to use in construction for a long time, then similarly, they should not be consecrated until they are actually built into the structure, since there is concern that he might sit on them and thereby misuse consecrated property.
  8. Lemma: אלא כי תנן במתניתין דמועלין בעצים דיומיה — Rather, when the mishna teaches that one is liable for misuse of 'that day's logs,' it means logs which he intends to use in construction that very day they were purchased. In that case there is no concern that he might come to sit on them, since they were built into the structure immediately, that same day.
Tosafot on Meilah 14b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Motar haketoret — leftover incense: They would compound incense all at once in an amount of three hundred and sixty-five portions, corresponding to the number of days of the solar year, to burn incense every day — half in the morning and half in the evening — plus three additional portions for the needs of Yom Kippur. And there would be leftover incense, as stated there (Keritot 6b): once every sixty or seventy years they would compound it in halved measure, meaning that the leftover amounts would accumulate to equal half a batch of incense. This is the incense that our Gemara is discussing — what would they do with that leftover? They would set aside the wages owed to the artisans from the Temple treasury funds, have someone else acquire possession of those funds on behalf of the artisans, and then desacralize the incense onto that money which had been acquired for the artisans. The money would then take on the sanctity of the incense with the sanctity of 'old terumah,' and the incense itself would become non-sacred. They would give that (now non-sacred) incense to the artisans as their wages, and then buy it back from the artisans using funds from the (new) Temple treasury collection. This procedure was necessary because it is not permitted to burn incense from 'old terumah' funds in the following year. One might ask: why did they need to go through this process of desacralizing the incense specifically onto money earmarked for the artisans? Why not simply desacralize new terumah money directly onto the incense that had already become non-sacred? The answer is that doing it this way (via the artisans) is preferable because it resembles an actual commercial transaction and is therefore more discreet. Alternatively, if they did not do it this way, they might come to be negligent, since it would require desacralizing new terumah money directly onto the incense afterward; but when the transfer is done hand to hand (via the artisans), they will not come to be negligent.
  2. Ve'amai neychalei abinyan — but why not desacralize it onto the building: That is, if, according to Shmuel who holds that one builds using non-sacred materials, why did they need to do all this? Let them desacralize the incense onto the (non-sacred) building, so that the incense becomes non-sacred, and then desacralize new terumah money onto that incense. Why did they need to set aside wages and desacralize [the incense onto the money], etc.? The Gemara answers that there was no ongoing construction. The Gemara challenges: but it says 'the wages of the artisans,' implying that construction was ongoing. The Gemara answers that indeed there was non-sacred construction ongoing, as indicated by the mention of 'artisans,' but there was not enough construction equal to the value of the incense. Therefore they needed to set aside money from the Temple treasury equal to the value of the incense for the artisans' wages. One might ask: is it possible that the artisans' wages would exceed the value of the construction itself? One can answer that this refers to artisans skilled in decorative work, whose wages exceed the cost of the building materials. Alternatively, it means that there was not enough construction value, aside from the artisans' wages included with the building, to equal the value of the incense — this requires further study. Some explain that this refers to wages owed to the artisans for work not yet performed, though some construction was indeed underway; since there was not yet enough construction, equal to the value of the incense, by the end of the year when they wished to consecrate the (new) incense, they could not desacralize it onto the structure. However, they would set aside the full wages owed to the artisans for work they had already begun. The mishnah specifically mentions a case where there was some construction underway, because if there were no construction at all, it would be improper to set aside Temple treasury funds for future wages; but since they needed to set aside funds for the artisans' current, smaller wages, it is not improper to also set aside a larger amount for future wages. Rashi adds further that since they had already begun the work, it is considered as if it were completed, since they cannot go back on it.
  3. Veha'amar Shmuel, hekdesh shaveh maneh — but didn't Shmuel say that consecrated property worth a maneh that one redeemed with something worth only a peruta is redeemed: That is, so what if there isn't enough construction equal to the value of the money? The Gemara answers: this applies only after the fact, but one should not do so ab initio, due to the potential loss to the consecrated property. This applies specifically while the Temple is standing, when there is a potential loss to consecrated property; but when the Temple is not standing, where there is no potential loss to consecrated property, it is not so, and one may redeem ab initio with something worth only a peruta. One might ask: here too, there is no loss to consecrated property, since this leftover incense reverts to consecrated status anyway. One can answer: nevertheless, since the Temple is standing, and if they were to redeem items generally with something worth only a peruta there would be a loss to consecrated property, even though here there is no actual loss, still it is not considered redeemed, because we decree against this case due to the majority of cases where there would be a loss to consecrated property. This is unlike the case there, which states that when the Temple is not standing one may redeem ab initio with something worth a peruta, since there it is impossible for there to ever be a loss to consecrated property.
  4. Lo nitnah Torah lemal'achei hasharet — the Torah was not given to the ministering angels: And it is impossible to ensure that they will not benefit from the wall, since it was built with non-sacred materials, lest an artisan come to lean on it, for sometimes the workers need to lean on the stones, and it would turn out that they misused consecrated property.
  5. I ba'etzim mikan ve'eilach, hachi nami, hava amina ba'etzim deyoma — if it were logs for use from now on, indeed so; rather, we are dealing with logs acquired for that day: That is, logs that were purchased to be used in construction on the very day they were acquired; within such a short time, they are able to be careful not to lean on them.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Me'ilah, Meila 14.