Meilah 5:2-3
משנה מעילה ה:ב-ג
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 5:2
משנה ה:ב
Hebrew:
נֶהֱנָה בְכַחֲצִי פְרוּטָה וּפָגַם בְּכַחֲצִי פְרוּטָה, אוֹ שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד וּפָגַם בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל, עַד שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְיִפְגֹּם בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד:
English:
If one derived benefit equal to half of a peruta from a consecrated item and caused it half of a peruta of damage, or if he derived benefit equal to the value of one peruta from a consecrated item that has the potential to be damaged and caused damage of the value of one peruta to another consecrated item but derived no benefit from it, he is exempt. The reason is that one is not liable for misuse until he derives benefit of the value of one peruta from a consecrated item and causes damage of the value of one peruta to one, i.e., the same item.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna establishes the precise threshold for me’ilah liability: both benefit and damage must reach the value of one peruta, and crucially, they must occur with respect to the same consecrated item. The Torah’s concept of me’ilah requires a meaningful act of misappropriation, and the Rabbis defined “meaningful” as a peruta — the smallest denomination of currency in Talmudic law.
The mishna teaches three scenarios that do not constitute me’ilah. First, if someone derived only half a peruta of benefit and caused only half a peruta of damage to the same item, neither threshold is met independently. Second, even if the full peruta threshold is met for both benefit and damage, if they involved different consecrated items, there is no liability. The logic is that me’ilah requires a single coherent act of misappropriation — deriving benefit from one item while damaging another does not constitute such an act.
This principle reflects a broader Talmudic approach to quantifying transgressions. Just as many areas of halacha require minimum measures (shiurim) for liability, me’ilah demands that the act be substantial enough — in terms of both benefit gained and damage caused — to warrant the obligation of a guilt offering (asham me’ilot) and repayment plus a fifth.
Key Terms:
- מעילה (Me’ilah) = Misuse of consecrated property; literally “trespass” — unauthorized benefit from items dedicated to the Temple
- פרוטה (Peruta) = The smallest unit of currency; the minimum threshold for many halachic obligations
- נהנה (Neheneh) = Derived benefit — the positive gain one receives from using a consecrated item
- פגם (Pagam) = Damage or diminishment — the loss of value caused to the consecrated item
Mishna 5:3
משנה ה:ג
Hebrew:
אֵין מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל בַּמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, אֶלָּא בְהֵמָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. כֵּיצַד. רָכַב עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְרָכַב, שָׁתָה בְכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתָה, תָּלַשׁ מִן הַחַטָּאת וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְתָלַשׁ, כֻּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פִדְיוֹן, יֶשׁ בּוֹ מוֹעֵל אַחַר מוֹעֵל:
English:
One is liable for misuse after misuse in consecrated items only in the case of an animal and in the case of service vessels.How so? If one rode upon a sacrificial animal, and another person came and rode upon that animal, and yet another came and rode upon it as well, all of them are liable for misuse of the animal. In the case of service vessels, if one drank from a gold cup, and another came and drank from that cup, and yet another individual came and drank from it, all of them are liable for misuse of the cup. If one removed wool from a sin offering, and another came and removed wool from that animal, and yet another person came and removed wool from it, all of them are liable for misuse of the animal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to any consecrated item that is not subject to redemption, there is liability for misuse after misuse with regard to it.
קלאוד על המשנה:
The general rule in me’ilah is that once a person commits me’ilah on a consecrated item, the item becomes desacralized (yotzei le-chulin) — it loses its sacred status. This means that a second person who subsequently uses the same item should not be liable for me’ilah, since it is no longer consecrated property. The mishna identifies two important exceptions: consecrated animals designated for sacrifice and service vessels (klei sharet) used in the Temple.
The reason these two categories allow for successive me’ilah is that their sanctity is inherent and cannot be removed through unauthorized use. A consecrated animal retains its status as a sacrifice regardless of how many people ride it — the animal’s body (gufo) is sanctified, and each person who rides it derives independent unauthorized benefit. Similarly, a golden Temple cup does not lose its sacred character because someone drank from it. By contrast, consumable items like portions of a sin offering lose their sacred status once the first person derives benefit, so only the first person is liable.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi broadens the principle further, stating that any consecrated item that is not subject to redemption (pidyon) — meaning it cannot be desacralized through the normal monetary redemption process — is subject to successive me’ilah. His view encompasses a wider range of items, reflecting the idea that items whose holiness is permanent can generate repeated liability whenever someone benefits from them.
Key Terms:
- מועל אחר מועל (Mo’el achar mo’el) = Misuse after misuse — successive liability for me’ilah on the same item by different people
- כלי שרת (Klei sharet) = Service vessels — sacred implements used in Temple rituals (e.g., golden cups, silver basins)
- חטאת (Chatat) = Sin offering — a sacrifice brought for inadvertent transgressions; its wool/flesh has consecrated status
- פדיון (Pidyon) = Redemption — the process of desacralizing a consecrated item by transferring its holiness onto money
- רבי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — the redactor of the Mishnah, commonly referred to simply as “Rabbi”