Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The prohibition against me'ilah applies whether one consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple, for that purpose, e.g., a stone or a beam, consecrates an article fit for the altar for the improvement of the Temple, e.g., sheep or doves, or consecrates an article that is fit to be used for the improvement of the Temple for the altar, e.g., a stone or a beam, or he consecrates for either of these purposes an article that is not fit for either of these purposes, e.g., he consecrated chickens, vinegar, brine, or land. This applies even if he consecrated a dungheap filled with fertilizer, dust, or ash. In all these instances, the prohibition against me'ilah applies from the time the entity was consecrated until it was redeemed if it is an article fit to be redeemed.

Any of the articles consecrated for the improvement of the Temple and those entities from entities consecrated to the altar for which the prohibition against me'ilah applies may be combined together to reach the minimum measure required for me'ilah. If one derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from all of them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

If one partook of consecrated food and fed a colleague, or derived benefit from a consecrated object and caused a colleague to benefit. His eating and his colleague's benefit or his colleague's eating and his benefit are all combined to make one liable for me'ilah. If a sum of benefit worth a p'rutah is reached, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

A combination making one liable for the prohibition against me'ilah can be made over an extended period of time.

What is implied? If one derived benefit from a consecrated article on one day and then derived benefit again after the passage of several years in one continuous state of not knowing, the two events are combined for a p'rutah's worth and he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies only to articles that have been separated from the earth. If, however, one benefits from consecrated earth or from consecrated articles attached to the earth, he does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah even if blemishes that entity.

What is implied? If one plows a consecrated field or sows it, he is exempt. If he takes its earth, derives benefit from it, and damages the earth, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. A person who threshes in a consecrated field violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because its dust benefits the field. Thus he has benefited from the dust and damaged the field. Similarly, if one plowed a consecrated field in order to raise dust for grass that was planted there and he took the grass, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

A person who dwells in a cave that is consecrated or in the shade of a tree or dovecote that is consecrated does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, even though he benefited. Similarly, when one consecrates a house that was built, a person who dwells in it does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. When, however, a person consecrates wood and stones and builds a house, a person who dwells in it violates the prohibition against me'ilah, as will be explained.

The prohibition against me'ilah applies to produce that grows on consecrated property.

What is implied? If one consecrated a field and it produced grass or one consecrated a tree and it produced fruit, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If, however, one consecrated an empty cistern and afterwards, it became filled with water, a dungheap and it became filled with waste, or a dovecote and it became filled with doves, since these are not the products of the consecrated articles, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply with regard to them. Similarly, one may not benefit - but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to - waste and dung in a courtyard that was consecrated. What should be done with them? They should be sold and the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.

When a spring emerges in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the water that emerges in the field, but one who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the water emerges outside the field, it is permitted to benefit from it. When a willow grows in a consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

The following rules apply when an ordinary tree is growing next to a consecrated field and its roots emerge in that field. If there are up to sixteen cubits between it and the consecrated field, it is forbidden to benefit from the roots in the field, but one who benefits from them does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the tree was more than sixteen cubits away from the field, one who benefits from the roots violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

The converse applies when a consecrated tree is growing next to an ordinary field and its roots emerge in that field. If the roots emerge within sixteen cubits, the prohibition against me'ilah applies with regard to them. If they emerge more than sixteen cubits away, one should not benefit from the roots in the ordinary field, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply with regard to them.

When there is a nest in the top of a consecrated tree that a fowl built from wood and grass and the like, one should not benefit from the nest and the eggs in it together with the chicks that require their mother. One who derives benefit does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When one consecrates a forest, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it in its entirety, the trees and the nests at the tops of the trees or between them.

When the Temple treasurers plant consecrated trees and cut them down, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to those small pieces of wood that were cut off when the trees were cut to size. The prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to the slivers, the sawdust, or to the nivia of the wood, i.e., a hard, round knot in the midst of the wood which resemble a wart, because it will not be useful for work.

When a person consecrates his servant, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to him, nor to his hair, even though his hair is fit to be cut off. The rationale is that the hair is still attached to the servant and as long as it is attached to him, it grows and increases in value.

When a person sows produce that was consecrated, he should redeem it when he sows it. Nevertheless, even if he does not redeem it, the produce that grows from it is not consecrated and the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to it. If one derived benefit from other consecrated property, he may not pay the principal and an additional fifth from such produce. One is obligated to separate challah from bread made from such grain.

When water was placed on consecrated grape dregs for the first, second, and third times, it is forbidden to benefit from it, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah. The fourth time, the mixture is permitted.

When does the above apply? When the dregs had been consecrated for the Temple's improvement. If they were consecrated for the altar, even from the fourth time onward, they are always forbidden.

When a person consecrates a hen for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs. When a person consecrates a donkey for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its milk. When a person consecrates a dove for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to it and its eggs, as we explained.

When the tunics of the priestly garments have worn out, the prohibition against me'ilah applies to them, as it does to other consecrated objects. If they are new, since it is permitted to benefit from them, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply to them.

The following rules apply to articles consecrated by gentiles. If he consecrated them for the improvement of the Temple, the prohibition against me'ilah applies. If they were consecrated for the altar, the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply according to Scriptural Law, for with regard to the sacrifices, Leviticus 1:2 states: "Speak to the children of Israel." It is, however, forbidden to benefit from them according to Rabbinic Law.

With regard to sound, appearance, and fragrance from a consecrated object, it is forbidden to benefit from them, but the prohibition against me'ilah does not apply.

When does the above apply? When one smelt the fragrance of the incense offering after its cloud ascended. If, however, he smelt the fragrance of the incense offering as its cloud ascends, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The following rules apply when a person inadvertently took a consecrated article or consecrated money and gave it to an agent to use as ordinary property or money. If the agent carries out the mission with which he is charged, the principal is considered to have violated the prohibition against me'ilah. If the agent did not execute the agency, but instead acted on his own initiative, the agent is the one who violates the prohibition against me'ilah. What is implied? A person told his agent: "Give that meat to the guests," and instead, the agent gave them bread, or he told him to give them bread and he gave them meat.

If one told his agent, "Bring me from the window," and he brought him from the closet or he told him to bring from the closet and he brought from the window, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If the agent went and brought from the window as instructed, even though the principal told him: "In my heart, I wanted you to bring from the closet," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, for the agent carried out the mission as he charged him. We follow the principle: "Matters in one's heart are not of consequence."

Even if the agent was a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally incompetent person, or a minor to whom the laws of agency do not apply, if they carry out the principal's instructions, the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah. If they do not carry out his instructions, the principal is exempt.

If one tells his agent: "Give each one of the guests a piece of meat" and the agent told them: "Take two at a time," the principal violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because his instructions were carried out. The agent is exempt, because he is merely adding to the principal's agency. He is not eradicating it. If, however, the agent tells the guests: "Take two at a time on my responsibility," both he and the principal violate the prohibition against me'ilah. If the guests take three at a time, they also violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because each one of the individuals involved had performed the agency with which they were charged and added a further matter on his own initiative. Thus the other is also liable, because his instructions were carried out and the agency was not eradicated. And he is liable because of what he added on his own initiative.

When does the above apply? When the pieces of meat were consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. If they were meat from a burnt-offering or the like, only the person who partakes of them violates the prohibition against me'ilah. For he is obligated in another prohibition aside from me'ilah and, with regard to the entire Torah, there is no concept of a prohibition violated through agency except in the case of me'ilah alone and there, provided there is no other prohibition involved with it.

When a person gives a p'rutah of consecrated funds to an agent and tells him: "With half, purchase lamps for me and with half, wicks," and the agent used the entire amount for lamps or for wicks, they are both exempt. This law also applies when he told him to use the entire amount for lamps or for wicks and he used half to purchase lamps and half to purchase wicks.

The rationale is that the principal does not violate the prohibition against me'ilah, because his agency was not completed with regard to a p'rutah's worth of value. The agent does not violate that prohibition, because he did not eradicate his agency for a p'rutah's worth.

If, however, one told an agent: "For half a p'rutah, bring me lamps from this-and-this place and for the other half, bring me wicks from that-and-that place," and the agent brought the lamps from the place mentioned for the wicks and the wicks from the place mentioned for the lamps, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah.

If a principal gave his agent two consecrated p'rutot and told him: "Bring me an esrog" and the agent went and brought him an esrog for a p'rutah and a pomegranate for a p'rutah, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah, but the principal is exempt. The rationale is that the principal sent the agent to purchase an esrog worth two p'rutot for him. Therefore if the esrog which the agent brought the principal that cost one p'rutah is worth two p'rutot, they both violate the prohibition against me'ilah.

When a person sent a p'rutah via an agent to purchase a particular article and then, before it reached the domain of the storekeeper, the principal remembered that the p'rutah is consecrated, the agent violates the prohibition against me'ilah, because he is acting unknowingly, while the principal has already remembered. As we explained, a person who acts knowingly is not liable for a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah.

If the agent also remembered and was conscious that the money was consecrated before it reached the storekeeper, they are both exempt from a sacrifice to atone for me'ilah and the storekeeper is liable when he uses that p'rutah which became mixed with his money, for he is acting unknowingly.

If the storekeeper was informed that the p'rutah he was given was consecrated, they are all exempt and the purchase is completed, with the article becoming consecrated.

What should be done in order to preclude the storekeeper from sinning so he will be permitted to use all the money he received? One should take a non-consecrated p'rutah or any non-consecrated utensil and say: "Wherever the consecrated p'rutah is its holiness should be transferred to this." The p'rutah or the utensil become consecrated and the storekeeper is permitted to use all the money he received.

Similarly, if a consecrated p'rutah becomes intermingled with all the money in a purse or one said: "A p'rutah in this purse is consecrated," he should transfer its holiness and afterwards, he may use all the coins in the purse. If he used coins from the purse without transferring the holiness of the consecrated coin, he does not definitely violate the prohibition against me'ilah until he used all the coins in the purse.

If a person said: "One of my purses is consecrated" or "One of my oxen is consecrated," the prohibition against me'ilah applies to all of them and to some of them. What should he do? He should bring the largest of the purses or the oxen and say: "If this is consecrated, it should remain consecrated. If not, wherever the consecrated one is, its holiness should be transferred to this one." He may then use the smaller ones.

When a person misappropriates less than a p'rutah's worth of consecrated property, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he must make restitution for the principal, but he need not pay an additional fifth or bring a sacrifice. It appears to me that he is not liable for lashes for misappropriating less than a p'rutah's worth if he acted intentionally.

When a person entrusts consecrated money to a homeowner and the homeowner uses them and spends them, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah. The rationale is that he does not have permission to use these funds and the owner did not grant him license to.

Different rules apply if he entrusted them to a money-changer or a storekeeper and they were not sealed or tied close with an unusual knot. In these situations, since he is permitted to use them according to law, if he spent them, they are both exempt. The owner of the entrusted article is exempt because he did not tell the storekeeper or the money-changer to use them. And the store-keeper is exempt, because it is as if he used them with permission since they were not tied closed with an unusual knot or sealed.

When a woman brought consecrated money to her husband's domain or her testator consecrated property and then died and the consecrated property fell to her as an inheritance, when her husband spends the money on his personal needs, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah.