Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 18 for kids: When Little Bits Add Up

מעילה י״ח

⚖️ This daf asks when small forbidden or holy amounts combine to reach the minimum measure that makes something matter. It covers mixed fruits in a vineyard, cloth pieces sewn together, and using holy items without permission.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 18a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 18b 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 18

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 18 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 18a, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. The orla and diverse kinds of the vineyard join together — This is like what is said regarding piggul and notar (disqualified sacrificial items), from which this principle of joining is derived.
  2. But isn't it taught: any amount for lashes — Eating any amount at all transgresses the prohibition. If so, for what purpose would the Mishnah say two half-measures need to join together [according to Rabbi Shimon]?
  3. Mishnah: The garment — A garment conveys impurity [as a primary source through treading] at a minimum of three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.
  4. And the sack — Its minimum measure is four handbreadths by four handbreadths. The garment joins with the sack up to the sack's smaller measure of four by four, and so each item joins with the one whose measure is smaller than it: the sack joins with the hide up to five by five, and the hide joins with the mat up to six by six — that is, joining with the smaller measure, but not the smaller joining fully with something far greater. This is why the Mishnah lists them in this order — the garment and the sack, the sack and the hide, and so on — teaching that they all join with each other [in sequence].
  5. Because they are fit to become impure through sitting — Since all of these materials share a single common measure [with respect to the impurity of a zav's seat], they are all fit to become impure through being sat upon, and therefore they join together [for other types of impurity as well].
  6. Gemara: It was taught: one who cut a piece from each of them — If he cut a small piece from each of the items listed in the Mishnah — from the garment, the sack, the hide, and the mat — and sewed them together to form a garment.
  7. For lying, three — Meaning, if he intended it for lying upon, such as sewing it into a cushion, then if that cloth measures three by three handbreadths, since it is fit to serve as a patch for a torn cushion, it becomes impure as a 'bed' item.
  8. And if he intended it for sitting — To use as a patch for a garment: if that cloth measures one handbreadth by one handbreadth, it becomes impure through the impurity of a zav.
  9. For holding — If he intended it for holding, it becomes impure in any amount whatsoever.
  10. What is meant by 'for holding'? Reish Lakish said: because it stands to be used in weaving — This cloth is useful for weavers, who use it to smooth out the spun thread (with bran or a similar substance) to strengthen it, wrapping a small piece of cloth around a finger to protect it from being cut by the thread. This is called 'standing to be used in weaving' — wrapped around the finger while weaving and spinning the threads. The term for weaving is used similarly in Tractate Gittin (34a).
  11. Since it is fit for fig cutters — Because when people cut figs, they wrap a small piece of cloth around their hands so as not to get dirty from the fig juice; therefore it is susceptible to impurity.
  12. Mishnah: One who derives benefit, even though he did not damage it, is liable for misuse — One might think this applies whether to an item that is not usually damaged or to one that is usually damaged; Rabbi Akiva holds that once one derives benefit, he is liable for misuse.
  13. That has the potential for damage — Meaning, an item that typically becomes damaged [through use].
  14. How so — This refers to an item that has no potential for damage.
  15. She placed a consecrated chain — A gold necklace belonging to the Temple on her neck, or a ring on her hand.
  16. Or drank from a gold cup — Belonging to the Temple. None of these items get damaged through use, so once one derives benefit worth a peruta from them, he is liable for misuse. How is this benefit assessed? We estimate how much a woman would be willing to pay to borrow such ornaments to wear to a celebration in order to adorn herself, and she pays the Temple treasury according to the value of the benefit she derived from using them.
  17. And anything that has potential for damage — Such as wearing a robe, covering oneself with a garment, or chopping with an ax — since these items do get damaged, one is not liable for misuse until he causes damage worth a peruta.
  18. Gemara: It was taught: Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis regarding an item with potential for damage — He is not liable for misuse except when he damages it, for in that case we follow the damage, not the benefit. The Gemara asks: if so — that Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Rabbis that for an item with potential for damage one is not liable until he damages it, and it is obvious that the first clause of the Mishnah, where Rabbi Akiva says one is liable as soon as he benefits, refers to an item without potential for damage — then this is the same as the Rabbis' position; so what is the actual point of disagreement between them?
  19. Rava said: in the case of a middle garment — One that is not worn entirely on the outside (since an outer garment is damaged immediately) nor entirely against the skin (since that too is damaged immediately from rubbing against the body), but rather a garment worn in between the outer and inner garments, which does not become damaged for a long time.
  20. And malmala — A linen garment that is extremely thin, as stated in Gittin (59a): something that can be rolled and stretched, so fine that when wholly rolled up it is no bigger than a nut (and a half). Since it is very expensive, one wears it only once or twice a year and guards it carefully so it will not be damaged, and so it does not become damaged for a long time. This is the point of their dispute: Rabbi Akiva holds that since these are items that are not damaged immediately—even though they will eventually be damaged—since they are not damaged right away they are treated like items with no potential for damage, so one becomes liable for misuse as soon as he derives benefit worth a peruta, even without actual damage. The Rabbis hold that since the item does have potential for damage, one is nevertheless not liable for misuse until he actually damages it.
  21. Nefesh — The term stated in the verse regarding misuse of consecrated property.
  22. And so it says: 'And they committed trespass... and went astray after the Baalim' — Meaning they turned themselves away from God to idol worship.
Tosafot on Meilah 18a, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. It was taught: 'They do not need to join together' — This is difficult, for in the last chapter of Tractate Avoda Zara (68b) the Gemara says to Rabbi Shimon: let the permitted substance join with the forbidden one to render it prohibited, and it answers that Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his own view, as we learned: orla and diverse kinds of the vineyard — Rabbi Shimon says they do not join together. This implies that 'they do not join together' means literally that they do not join together at all [to create a prohibition when mixed]. One can answer that that passage in Avoda Zara is not referring to the same point as here, but rather to the clause 'they do not join together' found in the latter part of the mishna cited at the end of chapter 'Rabbi Akiva' (Shabbat 89b), which teaches about spices of two or three types, and it is taught further there: Rabbi Shimon says, two types from one species, or two species from one type, do not join together — meaning that they do not join together since they do not both constitute the same type of prohibition from the same species. The Gemara abbreviated the language and was not entirely precise in quoting the mishna. One might ask: what need is there there for 'joining,' since Rabbi Shimon holds that any amount at all makes one liable to lashes? The answer is that this is only when the forbidden substance is intact and one eats it as such; but there the case is where it is mixed in, such as orla and diverse kinds of the vineyard that became mixed together, and in such a case Rabbi Shimon does not say that any amount makes one liable to lashes — for if so, why would a verse be needed, as cited in Nazir (35b) and Pesachim (43b), to teach that a permitted substance joins with a forbidden one [to constitute the minimum measure]? I explained this there. And there, in the passage in Shabbat (89b), the meaning is that they became mixed together, as is taught in the Jerusalem Talmud, where it states at the beginning of that passage that terumah and terumat ma'aser of doubtfully tithed produce (demai) are nullified in a ratio of one part in one hundred and one, and join together with each other. But here the case is where they did not become mixed together, for the mishna does not state that they are nullified in a ratio of one to one hundred.
  2. 'The garment and the sack... [join together]... to be used as protection for the hands when weaving [lenavla]' — meaning that it is customary for a weaver to have worn-out cloths at hand so that she does not become overly soiled; the same applies to fig cutters.
  3. Mishna: 'One who derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from a consecrated item, even though he did not damage it, is liable for misuse' — The Gemara explains that Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of an item that can be damaged, and it explains the point of dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages.
  4. 'If she placed a consecrated gold chain (ketala) around her neck' — A ketala is a necklace; and in the Jerusalem Talmud, 'etzada' (bracelet) is translated as ketala.
  5. 'If one drank from a consecrated gold cup, since he derived benefit he is liable for misuse' — because this is an item that cannot be damaged.
  6. 'If one wore a robe, covered himself with a garment, or chopped wood with an axe, he is not liable for misuse until he causes damage. One who derives benefit from a sin offering is not liable for misuse until he causes damage.' This is explained in the Gemara.
  7. 'With regard to what do they disagree? In the case of a middle garment and fine garments (malmala)' — meaning a middle garment, excluding the outer one, which gets damaged excessively, and likewise the inner one, worn next to the skin, which gets damaged a great deal; but a middle garment is not damaged [immediately], though over a long period it does get damaged. This is the point of their dispute: the Sages hold that since it will eventually be damaged, it is considered an item subject to damage, and one is not liable for misuse until actual damage occurs; whereas Rabbi Akiva holds that since it is not damaged now, it is considered an item not subject to damage. Some explain that a middle garment is damaged immediately, but the damage is not noticeable until later — the Sages hold that since it is an item subject to damage, one is not liable until actual damage occurs, while Rabbi Akiva holds that it is considered an item not subject to damage. Rashi explains according to this latter view, which is primary (and the terms indicate this further on). It seems to Rabbi [Tam] that the law follows them [the Sages] — that where there is no damage now but will be later, it is universally considered an item not subject to damage, as indicated further on, where the Gemara asks about the case of 'he drank from a golden cup' — is gold not subject to damage? And it concludes: although there is no simultaneous benefit and damage, is there not eventual damage? That is to say, eventually there is damage, and nevertheless the mishna calls the golden cup an item not subject to damage, and no one disputes this.
  8. 'And malmala' — In Gittin (59a) it is explained that this is a thin garment, comparable to half a nut's worth [in value], and with regard to the law of an item subject to damage, it is like a middle garment.
  9. 'Misuse [me'ila] only applies when there is a change [of status or domain]' — meaning from consecrated to non-consecrated use, that is, from the domain of sanctity to the domain of the mundane. And the Gemara brings proof from the case of a sotah (wayward wife), who creates a 'change,' in that she abandons her husband and engages and clings to something mundane and disgraceful for her.
  10. 'And it says: “And the children of Israel committed me'ila (transgressed) against the Lord their God, and went astray after the Ba'alim”' — This is difficult: what does this 'and it says' prove? One can answer: had the law been derived only from sotah, one might have thought that misuse requires actual benefit similar to sotah, who benefits from the transgression; but a 'change' without benefit — such as consecrated money that one converts into mundane use by purchasing an item for oneself, or as taught in our mishna regarding a stone or beam of consecrated property that one gave to another, in which case he himself did not benefit from the expenditure — one might think there is no liability for misuse in such a case. Therefore the verse teaches us the law of misuse from idol worship, which involves a change of domain without benefit, in that one shifts himself from the domain of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and from His service, to the domain of idol worship, from which he derives no benefit — so too, I may include in the law of misuse a case where one changes something from the domain of consecration to the domain of a commoner, such as one who sells, gives, or lends out consecrated items to a commoner, that he is liable for misuse even though he himself derives no benefit. One might ask: why not derive the law of misuse directly from the case of idol worship, and omit sotah altogether? The answer is that sotah is needed to teach that even without a change of domain — such as a treasurer of the Temple — nevertheless, if he benefits, he is liable for misuse, even without damage, such as with the chain and ring in our mishna; and this could not have been derived from idol worship, since idol worship involves a change from one domain to another, in that one abandons the service of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and serves idols instead — therefore sotah is needed for this. One might ask further: how does one derive 'benefit without change of domain' from sotah, when in the case of sotah there is indeed a change of domain, from the husband's domain to the paramour's domain? The answer is that in the case of sotah there is certainly no change of domain, for she does not leave her husband's domain merely by being unfaithful to him; but from idol worship the Gemara derives that one abandons the service of the Holy One and goes to serve idols [which constitutes an actual change]. One might further ask: since the misuse of sotah is not termed a 'change of domain,' what then does the baraita mean by saying 'Misuse only applies when there is a change,' and 'thus it says, if any man's wife goes astray and commits misuse (me'ila)'? The answer is that the main support is from the misuse connected with idol worship, cited at the end, and the baraita incidentally cites the case of sotah's misuse as well, to teach that the concept of misuse of consecrated property applies even to deriving benefit without a change of domain and without damage, similar to sotah, as will be concluded further on. Alternatively, granted that there is no formal change of domain in sotah, as explained, since she does not leave her husband's domain through this act, nevertheless there is some degree of change, and this is the meaning of the baraita's statement 'Misuse only applies when there is a change' — meaning there are two aspects: one is a change through benefit, such as one who derives benefit from consecrated property, even without a change of domain, such as a treasurer, and without damage — since nonetheless it constitutes a 'change,' because all forms of benefit from consecrated property are forbidden to a commoner; and we indeed find such a form of misuse with sotah, as it is written, 'If a man's wife goes astray,' as explained. And there is another type of 'change' without any benefit at all — namely, a change of domain, where one takes something out of the domain of consecration and brings it into the domain of a commoner, such as through sale, gift, or loan, and as soon as it changes to the domain of a commoner — meaning that the commoner performs an act that constitutes acquisition and ownership from one commoner to another — even though he derives no benefit, this change is what the Gemara derives from the phrase 'and they committed me'ila' regarding idol worship, since that too constitutes a change of domain without benefit, as explained. This is the explanation given precisely by Moshi'ach [a scholar's name/title].
Rashi on Meilah 18b, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. Lemma — One might have thought [the midrash teaches] that one is liable for misuse when he damaged but did not derive benefit, that is, he would be liable for misuse where he damaged but did not benefit, such as one who tore a sacred garment, comparable to idol worship, where there is a change [in use] but no benefit.
  2. Lemma — Or he would be liable for misuse when he derives benefit but does not damage, just as we find regarding a sotah, who derives benefit without damage, since she remains physically unblemished, yet she is considered both adulterous and as having derived forbidden benefit.
  3. Lemma — Or regarding something attached to the ground, such as a tree belonging to consecrated property. And regarding an agent who carried out the agency assigned to him by the owner, one might think that the agent himself, rather than the one who appointed him, would be liable for misuse, as if he had acted on his own initiative.
  4. Lemma — The verse teaches 'and sinned,' and 'sin' is also stated regarding teruma — 'and you shall not bear sin by reason of it.' Just as the sin stated regarding teruma involves damaging and benefiting, where the one who damaged the teruma is the same one who derived benefit from it.
  5. Lemma — And it must be an item from which he himself derives benefit by damaging it, and not from some other item.
  6. Lemma — And his damaging and his benefiting occur together, at the same time, as we say that his deriving benefit and the item's consumption happen simultaneously.
  7. Lemma — And [this applies only] to something detached from the ground, for teruma applies only to a detached item, as it is written, 'the first of your grain,' meaning that which has been processed into grain.
  8. Lemma — And [the law of] an agent who performed his agency, for when he separates teruma according to the will of the owner, it becomes teruma.
  9. Lemma — Likewise, the word 'sin' stated regarding misuse means that one damages and derives benefit — misuse, to exclude one who damaged without benefiting, such as one who tore sacred silk garments or wore a sacred robe, thereby benefiting without damaging; and also to exclude the case taught in the mishnah, that one who derived benefit of less than the minimum measure has not committed misuse.
  10. Lemma — And the damage and the benefit occur simultaneously, to exclude one who damages a peruta's worth now and benefits from a peruta's worth tomorrow.
  11. Lemma — An agent who performed the agency of the owner — such that the owner is liable for misuse — to exclude an agent who did not perform the agency but acted according to his own will, in which case the owner is not liable for misuse.
  12. Lemma — I have derived only the case of one who eats and one who benefits, as we said, since this is derived from teruma, we find only eating, as it is written, 'And a man who eats a sacred item in error, etc.'
  13. Lemma — His eating and another's eating — such as one took a peruta's worth from consecrated property and ate half of it himself while feeding the other half to his friend; or he derived benefit from half the measure and gave the other half to his friend, who also derived benefit. And 'his benefit and another's eating' — such as he anointed himself with oil of consecrated property worth half a peruta and gave the other half to his friend, who ate it; and likewise in reverse order. Here the discussion is not about any act of damaging, only about eating.
  14. Lemma — And even over a long period — such as one ate half the measure in the morning and his friend ate the other half in the evening — from where do we derive that these combine and that the one who benefited is liable? The verse states, 'commits a misuse,' to include this case.
  15. Lemma — If, just as the word 'sin' stated regarding teruma does not combine two acts of eating into one — rather, a single act of eating of the measure of an olive-bulk is required, as it is written, 'And a man who eats a sacred item, etc.,' which refers to teruma — so too regarding misuse, it should not combine two acts of eating into one. Yet we hold that it does combine two acts of eating into one. And from where do you say that if one ate half the measure today and ate the other half tomorrow — which constitutes two acts of eating — and even after a long time, he is liable? [Note:] There is a difference between the 'long time' mentioned here and the 'long time' mentioned above: the one here implies even after two or three days, since it teaches 'he ate today and ate tomorrow,' whereas the one above implies only within the same day, since it did not teach 'he ate today and ate tomorrow.'
  16. Lemma — And even if he did not complete the full measure of his eating [on each occasion].
  17. Lemma — From now until three years later — from where do we derive that he is liable?
Tosafot on Meilah 18b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. One might think [he is liable for] benefiting without damaging, [or] damaging without benefiting, etc. — Explanation: As for 'benefiting without damaging,' one might have thought to derive the law of misuse from sotah (the suspected adulteress), who is not physically harmed by the forbidden intercourse that makes her forbidden to her husband; and one would say the same regarding consecrated property. You might ask: what does 'one might think' mean here, and what does the comparison to teruma come to exclude — namely, liability for benefiting without damaging, which we would otherwise derive from sotah? But doesn't the Mishnah itself state that if he gave [his wife consecrated] jewelry or a ring, which is benefiting without damaging, he is liable? The answer is that the Mishnah deals with an item whose typical use and benefit involves no damage, whereas here the discussion concerns an item whose normal use does involve damage. So the meaning is: one might think that benefiting without damaging creates liability in any item, even one whose use involves damage, and the Gemara cites teruma — where the typical form of benefit is through damage, i.e., eating — to exclude liability for benefiting without damage in an item whose use involves damage, such as an axe or a garment. You might ask: since the case concerns an item whose use involves damage, how could one think to derive liability from the misuse analogy to sotah, when sotah is comparable only to an item whose use involves no damage, as explained? The answer is that nevertheless, were it not for the exclusion derived from the verbal analogy with teruma, we would have learned from sotah that any benefiting without damaging creates liability, even with an item whose use involves damage, even though it is not truly comparable to sotah — because one might reason that since the verse cares about benefit in order to create liability, it makes no difference whether the item's use involves damage or not. Therefore the comparison to teruma is needed to distinguish. The same reasoning must be applied to 'damaging without benefiting, one might think, etc.' That is: one might have thought to derive, from idol worship — which involves damage and desecration, namely turning away from the living God to follow vanity, without deriving any benefit from the idol worship itself — that likewise in misuse, one should be liable for damaging without benefiting, such as one who damages consecrated property and destroys it, for instance, taking consecrated items and throwing them into fire or water, or breaking them. And necessarily, the 'damage' spoken of here must be understood this way, for one cannot explain it as a case of removing the item from consecrated ownership and transferring it to the ownership of a commoner through sale, gift, or loan, and calling that 'damage' because the consecrated property is thereby diminished — for if that were so, when the Gemara cites teruma to exempt [certain cases], surely since there is a change of ownership (removal from consecrated status and transfer to a commoner's ownership) he would certainly be liable for misuse, since this itself is derived from the misuse of idol worship, and the Mishnah states that if he gave it to his friend he has committed misuse. Rather, this case must be referring to damaging without a change of ownership, as explained. You might ask: but how could the case of idol worship itself serve as the source, since the damage done by idol worship also involves a change of 'ownership,' as explained? The answer is that nevertheless, one might have thought that the Torah's primary concern is not the change of ownership but rather the damage and loss of the consecrated item itself; if so, one might have thought to create liability even without a change of ownership. Therefore the comparison to teruma is needed to distinguish. This is how my teacher carefully explained it.
  2. Just as teruma involves damage and benefit together — This is because the verse states 'if he eats it,' and it is impossible to eat without causing damage, since he thereby causes the priest to lose the teruma. Also, damage without benefit is exempt in the case of teruma — this excludes [from misuse] a case of benefiting without damaging in an item whose use involves damage, and it excludes damaging without benefiting where there is no change of ownership, such as one who simply damages the item. One should not ask why the verse did not simply state 'teruma' alone and remain silent about the other comparison [to sotah], since the Gemara will shortly require both.
  3. His eating and another's eating — This refers to a case where he fed his friend, placing the food directly into his friend's mouth. One cannot explain 'another's eating' as referring to agency, meaning that he instructed his friend to eat from the consecrated item — this is not so. Even though there is the principle of agency for a transgression with regard to misuse, as derived from the verbal analogy of 'sin'-'sin' with teruma, this applies specifically to misuse that occurs through removal [of the item from consecrated status], but not to misuse that occurs through eating and deriving benefit, as stated in the chapter HaIsh Mekadesh (Kiddushin 43a): we do not find anywhere in the entire Torah a case where one person derives the benefit and another becomes liable, regarding one who tells his agent, 'Go and eat forbidden fat,' as explained there in the Tosefta. So it appears to my teacher. Alternatively, one might perhaps say that this can also occur through agency — for instance, if he instructed his friend to take and eat, then once the friend lifted the item he acquired it, and became liable for misuse before the actual eating, as explained there in the Tosefta. So it appears to my teacher.

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 18.