Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Meilah

Meilah 19 for kids: Misuse and the Golden Chain

מעילה י״ט

🔗 This daf explores the laws of me'ilah (misusing sacred Temple property). It discusses who can be liable (even a king!), whether gold can be damaged, and how many times people can be blamed for misusing the same animal or cup.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Meilah 19a in Daf QuestOpen Meilah 19b 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 19

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Meilah 19 in simple English

Rashi on Meilah 19a, in English Tab translation (14)
  1. Until it leaves from the sacred to the non-sacred — Because when one eats teruma, he thereby brings it out into non-sacred ownership. From where do we derive the law for one who transfers an item from sacred to sacred, such as one who took money from the Temple treasury and purchased with it bird-nests for zavim and zavot and women after childbirth, or paid his shekel tax from it (which he is obligated to give to the chamber's fund), or brought his sin offering or guilt offering from consecrated money — that is, from sacred to sacred? Once he brought it into the Temple courtyard, he has committed misuse. This is the view of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one obligated to bring a sin offering or guilt offering remains responsible for it until he brings it to the courtyard; once brought, he is released from that responsibility. So too here: one who transfers from sacred to sacred — once he has brought it to the courtyard, he has fulfilled his obligation of responsibility, and thereby commits misuse.
  2. And Rabbi Yehuda — holds that one remains responsible for the offering until the blood is sprinkled. So too here, once the blood is sprinkled and he is released from his responsibility, he commits misuse, since once he has fulfilled his obligation through it, it is as if he transferred it to non-sacred use. And from where do we derive that this is called misuse, according to both Rabbi Shimon's and Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning? The verse states 'he shall surely commit misuse,' which is an inclusive expression teaching this.
  3. What might one have thought — that is, what reason would there be to exclude a king or an anointed High Priest from the law of misuse? Obviously all are liable, since the verse says 'a soul,' and 'soul' includes a commoner, a king, or an anointed one alike.
  4. Lest you say — the Merciful One states regarding the anointing oil, 'whoever puts it upon a stranger,' and the anointed one is not a 'stranger,' since he himself was anointed with it. One might therefore think he is excluded from the law of misuse. Therefore the verse teaches that the anointed one is included in the law of misuse as well.
  5. The Merciful One juxtaposed — that is, as stated above, misuse was juxtaposed to sota and to idol worship. How so regarding sota? Just as with sota, even though she caused no physical damage, she is liable — since a sota is considered as one already 'joined,' for the law applies only to a married woman, as it is written 'besides your husband,' and we say (Sotah 24b) that the husband's relations preceded the adulterer's, meaning she was indeed a married woman — and nevertheless Scripture calls this 'betrayal' [me'ilah] —
  6. With regard to consecrated property too, if she placed a ring on her hand — even though she did not damage it, she has committed misuse.
  7. The Merciful One juxtaposed it to idol worship, [teaching] that liability requires a change — just as with idol worship, one changes from worship of the Divine Presence to idol worship, so too with consecrated property: for example, one who chops non-sacred wood with a consecrated axe — since he has changed its use from sacred to non-sacred — does not commit misuse until he actually chops with it, thereby damaging it.
  8. The Merciful One juxtaposed it to teruma — as stated above, the word 'sin' is derived by verbal analogy from teruma for this purpose: just as regarding teruma the verse excludes one who merely damages it without benefit — such as spilling food or drink of teruma without partaking of it, who is not liable — so too with consecrated property, regarding anything edible, if one damages it (e.g., by spilling it) without benefiting, he is exempt from misuse. And my teacher told me that the same applies even to something inedible — if one damages it without benefit, he is exempt, since liability for misuse requires actual benefit. The reason the Gemara speaks specifically of food is only because the verse regarding teruma says 'if he eats,' since with teruma liability applies only to eating; by the same analogy, it likewise stated the law for consecrated items in terms of anything edible.
  9. And is gold not subject to damage — for the mishnah teaches 'once he derives benefit, he has committed misuse,' without saying 'until he causes damage,' implying that gold is not susceptible to damage. And if so, that it does not become damaged —
  10. Where did the gold of Nun's daughter-in-law go — Nun was a wealthy man who gave his daughter-in-law much gold and jewelry. When he gave it to her, it was weighed, and after a time it was weighed again and found to be lacking. This shows that gold, too, is subject to damage.
  11. He said to him — Rav Zevid [replied]: One cannot prove anything from this, for perhaps it certainly became deficient the way your daughters-in-law's gold does — that is, because it was not properly safeguarded but tossed about carelessly, the way your daughters-in-law treat their jewelry without proper care, that is why it diminished. But gold that is carefully safeguarded does not diminish.
  12. And furthermore — even granting that gold does become deficient over time, nevertheless, once one benefits from it he has committed misuse. For although there is no damage occurring immediately at the moment of benefit, does that mean it is never subject to damage at all? [No —] I meant only that it is not damaged immediately; but over time it gradually becomes deficient. And since there is no immediate damage, once one has benefited from it, he has committed misuse right away.
  13. Now, consider — the mishnah is dealing with an unblemished animal sin offering, similar to the golden cup: just as a golden cup is not subject to [immediate] damage, so the law does not depend on causing damage, but rather once one benefits from it to the value of a penny he has committed misuse. So too an unblemished sin offering, which stands to be sacrificed and is not eligible for redemption — once one benefits from it, he should likewise be liable for misuse. Why then does the mishnah say 'until he causes damage'? What damage could be caused to it? Even if one rode on it until it became emaciated, that would not constitute 'damage,' since it does not disqualify it from the altar — for an animal, whether fat or lean, remains fit for atonement, and the concept of damage does not apply to it.
  14. Rav Pappa said — the mishnah is dealing with a blemished sin offering, which stands to be redeemed. Since by weakening it one diminishes its monetary value, and it is thus an item subject to damage, one is not liable for misuse until he causes damage worth at least a penny. The latter clause, which teaches that once it has died, benefiting from it to the value of a penny constitutes misuse, applies to both an unblemished and a blemished animal, since once it has died it can no longer be redeemed — for consecrated items are not redeemed in order to feed them to dogs (Pesachim 29a). Therefore in that case the mishnah does not state 'until he causes damage.'
Tosafot on Meilah 19a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Akshei Rachmana le-teruma — The Merciful One compared misuse to teruma, as it is written 'if he eats,' excluding one who causes damage [without benefiting] — meaning one who causes a blemish without deriving benefit. For were it not for the verbal analogy to teruma, we would have obligated him, as stated at the beginning of the baraita, which says: one might have thought that causing damage without benefiting is also liable... because we derive [liability for that] from idol worship, as explained above. One should not question why the comparison to sota is used for liability while the comparison to teruma is used for exemption, for each comparison serves its own purpose: the comparison to sota comes to obligate one who benefits without causing damage, in a case involving an item not subject to damage — without the comparison to sota, we would have exempted anyone who merely benefits without damaging. And without the comparison to teruma, one would be liable for damage without benefit, derived from idol worship as explained above. And if you ask: why did the baraita not also mention, regarding teruma, the exemption for benefiting without causing damage, since that too is derived from teruma, as stated above — one might have thought that benefit without damage [is liable], as explained above? The answer is that the baraita does not rule that way, since there is a case of benefit without damage that is liable, namely an item not subject to damage, which is derived from sota. Rather, the real difficulty concerns idol worship: since the comparison to idol worship is used for exemption, the baraita should also have mentioned the liability derived from idol worship, namely that one is liable for misuse through removing an item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the non-sacred — such as through sale, gift, or loan — even without any benefit, since this cannot be learned from either sota or teruma, both of which involve benefit. The answer is that this is indeed what is meant: the comparison to idol worship serves also to teach that liability requires a change — meaning that from idol worship we learn that a change of domain creates liability even without any benefit. And in passing, this teaches that mere removal from the domain of the sacred is not considered a 'change' until the item enters the domain of the non-sacred and is acquired by a non-sacred person, such as through chopping, as explained above — teaching us a novel point according to Rav Huna.
  2. Akshei Rachmana le-teruma — The Merciful One compared misuse to teruma, as it says 'if he eats,' excluding one who causes damage without eating. Similarly, with consecrated property, when it comes to an edible item, if one damages it [without benefiting], he is exempt. This is difficult, for it implies that only with an edible item does causing damage without benefit result in exemption. But this is problematic, since in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (9b) the mishnah teaches: 'Property not subject to misuse' — implying that if it is subject to misuse, i.e., consecrated items or items of the most sacred order, one is exempt — and this is said with respect to the four primary categories of damage mentioned in that mishnah, which include mav'eh, meaning a person who causes damage, even according to the opinion that mav'eh refers to the category of 'tooth,' about which there is no dispute here. Rabbi Yitzchak explained that the tanna's use of the phrase 'if he eats' was meant to teach that even if one eats in a way that causes damage, such as eating in a gluttonous, damaging manner, he is exempt. One should add: such as with oil of teruma, which is exempt, as stated in Tractate Berakhot, chapter 'Keitzad Mevarchin' (35b; see also Tosafot on Bava Metzia 99b, s.v. 'perat').
  3. U'dehava lav bar ipgumei hu — This is stated as a rhetorical question, challenging the mishnah's description of the golden cup, which it calls 'an item not subject to damage.'
  4. Dehava de-kalteih de-Nun heikhan azal — This is the conclusion of the challenge, meaning: if gold truly were an item not subject to damage, then where did the gold [jewelry] of the daughter-in-law of that wealthy man called Nun go? And [Rav Zevid] answers: perhaps that gold met the fate of the way your daughters-in-law discard theirs — meaning, perhaps she treated her gold carelessly just as your daughters-in-law do, who would throw it out the windows or leave it in unguarded places, causing it great damage. The word 'deramyan' means 'they throw.'
  5. Mikdei i bi-vehema temima haynu kos shel zahav — This means: since the animals were unblemished, they are considered items not subject to damage, for even if the animal became thin, nothing is lost by this, since it can still be offered and its purpose is thereby fulfilled. For the concept of 'damage' applies only to an item whose worth is measured by its monetary value, such that if sold, its price would be reduced; but an item meant to be offered, which does not lose its function through such a change, since it remains fit for offering, is not considered an item subject to damage. The Gemara answers that it refers to a blemished animal, which is now destined to be sold, so that its value would indeed be diminished.
Rashi on Meilah 19b, in English Tab translation (16)
  1. Lemma — 'Derived benefit equal to half a peruta' — for example, he wore a consecrated garment and derived benefit from it to the value of half a peruta.
  2. Lemma — 'And caused damage of half a peruta' — he tore it and damaged it to the value of half a peruta.
  3. Lemma — 'Or he derived benefit of the value of a peruta from one item' — an item that is subject to damage, but he did not damage it.
  4. Lemma — 'And caused damage of the value of a peruta to another item' — for example, he spilled a liquid and derived no benefit from it. In such a case he is not liable for misuse until he derives benefit equal to a peruta and causes damage equal to a peruta to the same item. This discussion concerns an item that is subject to damage, and the Tanna holds that, as with teruma, the damage and the benefit must occur to the same item.
  5. Lemma — 'One is liable for misuse after misuse in consecrated items only in the case of an animal of the altar and service vessels' — these are not designated for monetary redemption and cannot truly be disqualified through damage. Even if one rode on the animal and made it thin, or plucked wool from it, it remains fit for sacrifice and is not disqualified for the altar — whether fat or thin it is fit for offering, and this is not considered 'damage.' Therefore it retains its sanctity, and is thus subject to misuse after misuse. Likewise, if one drank from a gold cup, even if it became dented or damaged, since its sanctity is inherent sanctity (not sanctity of monetary value) and it is not destined for redemption, it remains fit for its service and is subject to misuse after misuse.
  6. Lemma — 'Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any item that is not subject to damage' — meaning it cannot be disqualified through damage, i.e. any item that has no redemption, such as the animal and service vessels mentioned in the mishna — is subject to misuse after misuse. The Gemara will explain the difference between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis.
  7. Lemma — 'He holds that the matter [of misuse] is written specifically regarding an animal' — and not regarding other items, as it is written: 'and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering.' The phrase 'with the ram of the guilt offering' is superfluous, since 'a ram as a guilt offering' was already stated earlier; the verse could have simply said 'and the priest shall make atonement for him.' Why does it add 'with the ram of the guilt offering'? To teach that atonement is made for misuse committed with that ram — meaning benefit derived from it — implying that even if one misused it a hundred times, it remains a guilt offering subject to misuse at every moment. Since the Torah wrote 'animal' specifically regarding misuse and not other items, this indicates that liability for misuse after misuse applies only to an animal.
  8. Lemma — 'Rabbi Nehemya' — who adds service vessels to the law of misuse, derives this through an a fortiori argument: 'if they bring other things to sanctity' — since service vessels are so stringent that they confer sanctity on other items placed in them, and those items are subject to misuse — as we hold (Zevachim 87a) that service vessels sanctify anything placed in them —
  9. Lemma — 'The vessel itself' — a service vessel, such as a gold cup — should it not certainly be holy enough to be subject to misuse after misuse?
  10. Lemma — 'There is a difference between them in the case of wood, as the Sages taught: one who says, It is incumbent upon me [to bring] wood...' — as we learned in tractate Menachot, in the chapter 'One who says: It is incumbent upon me [to bring] a tenth-ephah': one who says 'It is incumbent upon me to bring wood' must not bring fewer than two logs of wood. And the Gemara states: The Sages taught: [the word] 'offering' teaches that one may voluntarily donate wood. And how much [minimum]? Two logs. And so it says: 'And we cast lots for the wood offering.'
  11. Lemma — 'Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Wood is an offering, and requires salt and requires waving' — according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who calls it an offering, it is an item not subject to damage and has inherent sanctity, and is thus subject to misuse after misuse — if one sat on it and then another sat on it, both are liable. But according to the Rabbis, who do not call it an offering, it does not have the status of items consecrated for the altar but rather the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance; it is an item subject to damage and is treated as existing only for its monetary value, and is therefore not subject to misuse after misuse.
  12. Lemma — 'Rava said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi' — who calls it an offering, that wood requires additional wood in order to burn it upon, like any other offering.
  13. Lemma — 'And it requires the removal of a handful' — meaning one takes a small amount from the wood with his handful and burns it first, since it is likened to a meal offering in requiring salt and waving, it also requires the removal of a handful.
  14. Lemma — 'Rav Pappa said: consecrated animals of the altar, etc.' — this is the point of difference between them.
  15. Lemma — 'And indeed it is taught' — in confirmation: 'If there were unblemished animals consecrated for the altar, and they became blemished, and someone transgressed and slaughtered them before they were redeemed, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: they must be buried' — because he holds that all consecrated items, even those consecrated for the altar, are included in the requirement of 'standing before the priest' and 'valuation.' These animals cannot undergo 'standing' and 'valuation' since they have died; therefore they must be buried, since they have no possibility of redemption. Therefore they are subject to misuse after misuse — one who derives benefit from them after slaughter is liable.
  16. Lemma — 'But the Rabbis say: they should be redeemed' — because they do not require 'standing' and 'valuation,' and since they have monetary sanctity and are subject to redemption, they are not subject to misuse after misuse.
Tosafot on Meilah 19b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. This is the correct text — [reading]: One who derived benefit of half a peruta [from a consecrated item] and caused damage of half a peruta, or who derived benefit of a peruta's worth from one item and caused damage of a peruta's worth to a different item, is exempt. He is not liable for misuse until he derives a peruta's worth of benefit and causes a peruta's worth of damage to the same item. In the Gemara it explains the reason: this is derived from teruma — that the liability applies when the item from which he benefited is the very item he damaged.
  2. One is liable for misuse after misuse only in the case of an animal and service vessels — This is difficult, for it is taught in a Tosefta: If one chopped wood with a consecrated axe, and his fellow came and chopped with it, and another came and chopped with it, all of them are liable for misuse. One cannot say this discusses an axe that is a service vessel, for the same Tosefta later states: if one gave it to his fellow, and his fellow gave it to another fellow, the first is liable but the second is not — whereas with a burnt-offering animal, all are liable. The explanation given is that the case [of the axe] involves a situation where after chopping he returned it, so that what he returned remains consecrated property, as though they had not caused misuse. Rabbeinu Yitzchak explains instead that the case involves treasurers [of the Temple], who never cause the item to leave sacred status through any act of misuse until it is removed from the Temple's domain.
  3. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: any item that has no redemption is subject to liability for misuse after misuse — This is explained in the Gemara.
  4. What is the reasoning of the first tanna — He holds that the matter is written with regard to an animal, as it is written, '…with the ram of the guilt offering.' This phrase is superfluous, since the verse could have simply said 'he shall be forgiven,' indicating that this teaches specifically that misuse after misuse applies to the ram of the guilt offering, but not to service vessels. It appears that one must explain that the Rabbis hold that a service vessel does leave sacred status through an act of misuse, and therefore it has the capacity for redemption. For if it had no redemption, it would never leave sacred status, and there would be no reason that it should not be subject to misuse after misuse, since one act of misuse has already occurred. It is not reasonable to say that the verse specifically excludes this case.
  5. And Rabbi Nechemya could say to you: an a fortiori inference — Namely, that if a service vessel can confer sanctity upon other items placed inside it, then certainly the vessel itself should not be excluded [from repeated misuse]. Nevertheless, he agrees that it has the possibility of redemption; it is only with regard to misuse that it is different, because of the a fortiori inference, while regarding redemption perhaps this a fortiori inference does not apply. The phrase 'with the ram of the guilt offering' is needed for a different derivation.
  6. One who says, 'It is incumbent upon me to bring wood,' must not bring fewer than two logs, and it requires salt and waving — This is explained in tractate Menachot (Hakometz Rabbah): according to Rabbi, wood requires the removal of a handful just like a meal offering, and wood is needed to build the arrangement and burn the handful upon it. Now Rabbi and the Rabbis disagree here just as they do in our Mishnah: Rabbi holds that any item without the possibility of monetary diminishment, such as wood, has misuse after misuse just like an animal or service vessels, because wood is considered a complete offering; the Rabbis hold that it is not an offering, and therefore it does not have misuse after misuse.
  7. If there were unblemished animals consecrated for the altar that became blemished — is there a difference of opinion, and is it not taught...? — Answered in the affirmative: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says they must be buried, for he holds that standing [before the priest] and valuation are required; and the Rabbis say they should be redeemed, for they hold that standing and valuation are not required. Thus the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis is this: according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires standing and valuation, their sanctity is strong, since they cannot be easily redeemed; therefore they remain subject to misuse after misuse. He calls them 'an item without the possibility of diminishment' because originally, while unblemished, they had that status. The Rabbis hold that there is no misuse after misuse, because their sanctity is not strong, since they can be redeemed without standing and valuation.
  8. If one took a stone or beam of consecrated property, he has not committed misuse — In the Gemara this is explained as referring to stones entrusted to the treasurer, which do not leave sacred status when the treasurer takes them, because he does not remove them from the domain of the Temple by taking them. As long as an item remains within the treasurer's domain, it remains within the domain of the Temple, until he removes it from his own domain.

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 19.