Meilah 4:6-5:1
משנה מעילה ד:ו-ה:א
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 4-5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 4:6
משנה ד:ו
Hebrew:
הָעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק, הַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר, הָעוֹר וְהַמַּפָּץ, מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לִטַּמֵּא מוֹשָׁב:
English:
The fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] (see Leviticus 19:23), and diverse kinds,i.e., grain sown in a vineyard (see Deuteronomy 22:9) join together to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture that they are mixed into. This applies when the volume of the permitted produce is less than two hundred times the prohibited produce. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not join together. A garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity, by means of ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. A sack made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths, while an animal hide must be five by five, and a mat six by six. The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide, and the hide and the mat all join together to constitute the requisite measure to become ritually impure in accordance with the material of the greater measure. Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that they join together, despite the fact that their requisite measures are not equal? Because all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since the measure of all these materials is equal in the case of a zav, they join together for other forms of ritual impurity as well.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna presents a dispute about whether orlah (fruit of a tree’s first three years) and kilei hakerem (grain grown in a vineyard) combine to reach the threshold for prohibiting a mixture. Both are Torah prohibitions involving agricultural produce from which one may not derive benefit, but they originate from different commandments. The Tanna Kamma holds they combine because they share a common halakhic characteristic: both are forbidden for benefit (issurei hana’ah). Rabbi Shimon disagrees, maintaining that since they are “two names” — distinct prohibitions with different sources — they cannot combine.
The second part of the mishna shifts to a completely different topic: the combination of different materials for susceptibility to midras (sitting/treading) impurity from a zav. A garment (3x3 handbreadths), sack (4x4), hide (5x5), and mat (6x6) each have different minimum sizes for receiving impurity, yet adjacent pairs in this list combine with each other. If someone sews a piece of cloth to a piece of sackcloth, the combined area is measured against the larger requirement (the sack’s 4x4).
Rabbi Shimon offers the rationale: despite their different measures for general impurity, all these materials share a common threshold for midras/moshav impurity (impurity from a zav’s seat), since any of them can be used to patch a riding blanket. This shared functional use creates a basis for combination — a principle strikingly similar to the logic of the first half of the mishna, where shared characteristics (prohibition of benefit, or shared use) enable combination across otherwise distinct categories.
Key Terms:
- עָרְלָה (Orlah) = Fruit of a tree during its first three years, from which all benefit is prohibited (Leviticus 19:23)
- כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם (Kilei HaKerem) = Diverse kinds in a vineyard — grain or vegetables grown in a vineyard, which are prohibited for all benefit (Deuteronomy 22:9)
- מוֹשָׁב (Moshav) = Seat — a surface upon which a zav sits becomes a primary source of impurity (midras)
- מַפָּץ (Mapatz) = Mat — made from reeds or rushes, the largest minimum measure (6x6 handbreadths) for receiving impurity
Mishna 5:1
משנה ה:א
Hebrew:
הַנֶּהֱנֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָגַם, מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶשׁ בּוֹ פְגָם, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְגָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה, מָעַל. כֵּיצַד. נָתְנָה קַטְלָא בְצַוָּארָהּ, טַבַּעַת בְּיָדָהּ, שָׁתְתָה בְכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנֵית, מָעֲלָה. לָבַשׁ בְּחָלוּק, כִּסָּה בְטַלִּית, בִּקַּע בְּקֻרְדֹּם, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. תָּלַשׁ מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה, לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגֹּם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה, מָעָל:
English:
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 its misuse; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: With regard to any consecrated item that has the potential to be damaged, one is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta of damage; and with regard to an item that does not have the potential to be damaged, once he derives benefit from it he is liable for misuse. The mishna elaborates: How so? If a woman placed a consecrated gold chain [ketala] around her neck, or a gold ring on her hand, i.e., her finger, or if one drank from a consecrated gold cup, since they are not damaged through use, once he derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from them, he is liable for misuse. If one wore a consecrated robe, covered himself with a consecrated garment, or chopped wood with a consecrated ax, he is not liable for misuse until he causes them one peruta of damage. One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta of damage. When it is dead, once he derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it, he is liable for misuse.
קלאוד על המשנה:
Chapter 5 opens with a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Chakhamim (Sages) about the definition of me’ilah. The core question is whether me’ilah requires causing damage (pegam) to the consecrated item, or whether mere benefit suffices.
Rabbi Akiva holds the stricter position: anyone who derives one peruta’s worth of benefit from hekdesh is liable for me’ilah, even if the sacred item was not damaged at all. The Chakhamim offer a more nuanced framework: for items that are susceptible to damage through use (like clothing, tools, or living animals), me’ilah liability requires both benefit and damage of at least one peruta. For items that are not damaged through use (like jewelry or gold vessels), mere benefit triggers me’ilah.
The mishna illustrates this with vivid examples. A woman who wears a consecrated gold necklace or ring, or drinks from a golden cup, commits me’ilah immediately upon deriving benefit, since these items are not damaged by use. But wearing a consecrated robe or chopping with a consecrated axe requires actual damage before liability attaches. The case of the sin offering is particularly instructive: while the animal is alive, pulling out its wool damages the animal, so me’ilah requires actual damage. Once it is dead, its carcass has no further sacred function, and any benefit constitutes me’ilah immediately.
The halakha follows the Chakhamim’s position, which became the operative framework for determining me’ilah liability throughout the Temple period.
Key Terms:
- פְּגָם (Pegam) = Damage / diminishment — reduction in the value of a consecrated item through use
- שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה (Shaveh Perutah) = Worth one peruta — the minimum threshold for both benefit and damage in me’ilah
- קַטְלָא (Katla) = Gold chain / necklace — an item of jewelry that is not damaged through wearing
- קֻרְדֹּם (Kurdom) = Axe — a tool that is gradually damaged through use, requiring actual pegam for me’ilah liability
- חַטָּאת (Chatat) = Sin offering — an animal sacrifice whose me’ilah status differs when alive (damage needed) versus dead (benefit alone suffices)