Meilah 3:6-7
משנה מעילה ג:ו-ז
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 3
📖 Mishna
Mishna 3:6
משנה ג:ו
Hebrew:
כָּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְלֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד, הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר מָלֵא מַיִם, אַשְׁפָּה מְלֵאָה זֶבֶל, שׁוֹבָךְ מָלֵא יוֹנִים, אִילָן מָלֵא פֵרוֹת, שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עֲשָׂבִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא מַיִם, אַשְׁפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְאָה זֶבֶל, שׁוֹבָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא יוֹנִים, אִילָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא פֵרוֹת, שָׂדֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְאָה עֲשָׂבִים, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם וּבְגִדּוּלֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּדּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְלַד מְעֻשֶּׂרֶת לֹא יִינַק מִן הַמְעֻשֶּׂרֶת. וַאֲחֵרִים מִתְנַדְּבִים כֵּן. וְלַד מֻקְדָּשִׁין לֹא יִינַק מִן הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. וַאֲחֵרִים מִתְנַדְּבִים כֵּן. הַפּוֹעֲלִים לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִגְּרוֹגָרוֹת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְכֵן פָּרָה לֹא תֹאכַל מִכַּרְשִׁינֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
English:
With regard to any consecrated item that is fit for sacrifice on the altar but is not fit for Temple maintenance, or if it is fit for Temple maintenance but not for sacrifice on the altar, or fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance, nevertheless one is liable for misusing it. The mishna clarifies each of these categories: Fit for Temple maintenance but not for sacrifice on the altar, how so? In a case where one consecrated a cistern full of water, the water is not fit for sacrifice on the altar, as only water from the Siloam pool is used for the altar. Nevertheless, it is fit for Temple maintenance, e.g., to knead clay with it for use in reinforcing the walls of the Temple. What is the case of an item fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated garbage dumps full of manure, the place and its contents are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance. Rather, they are sold and the money received from the sale is donated to the Temple. What is the case of an item fit for sacrifice on the altar but not fit for Temple maintenance? If one consecrated a dovecote full of pigeons, the pigeons are fit for the altar while the dovecote is not fit even for Temple maintenance. Or if one consecrated a tree full of fruit, as the fruit is fit for the altar whereas the tree is not fit even for Temple maintenance. For example, grapes are fit for the altar as wine, but the vines are not fit for Temple maintenance, as they are too flimsy for construction. Another case where the consecrated item is fit for neither the altar nor Temple maintenance is a field full of grass. In all those cases, one is liable for misusing both them and that which is within them, as those that are unfit for use in the Temple will be sold and their money will be used for the altar or for Temple maintenance. But if one consecrated an empty cistern and it was subsequently filled with water, or if one consecrated an empty garbage dump and it was subsequently filled with manure, or an empty dovecote and it was subsequently filled with pigeons, or a tree without fruit and it was subsequently filled with fruit, or an empty field and it was subsequently filled with grass; in all these cases one is liable for misusing them but one is not liable for misusing that which is within them. There is no misuse with regard to enhancements that developed in consecrated property. Rabbi Yosei disagrees in two of the above cases and says: In the case of one who consecrates the empty field in which grass grew or the empty tree on which fruit grew, he is liable for misusing both them and their growth, because these are growths of consecrated property, despite the fact that they grew there only after the property was consecrated. Apropos the growths of consecrated property, the mishna states that an offspring born to a tithed animal before it was tithed may not be given to suckle from the tithed mother, as it is a non-sacred animal that may not be allowed to derive benefit from consecrated property. And there are others who stipulate in this manner, i.e., that the consecration does not apply to the milk. The same is true of the offspring of sacrificial animals born to them before their consecration; they may not suckle from the sacrificial animal. And in this case as well, there are others who stipulate in this manner, i.e., to enable the offspring to suckle. The laborers, who are generally permitted to eat the food of their employer, may not eat from consecrated dried figs, if they work with Temple produce. Rather, they can buy food with the money they are paid. And likewise, a cow working with consecrated property, e.g., threshing Temple produce, may not eat from consecrated vetch [mikarshinei].
קלאוד על המשנה:
This lengthy mishna establishes a foundational framework: me’ilah applies broadly to all consecrated items, regardless of whether they are fit for the altar, for Temple maintenance, or for neither. The mishna then explores a critical question — when items are consecrated together with their contents, does the sanctity extend to contents that arrive later?
The key distinction is between simultaneous and sequential consecration. If one consecrates a cistern already full of water, or a dovecote already full of pigeons, both the container and its contents are subject to me’ilah. But if one consecrates an empty cistern that later fills with water, or a bare tree that later bears fruit, the contents that arrived after the consecration are not subject to me’ilah according to Rabbi Yehuda (the Tanna Kamma). The rationale is that the person’s intent at the time of consecration did not encompass future growth.
Rabbi Yosei disagrees specifically regarding a field and a tree: their subsequent growth (grass and fruit) are gidulei hekdesh — growths of consecrated property — and should be subject to me’ilah. His reasoning is that organic growth from a consecrated source is inherently part of that source. The mishna then extends this concept to practical scenarios: offspring of tithed or sacrificial animals may not nurse from their consecrated mothers, workers may not eat consecrated produce, and even a cow may not eat consecrated vetch while threshing it.
Key Terms:
- גִּדּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ (Gidulei Hekdesh) = Growths of consecrated property — natural products that emerge from an item after its consecration
- בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת (Bedek HaBayit) = Temple maintenance — upkeep, repairs, and construction of the Temple structure
- מְעֻשֶּׂרֶת (Me’useret) = A tithed animal — an animal designated as ma’aser beheima (animal tithe)
- כַּרְשִׁינֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ (Karshinei Hekdesh) = Consecrated vetch — a legume used as animal fodder that belongs to the Temple
- שׁוֹבָךְ (Shovakh) = Dovecote — a structure for raising pigeons, relevant because pigeons can be offered on the altar
Mishna 3:7
משנה ג:ז
Hebrew:
שָׁרְשֵׁי אִילָן שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט בָּאִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בָּאִין בְּשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹ�� מוֹעֲלִין. הַמַּעְיָן שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂדֵה הֶקְדֵּשׁ, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. יָצָא חוּץ לַשָּׂדֶה, נֶהֱנִין מִמֶּנּוּ. הַמַּיִם שֶׁבְּכַד שֶׁל זָהָב, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. נִתְּנוּ בִצְלוֹחִית, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם. עֲרָבָה, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, נוֹתְנִין הָיוּ מִמֶּנָּה זְקֵנִים בְּלוּלְבֵיהֶם:
English:
With regard to the roots of the non-sacred tree of an ordinary person that enter into consecrated land, and the roots of a consecrated tree that enter into the non-sacred land of an ordinary person, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio, but if he derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse. With regard to water of a spring that flows in a non-sacred field but which emerges from that field and flows into a consecrated field, when it is in the consecrated field one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse. Once the spring emerges outside the consecrated field one may derive benefit from the water. With regard to the water that was drawn from the Siloam pool into the golden jug, which was not consecrated as a service vessel, to bring it to the altar for libation on the festival of Sukkot, one may not derive benefit from the water ab initio, as it was drawn for use in the Temple service. But if one derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse, since it was not consecrated in a service vessel. Once one places the water from the jug for libation into the flask, which is a service vessel, the water is consecrated and he is liable for misusing the water. With regard to the willow branches that are placed on the sides of the altar on the festival of Sukkot, before their placement one may not derive benefit from them ab initio, but if he derived benefit from them he is not liable for their misuse. After their placement their mitzva has been fulfilled, and therefore at that time one may derive benefit from the willow branches ab initio. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The elders were accustomed to derive benefit from the willow branches even before their placement on the sides of the altar, by cutting small branches for use in their lulav, in fulfillment of the mitzva of the four species.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna addresses boundary cases — literally — where consecrated and non-sacred domains overlap or intersect. The common thread is that when sanctity is ambiguous or indirect, the intermediate status of “lo nehenin v’lo mo’alin” (one may not benefit but is not liable for me’ilah) applies.
The first case involves tree roots crossing property boundaries between sacred and ordinary land. Since roots grow underground and their exact location is uncertain, and since they draw sustenance from both domains, neither full me’ilah nor full permissibility applies. Similarly, a spring flowing through consecrated land has a transitional status: while on sacred ground, it is restricted; once it exits, it becomes available for ordinary use. The water itself was never consecrated — it merely passes through sacred territory.
The mishna then turns to the Sukkot water libation ceremony. Water drawn from the Siloam pool into a golden jug was intended for Temple service but had not yet been consecrated in a service vessel. Only when transferred to the flask (a proper keli sharet) does full sanctity attach. The willow branches placed on the altar’s sides during Sukkot follow yet another pattern: before placement they are restricted (designated for sacred use) but after their mitzvah is fulfilled, they become permitted. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok adds a fascinating custom: the elders would take small willow branches for their lulavim even before the Temple ceremony, suggesting a practical leniency in the application of these rules.
Key Terms:
- צְלוֹחִית (Tzelochit) = Flask — a service vessel (keli sharet) that consecrates liquids placed in it for the altar service
- שִׁיתִין (Shitin) = Drainage channels beneath the altar
- כַּד שֶׁל זָהָב (Kad shel Zahav) = Golden jug — used to draw water from the Siloam pool for the water libation on Sukkot, but not itself a service vessel
- עֲרָבָה (Aravah) = Willow branches — placed alongside the altar during Sukkot as part of the Temple service
- כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת (Klei Sharet) = Service vessels — Temple utensils that have the capacity to sanctify their contents