Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 7, 2019 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Meilah 20

At what stage does one become obligated for meilah of hotza – taking it out of the property of hekdesh and turning it into non sacred property. One is not obligated in meilah for items attached to the ground but a stone in a house is considered detached because an item that is detached and then reattached is considered detached. Would this be the same for idol worship (that is also not forbidden if it is attached to the ground)? If a messenger does what the ownder asks, the ownder is responsible for misuse. But if the messenger doesn’t do what the owner said, the messenger is responsible. The mishna brings a case where the messenger gave guest liver instead of meat – the messenger is responsible. The gemara connects this to a debate in the mishna in Nedarim where one swears not to eat vegetables – can one eat pumpkin? If it is an item that if the messenger couldn’t find it in a store and would go back to ask the owner if one could purchse it, does that mean it is a different category or maybe that shows it is within the same category? If a messenger adds something, does that mean he is still considered a messenger (and didn’t defy the owner)? Is that something one can infer from our mishna or not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

谞转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

If he gave the stone or the beam to another, he is liable for its misuse and the other person is not liable for its misuse. If he built the stone or the beam into his house, he is not liable for its misuse until he resides beneath it and derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it.

谞讟诇 驻专讜讟讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讘诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讞抓 诪注诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛诪专讞抓 驻转讜讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻谞住 讜专讞讜抓

If one took for his use a consecrated peruta, that person is not liable for its misuse. If he gave the peruta to another, he is liable for its misuse and the other person is not liable for its misuse. If he gave the peruta to a bathhouse attendant [levallan], although he did not bathe, he is liable for misuse of the peruta. The reason is that at the moment he receives the peruta, the attendant in effect says to the owner of the peruta: The bathhouse is open before you, enter and bathe. The benefit derived from that availability is worth one peruta.

讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞讘专讜 讛谞讬讬转讜 讜讛谞讬讬转 讞讘专讜 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讛谞讬讬转 讞讘专讜 讛谞讬讬转讜 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞讘专讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

One鈥檚 consumption of half of a peruta of consecrated food and another鈥檚 consumption of half of a peruta of consecrated food that the first person fed him; and likewise one鈥檚 benefit of half of a peruta derived from a consecrated item and another鈥檚 benefit of half of a peruta derived from a consecrated item that the first person provided him; and similarly one鈥檚 consumption and another鈥檚 benefit derived or one鈥檚 benefit derived and another鈥檚 consumption, all these join together to constitute the requisite measure of one peruta for liability for misuse, and that is the halakha even if much time has passed between these various acts of consumption and deriving of benefit.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讝讘专 讛诪住讜专讜转 诇讜 注住拽讬谞谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one takes a stone or a beam belonging to the Temple treasury, he is not liable for misuse, but if he gives it to another he is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to him retaining possession of the item, and what is different with regard to him giving it to another, that he is rendered liable when he gives it to another? Shmuel said: We are dealing with a treasurer [begizbar] of the Temple, to whom the consecrated property is given. Since all the consecrated property is meant to be in his possession and charge, he is not guilty of misuse, provided that he does not transfer it to another.

讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖谞讬讛 诪注诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讗专讜讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If he built the stone or the beam into his house, he is not liable for its misuse until he resides beneath it and derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the individual is not liable until he resides beneath it? That is not precise, as once he has changed it, by chiseling it for the purpose of fitting it into the structure, he has already committed misuse. Rav says: In this instance, the individual in question did not change the item in order to build with it. Rather, this is referring to a case where he placed it upon a window. Since mere placement does not constitute a change, there is no misuse until he lives beneath it.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘谞讬 诇讛 诪讬讛转 诪注诇 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讬转 讗住专讜

The Gemara notes: And nevertheless, once he built it and subsequently derived benefit from it, in any event he has committed misuse. Although the halakha is that misuse does not apply to items that are attached to the ground, this does not apply to an item built into a structure. Let us say that this statement supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: With regard to one who prostrates himself to a house in an act of idolatry, he renders the house prohibited. The house assumes the status of a worshipped item, from which one may not derive benefit. Notwithstanding the halakha that an item attached to the ground does not become prohibited as an object of idolatry, the house does not assume the status of an item attached to the ground, since it is built of materials that were earlier detached from the ground.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛谞讗讛 讛谞专讗转 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The mishna does not necessarily support the opinion of Rav. It can be claimed that the item is subject to misuse even if one maintains that a detached item which becomes attached gains the status of an attached item, in accordance with the opinion that if someone worships a house, he does not render it prohibited. Nevertheless, in the case of the stone or beam the individual is liable for misuse, due to another principle: With regard to misuse, the Torah prohibited all benefit that appears readily to the eyes, e.g., one who uses consecrated property as building materials. It makes no difference that the item is now attached to the ground.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讛谞讛 诪诪谞讛 诪注诇 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛转诐 讘砖讛拽讚讬砖讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘谞讗讜

The Gemara suggests another proof for Rav鈥檚 opinion that an item which was previously detached and then becomes attached to the ground retains the status of a detached item. Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rav: With regard to one who resides in a house consecrated to the Temple treasury, once he derives benefit from the house he has committed misuse. Evidently, the built house is considered detached, which is why it is subject to misuse. Reish Lakish said: This baraita does not support the opinion of Rav either. There, the baraita is speaking of a case where he consecrated the detached building materials and ultimately built the house. Since the items were detached when he consecrated them, the prohibition of misuse applies even if they were subsequently attached to the ground.

讗讘诇 讘谞讗讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讛讬讟 讜转谞讬 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 诪注专讛 诇讗 诪注诇 诇讬诪讗 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 砖讘谞讗讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诇讗 诪注诇

In light of Reish Lakish鈥檚 interpretation, the Gemara objects: But if he built the house and ultimately sanctified it when it was attached to the ground, what is the halakha? Evidently, he has not committed misuse. If so, why does the tanna of the baraita run specifically to teach the subsequent case: With regard to one who resides in a consecrated house of a cave, i.e., a domicile that has always been attached and was not built from detached components, he has not committed misuse, as an attached item is not subject to misuse. Why does the baraita mention this very different case? Let the baraita say simply: With regard to one who resides in a stone house, which he built and ultimately sanctified, he has not committed misuse.

讗诪专讬 讛讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: One can say that although the tanna could have taught the case of the built house instead of a cave, he preferred to mention a cave, as this case of the cave is conclusive for him. Under all circumstances, one who lives in a consecrated cave is exempt from misuse, because the cave was always attached to the ground. By contrast, that case of the built house is not conclusive for him, as a consecrated house is not always exempt from misuse. If the house is built from previously consecrated materials, one who lives within it is liable for misuse.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛谞讛谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

MISHNA: With regard to an agent who performed his agency properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, the homeowner, who appointed him, is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he did not perform his agency properly, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讘砖专 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讻讘讚 讻讘讚 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘砖专 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讛诐 讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜讛诐 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜

How so? If the homeowner said to the agent: Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver; or if he said: Give them liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner said to the agent: Give them meat, a piece for this guest and a piece for that guest, and the agent says: Each of you take two pieces, and each of the guests took three pieces, all of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讱 注诇讛 砖诇讬讞 转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讬讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an agent is considered to have diverged from the instructions of the homeowner if he gives each of the guests liver instead of meat or vice versa. This indicates that meat and liver are considered two different types of items, as giving one in place of the other would normally be done only after consultation with the homeowner. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha, that any case involving an item about which the agent would normally consult whether to give it or to give another item in its stead is considered to involve two separate items with regard to the prohibition of misuse?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚讬诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专

Rav 岣sda said that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): In the case of one who takes a vow that vegetables are prohibited to him, without specifying which types of vegetable, he is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically include gourds in the category of vegetables; but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. Rabbi Akiva maintains that as an agent would consult the homeowner before buying gourds instead of vegetables, they are in the same category. He reasons that if they were not both in the same category, the agent would not even bother consulting the homeowner if he would prefer gourds instead. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva maintains that any item about which the agent would ask is included in the same category as the item he specified, and they are not two separate items.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讻讬 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬

Abaye said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva concede that the agent needs to consult the one who appointed him? Since the agent failed to consult him, and he acted on his own when he gave liver instead of meat, he is not considered to have performed his agency. Consequently, he is liable for misuse. In other words, the ruling of the mishna is not due to the fact that meat and liver are considered two different types of items, but because the agent failed to perform his agency. When the Rabbis said this halakha before Rava, he said to them: Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, is saying well.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜讗住讜专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讗住讜专 讘讘砖专 注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘讚讙讬诐 讜讘讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna in tractate Nedarim? The Gemara answers that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from eating all types of meat, and is prohibited from eating meat of the head, of the feet, of the windpipe, of the liver, and of the heart, despite the fact that people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. And it is prohibited for him to eat meat of birds, as that too is popularly called meat. But it is permitted for him to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers, as their flesh is not called meat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits him to eat meat of the head, of the feet, of the windpipe, of the liver, of the heart, of birds, and needless to say also of fish and of grasshoppers.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讬讬诐 诇讗讜 讘砖专 讛谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞讬砖

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not considered meat, and one who eats them is not a person, i.e., innards are unfit for human consumption. It can be inferred from here that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and maintains that although an agent who fails to find meat would consult the one who appointed him and then replace the meat with liver, the liver is not considered meat with regard to vows.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讘砖专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚专讙讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬 讘砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讜讗转讗讬 讘砖专讗 讚爪讬驻专讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬 讘砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讜讗转讗讬 讚讙讬诐

With regard to the above baraita, the Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the first tanna, what is different about meat of birds that he considers it in the same category as regular meat? It must be because a person normally says, when he cannot find meat and returns to the one who appointed him: I did not find meat of animals but I brought meat of birds instead. The Gemara asks: If so, then also with regard to fish a person is apt to say: I did not find meat of an animal, but I brought fish instead. Why, then, is fish considered a separate category?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬讜诐 讛拽讝讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讬诐

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with the day of one鈥檚 bloodletting, as a person in that condition does not eat fish. Since it was accepted at the time that eating fish after bloodletting is harmful, the agent would never consider buying fish instead of meat, and would not even consult with the one who appointed him as to whether or not to purchase fish.

讗讬 讛讻讬 爪讬驻专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诪住讜讻专 讜讗讻诇 爪讬驻专讗 驻专讞 诇讬讘讬讛 讻爪讬驻专讗 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇讗 注诇 讛讚讙讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: If so, he would not eat birds either, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who lets blood and eats the meat of a bird, his heart rate accelerates and flies like a bird. Clearly, bird meat is also deleterious for one鈥檚 health after bloodletting. And furthermore it is taught in a baraita: One does not let blood before eating fish, nor before eating birds, nor before eating salted meat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐

Rather, Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case which occurred on a day that his eyes hurt him, as people do not eat fish on that day, since fish are harmful to the eyes. Therefore, the agent would neither purchase fish nor consult with the homeowner whether to do so.

讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讜 讞转讬讻讛 讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞

搂 The mishna teaches: If the homeowner said to the agent: Give him meat, a piece for each guest, and the agent says: Each of you take two pieces, and each of the guests took three pieces, all of them are liable for misuse. The Gemara suggests: One can learn from the mishna that if an agent adds to his agency he is still considered an agent, and therefore the one who appointed him is also liable, as the agent did not uproot his instructions entirely.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 讟讜诇 讗讞转 诪讚注转讜 讜讗讞转 诪讚注转讬

Rav Sheshet said that this inference is not necessarily correct, because the mishna can be explained as referring specifically to a case where the agent said to the guests: Take one piece of meat in accordance with the intent of the homeowner and one piece in accordance with my intent.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Meilah 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 20

谞转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

If he gave the stone or the beam to another, he is liable for its misuse and the other person is not liable for its misuse. If he built the stone or the beam into his house, he is not liable for its misuse until he resides beneath it and derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it.

谞讟诇 驻专讜讟讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讘诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讞抓 诪注诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛诪专讞抓 驻转讜讞 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻谞住 讜专讞讜抓

If one took for his use a consecrated peruta, that person is not liable for its misuse. If he gave the peruta to another, he is liable for its misuse and the other person is not liable for its misuse. If he gave the peruta to a bathhouse attendant [levallan], although he did not bathe, he is liable for misuse of the peruta. The reason is that at the moment he receives the peruta, the attendant in effect says to the owner of the peruta: The bathhouse is open before you, enter and bathe. The benefit derived from that availability is worth one peruta.

讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞讘专讜 讛谞讬讬转讜 讜讛谞讬讬转 讞讘专讜 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜讛谞讬讬转 讞讘专讜 讛谞讬讬转讜 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞讘专讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

One鈥檚 consumption of half of a peruta of consecrated food and another鈥檚 consumption of half of a peruta of consecrated food that the first person fed him; and likewise one鈥檚 benefit of half of a peruta derived from a consecrated item and another鈥檚 benefit of half of a peruta derived from a consecrated item that the first person provided him; and similarly one鈥檚 consumption and another鈥檚 benefit derived or one鈥檚 benefit derived and another鈥檚 consumption, all these join together to constitute the requisite measure of one peruta for liability for misuse, and that is the halakha even if much time has passed between these various acts of consumption and deriving of benefit.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讝讘专 讛诪住讜专讜转 诇讜 注住拽讬谞谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one takes a stone or a beam belonging to the Temple treasury, he is not liable for misuse, but if he gives it to another he is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to him retaining possession of the item, and what is different with regard to him giving it to another, that he is rendered liable when he gives it to another? Shmuel said: We are dealing with a treasurer [begizbar] of the Temple, to whom the consecrated property is given. Since all the consecrated property is meant to be in his possession and charge, he is not guilty of misuse, provided that he does not transfer it to another.

讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖谞讬讛 诪注诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讗专讜讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If he built the stone or the beam into his house, he is not liable for its misuse until he resides beneath it and derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the individual is not liable until he resides beneath it? That is not precise, as once he has changed it, by chiseling it for the purpose of fitting it into the structure, he has already committed misuse. Rav says: In this instance, the individual in question did not change the item in order to build with it. Rather, this is referring to a case where he placed it upon a window. Since mere placement does not constitute a change, there is no misuse until he lives beneath it.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘谞讬 诇讛 诪讬讛转 诪注诇 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讬转 讗住专讜

The Gemara notes: And nevertheless, once he built it and subsequently derived benefit from it, in any event he has committed misuse. Although the halakha is that misuse does not apply to items that are attached to the ground, this does not apply to an item built into a structure. Let us say that this statement supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: With regard to one who prostrates himself to a house in an act of idolatry, he renders the house prohibited. The house assumes the status of a worshipped item, from which one may not derive benefit. Notwithstanding the halakha that an item attached to the ground does not become prohibited as an object of idolatry, the house does not assume the status of an item attached to the ground, since it is built of materials that were earlier detached from the ground.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛谞讗讛 讛谞专讗转 诇注讬谞讬诐 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The mishna does not necessarily support the opinion of Rav. It can be claimed that the item is subject to misuse even if one maintains that a detached item which becomes attached gains the status of an attached item, in accordance with the opinion that if someone worships a house, he does not render it prohibited. Nevertheless, in the case of the stone or beam the individual is liable for misuse, due to another principle: With regard to misuse, the Torah prohibited all benefit that appears readily to the eyes, e.g., one who uses consecrated property as building materials. It makes no difference that the item is now attached to the ground.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讛谞讛 诪诪谞讛 诪注诇 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛转诐 讘砖讛拽讚讬砖讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘谞讗讜

The Gemara suggests another proof for Rav鈥檚 opinion that an item which was previously detached and then becomes attached to the ground retains the status of a detached item. Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rav: With regard to one who resides in a house consecrated to the Temple treasury, once he derives benefit from the house he has committed misuse. Evidently, the built house is considered detached, which is why it is subject to misuse. Reish Lakish said: This baraita does not support the opinion of Rav either. There, the baraita is speaking of a case where he consecrated the detached building materials and ultimately built the house. Since the items were detached when he consecrated them, the prohibition of misuse applies even if they were subsequently attached to the ground.

讗讘诇 讘谞讗讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讛讬讟 讜转谞讬 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 诪注专讛 诇讗 诪注诇 诇讬诪讗 讛讚专 讘讘讬转 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 砖讘谞讗讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讜 诇讗 诪注诇

In light of Reish Lakish鈥檚 interpretation, the Gemara objects: But if he built the house and ultimately sanctified it when it was attached to the ground, what is the halakha? Evidently, he has not committed misuse. If so, why does the tanna of the baraita run specifically to teach the subsequent case: With regard to one who resides in a consecrated house of a cave, i.e., a domicile that has always been attached and was not built from detached components, he has not committed misuse, as an attached item is not subject to misuse. Why does the baraita mention this very different case? Let the baraita say simply: With regard to one who resides in a stone house, which he built and ultimately sanctified, he has not committed misuse.

讗诪专讬 讛讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: One can say that although the tanna could have taught the case of the built house instead of a cave, he preferred to mention a cave, as this case of the cave is conclusive for him. Under all circumstances, one who lives in a consecrated cave is exempt from misuse, because the cave was always attached to the ground. By contrast, that case of the built house is not conclusive for him, as a consecrated house is not always exempt from misuse. If the house is built from previously consecrated materials, one who lives within it is liable for misuse.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛谞讛谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

MISHNA: With regard to an agent who performed his agency properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, the homeowner, who appointed him, is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he did not perform his agency properly, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 讘砖专 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讻讘讚 讻讘讚 讜谞转谉 诇讛诐 讘砖专 讛砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讛诐 讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜讛诐 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖 讻讜诇诐 诪注诇讜

How so? If the homeowner said to the agent: Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver; or if he said: Give them liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner said to the agent: Give them meat, a piece for this guest and a piece for that guest, and the agent says: Each of you take two pieces, and each of the guests took three pieces, all of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪讬诪诇讱 注诇讛 砖诇讬讞 转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讬讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an agent is considered to have diverged from the instructions of the homeowner if he gives each of the guests liver instead of meat or vice versa. This indicates that meat and liver are considered two different types of items, as giving one in place of the other would normally be done only after consultation with the homeowner. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha, that any case involving an item about which the agent would normally consult whether to give it or to give another item in its stead is considered to involve two separate items with regard to the prohibition of misuse?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讬专拽 诪讜转专 讘讚讬诇讜注讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜住专

Rav 岣sda said that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): In the case of one who takes a vow that vegetables are prohibited to him, without specifying which types of vegetable, he is permitted to eat gourds, as people do not typically include gourds in the category of vegetables; but Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. Rabbi Akiva maintains that as an agent would consult the homeowner before buying gourds instead of vegetables, they are in the same category. He reasons that if they were not both in the same category, the agent would not even bother consulting the homeowner if he would prefer gourds instead. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva maintains that any item about which the agent would ask is included in the same category as the item he specified, and they are not two separate items.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讻讬 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 谞讞诪谞讬

Abaye said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva concede that the agent needs to consult the one who appointed him? Since the agent failed to consult him, and he acted on his own when he gave liver instead of meat, he is not considered to have performed his agency. Consequently, he is liable for misuse. In other words, the ruling of the mishna is not due to the fact that meat and liver are considered two different types of items, but because the agent failed to perform his agency. When the Rabbis said this halakha before Rava, he said to them: Na岣ani, i.e., Abaye, is saying well.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘砖专 讜讗住讜专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘诇讘 讜讗住讜专 讘讘砖专 注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜转专 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讘专讗砖 讜讘专讙诇讬诐 讘拽谞讛 讜讘讻讘讚 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘讚讙讬诐 讜讘讞讙讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna in tractate Nedarim? The Gemara answers that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him, he is prohibited from eating all types of meat, and is prohibited from eating meat of the head, of the feet, of the windpipe, of the liver, and of the heart, despite the fact that people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. And it is prohibited for him to eat meat of birds, as that too is popularly called meat. But it is permitted for him to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers, as their flesh is not called meat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits him to eat meat of the head, of the feet, of the windpipe, of the liver, of the heart, of birds, and needless to say also of fish and of grasshoppers.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讬讬诐 诇讗讜 讘砖专 讛谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬讛谉 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讬谞讬砖

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not considered meat, and one who eats them is not a person, i.e., innards are unfit for human consumption. It can be inferred from here that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and maintains that although an agent who fails to find meat would consult the one who appointed him and then replace the meat with liver, the liver is not considered meat with regard to vows.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讘砖专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚专讙讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬 讘砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讜讗转讗讬 讘砖专讗 讚爪讬驻专讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬 讘砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讜讗转讗讬 讚讙讬诐

With regard to the above baraita, the Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the first tanna, what is different about meat of birds that he considers it in the same category as regular meat? It must be because a person normally says, when he cannot find meat and returns to the one who appointed him: I did not find meat of animals but I brought meat of birds instead. The Gemara asks: If so, then also with regard to fish a person is apt to say: I did not find meat of an animal, but I brought fish instead. Why, then, is fish considered a separate category?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬讜诐 讛拽讝讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讬诐

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with the day of one鈥檚 bloodletting, as a person in that condition does not eat fish. Since it was accepted at the time that eating fish after bloodletting is harmful, the agent would never consider buying fish instead of meat, and would not even consult with the one who appointed him as to whether or not to purchase fish.

讗讬 讛讻讬 爪讬驻专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诪住讜讻专 讜讗讻诇 爪讬驻专讗 驻专讞 诇讬讘讬讛 讻爪讬驻专讗 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇讗 注诇 讛讚讙讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讛注讜驻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘砖专 诪诇讬讞

The Gemara asks: If so, he would not eat birds either, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who lets blood and eats the meat of a bird, his heart rate accelerates and flies like a bird. Clearly, bird meat is also deleterious for one鈥檚 health after bloodletting. And furthermore it is taught in a baraita: One does not let blood before eating fish, nor before eating birds, nor before eating salted meat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻讬讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚讙讬诐

Rather, Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case which occurred on a day that his eyes hurt him, as people do not eat fish on that day, since fish are harmful to the eyes. Therefore, the agent would neither purchase fish nor consult with the homeowner whether to do so.

讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讜 讞转讬讻讛 讻讜壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛讜讬 砖诇讬讞

搂 The mishna teaches: If the homeowner said to the agent: Give him meat, a piece for each guest, and the agent says: Each of you take two pieces, and each of the guests took three pieces, all of them are liable for misuse. The Gemara suggests: One can learn from the mishna that if an agent adds to his agency he is still considered an agent, and therefore the one who appointed him is also liable, as the agent did not uproot his instructions entirely.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 讟讜诇 讗讞转 诪讚注转讜 讜讗讞转 诪讚注转讬

Rav Sheshet said that this inference is not necessarily correct, because the mishna can be explained as referring specifically to a case where the agent said to the guests: Take one piece of meat in accordance with the intent of the homeowner and one piece in accordance with my intent.

Scroll To Top