Halacha
הלכה א
יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהָאָדָם נֶהֱנֶה בָּהֶן וְלֹא יִפָּגְמוּ כְּגוֹן הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי זָהָב טָהוֹר. וְיֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁיִּפָּגְמוּ כְּגוֹן בְּגָדִים וּכְלֵי כֶּסֶף וּנְחשֶׁת וּבַרְזֶל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְהַנֶּהֱנֶה בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻבָּר בַּקַּרְקַע אִם נֶהֱנֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְּגָם כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי זָהָב שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ מָעַל. נֶהֱנֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁנִּפְגַּם כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּבַשׁ בִּגְדֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ בָּקַע בְּקוֹרְדוֹם לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בְּאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בּוֹ וְיִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת וְיִפְגֹּם וְיֵהָנֶה כְּאַחַת. נֶהֱנָה בְּכַחֲצִי פְּרוּטָה וּפָגַם בְּכַחֲצִי פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וּפָגַם בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר וְלֹא נֶהֱנָה בְּמַה שֶּׁפָּגַם וְלֹא פָּגַם בְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְיִפְגֹּם בְּאוֹתָהּ הֲנָיָה בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בַּדָּבָר עַצְמוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִתִּיר מַטְלִית מִבֶּגֶד הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּתְפָרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ וּלְבָשָׁהּ וְנֶהֱנָה בָּהּ בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְהִפְסִיד בַּבֶּגֶד שֶׁהִתִּירָהּ מִמֶּנָּה בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְלֹא הִפְסִיד בַּמַּטְלִית כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד וּפָגַם בְּדָבָר אַחֵר. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנֶּהֱנֶה וּמְהַנֶּה חֲבֵרוֹ מִצְטָרֵף וַאֲפִלּוּ לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ב
קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים הַתְּמִימִים שֶׁתָּלַשׁ מִצִּמְרָן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בִּפְרוּטָה מָעַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגַם. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן דּוֹמִים לְכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְגָּם שֶׁאֵין תְּלִישַׁת הַצֶּמֶר פּוֹסֶלֶת אוֹתָן מִלִּקָּרֵב. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל בָּהֶן מוּם הוֹאִיל וְלִמְכִירָה עוֹמְדִים וְהַגִּזָּה פּוֹגֶמֶת דְּמֵיהֶן לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה וְיִפְגֹּם בִּפְרוּטָה. תָּלַשׁ מֵהֶן אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתוּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מָעַל שֶׁאֵין פְּגָם לְמֵתָה. וּמְעִילָה זוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ג
הַמּוֹעֵל בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּעַל בִּשְׁגָגָה נִתְחַלֵּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְזֶה שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה אַחֲרָיו פָּטוּר. מָעַל בְּזָדוֹן הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּקָרְבַּן מְעִילָה לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא בַּהֲוָיָתוֹ וְאִם בָּא אַחֵר וְנֶהֱנָה בּוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה מָעַל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁמָּעַל בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּתוֹרַת חֻלִּין וְהִקְנָהוּ לְאַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ וּפְגָמוֹ וְלֹא הִקְנָה לְאַחֵר יֵשׁ בּוֹ מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ד
וְאֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁים. אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ בִּלְבַד. כֵּיצַד. בָּקַע בְּקוֹרְדוֹם שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנֶהֱנָה בִּפְרוּטָה וּפָגַם וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וּבָקַע בּוֹ וְנֶהֱנָה וּפָגַם כֻּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. נָטַל הַקּוֹרְדוֹם וּנְתָנוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ הוּא מָעַל אֲבָל חֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. שָׁתָה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב וְנֶהֱנָה בִּפְרוּטָה וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה וְנֶהֱנָה וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה וְנֶהֱנָה כֻּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. נָטַל הַכּוֹס וּנְתָנוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ מַתָּנָה אוֹ מְכָרוֹ הוּא מָעַל וַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. רָכַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַחֲמוֹר וְנֶהֱנָה בִּפְרוּטָה וּפָגַם וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב עָלָיו וְנֶהֱנָה וּפָגַם וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב עָלָיו וְנֶהֱנָה וּפָגַם. כֻּלָּם מָעֲלוּ. נָתַן הַחֲמוֹר לַחֲבֵרוֹ מַתָּנָה אוֹ מְכָרוֹ אוֹ הִשְׂכִּירוֹ הוּא מָעַל וַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. וְכֵן הַמַּשְׁאִיל קַרְדֹּם שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ הוּא מָעַל לְפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבּוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ מֻתָּר לִבְקֹעַ בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִבְהֵמָה:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ה
בֶּהֱמַת קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ אֵינָהּ כֵּן אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בָּהּ מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל עַד כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים. כֵּיצַד. תָּלַשׁ מִן הַחַטָּאת וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ כֻּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. וְכֵן אִם נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ כֻּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁדִּין הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהָעוֹפוֹת וְהַנְּסָכִים וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת כְּדִין הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁכֻּלָּן קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף הֵן:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ו
בֶּהֱמַת קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהּ מוּם הוֹאִיל וְהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת לְפִדְיוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִיא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים. וְאִם נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד מָעַל:
כסף משנה
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.הלכה ז
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהַנּוֹטֵל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּנְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. וְאִם נְתָנָהּ לְזֶה הַגִּזְבָּר שֶׁהָיְתָה תַּחַת יָדוֹ הוּא מָעַל וְהַגִּזְבָּר לֹא מָעַל. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּמוֹעֵל בְּזָדוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הַנּוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אוֹתָהּ בַּחֲפָצָיו אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן אוֹתָהּ בְּמַתָּנָה. נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ הוּא מָעַל וַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא מָעַל. שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בִּשְׁאָר הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה ח
נָטַל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ לֹא מָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נֶהֱנָה עֲדַיִן. בָּנָה אוֹתָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ מָעַל. נְתָנָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי חַלּוֹן שֶׁבַּתִּקְרָה וְלֹא חִבְּרָהּ לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ בִּשְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ הֲנָיָה הַנִּכֶּרֶת:
כסף משנה
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.הלכה ט
נָטַל פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּנְתָנָהּ לְבַלָּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ מָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה בִּהְיוֹתוֹ רוֹחֵץ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְכֵן אִם נְתָנָהּ לְאֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֻמָּנֻיּוֹת מָעַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא עָשׂוּ מְלַאכְתּוֹ:
כסף משנה
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.הלכה י
קָנָה בָּהּ חֵפֶץ וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ אִם מִן הָעַכּוּ''ם מָעַל. וְאִם מִן יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא מָעַל:
כסף משנה
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.הלכה יא
הַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּצְרָכָיו עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהֵן חֻלִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיאָן בְּדִבְרֵי חֹל מָעַל. כֵּיצַד. הַמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ וּפִסְחוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְכֵן מְחֻסַּר כַּפָּרָה שֶׁהֵבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מָעַל. וְכֻלָּם אֵין מוֹעֲלִין עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם. לְפִיכָךְ הַמֵּבִיא מְנָחוֹת וּנְסָכִים וְלֶחֶם תּוֹדָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה לֹא מָעַל שֶׁאֵין כָּאן זְרִיקַת דָּם לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו:
כסף משנה
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.
הלכה יב
נָתַן שִׁקְלוֹ מִמְּעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּשֶׁיִּתְרְמוּ הַתְּרוּמָה וְיִקְנוּ מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֵמָה אַחַת וְיִזָּרֵק דָּמָהּ יִמְעל הַשּׁוֹקֵל. שֶׁהֲרֵי חָלְקוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָהּ:
כסף משנה
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.הלכה יג
הַמַּפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּשְׁאָר צְרָכָיו. בֵּין הוּא בֵּין חֲבֵרוֹ מָעַל. נְתָנוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁקְלוֹ עַל יָדוֹ הָלַךְ וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ אִם כְּבָר נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה מָעַל הַשּׁוֹקֵל שֶׁהַתּוֹרֵם תוֹרֵם עַל הֶעָתִיד לְהִגָּבוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁקָלִים וּכְאִלּוּ הִגִּיעַ שֶׁקֶל זֶה לַלִּשְׁכָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ מָעַל. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָה לֹא מָעַל. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
כסף משנה
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.