Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Kodashim · 185 sections

4.1.2
קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה – for religious sacrilege. But there is no inappropriate intention or remnant with them.
4.1.3
קדשי מזבח וקדשי בדק הבית מצטרפים זה עם זה למעילה – but not for another thing, as we have said, that the Holy Things dedicated for the repair of the Temple do not have [the prohibitions] of offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention and remnant and ritual impurity.
4.2.1
חמשה דרים בעולה מצטרפים זה עם זה – to an olive’s bulk, to make one liable because of offering them outside the Temple courtyard, and to make one liable because of offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention, and remnant and [ritual] impurity, and for religious sacrilege if he benefitted from all of them the equivalent of a penny.
4.2.2
והסולת – the meal offering that comes with the burnt offering.
4.2.3
והיין – for the libations, for the burnt offering requires a meal-offering and libations.
4.2.4
וששה בתודה – for the offering of thanksgiving requires bread added to the five things that are associated with the burnt-offering (i.e., meat, fat, fine flour, wine and oil). But all of them combine up to an olive’s bulk for offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention, and remnant and ritual impurity, but not for religious sacrilege, for the thanksgiving offering and the Lesser Holy Things do not have religious sacrilege, as is taught at the end of the first chapter [of Tractate Meilah, Mishnah 4).
4.2.5
התרומה ותרומת מעשר – which is one one-hundredth of unconsecrated produce, and similarly, the tenth of the tenth of Demai/doubtfully tithed produce (see parallel text found in Tractate Orlah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1).
4.2.6
והחלה – for even it is called Terumah/heave-offering, as it is written (Numbers 15:20): “as the first yield of your baking, you shall set aside a loaf as a gift.”
4.2.7
וביכורים – they are called Terumah/heave-offering, as the Master stated: (Deuteronomy 12:17): “or of your contributions”/"ותרומת ידך" – these are the first fruits, as it is written regarding them (Deuteronomy 26:4): “The priest shall take the basket from your hand [and set it down in from of the altar of the LORD your God].” (see Talmud Meilah 15b and Makkot 17a and parallels)
4.2.8
מצטרפים זה עם זה לאסור – that if [one part of] leaven fell from all of them in order to make leavened bread within the started dough of unconcentrated produce [of ninety-nine parts], it is forbidden.
4.2.9
ולחייב עליהן את החומש – he who eats from all of them inadvertently an olive’s bulk pays the one-fifth [in addition to the principal].
4.3.1
כל הפיגולים – from burnt-offerings, from sin-offerings, and from guilt-offerings and peace-offerings.
4.3.2
מצטרפים זה עם זה – to consuming from them an olive’s bulk to becoming liable for extirpation. And similarly, all the remnants.
4.3.3
כל הנבילות מצטרפים – and even the carrion of an unclean animal with the carrion of a pure animal, combine to an olive’s bulk regarding ritual impurity. But not in regard to flogging, for he is not flogged until he consumes an olive’s bulk of the carrion of only a pure animal, or an olive’s bulk from only an impure animal, because they are two categories/denominations, for one who consumes the flesh of an ritually impure animal is not flogged because of carrion other than because of his eating the flesh of an ritually impure animal.
4.3.4
וכל השרצים מצטרפים זה עם זה – for an olive’s bulk, to make those who consume them liable for flogging, and the eight reptiles that are written in the Torah (Leviticus 11:29-30) combine with each other, to make those who consume them liable for a lentil’s bulk. According to the measure of their ritual impurity, so is the measure of their consumption.
4.3.5
דם השרץ ובשרו מצטרפים – for we extend the scope/include them from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 11:29): “the following shall be impure for you from among the things that swarm on the earth,” to include he blood of that which swarms that it will defile like its flesh.
4.3.6
כל שטומאתו ושיעורו שוין (all things that are alike in [duration of] uncleanness and in requisite measure)– as, for example, carrion with carrion, or reptile/creeping animal with reptile/creeping animal.
4.3.7
טומאתו ולא שיעורו ([in duration of] uncleanness but not in requisite measure) – as, for example, carrion and reptile as their uncleanness is similar, and both of them there are ritually unclean until evening, but not their requisite measure, [since] for carrion, the measure of its uncleanness is an olives bulk, whereas for reptiles, its measure is a lentil’s bulk.
4.3.8
ושיעוריו ולא טומאתו – as for example, a carrion and a dead person, for both of them defile in an olive’s bulk. But not in its defilement, for whereas defilement with a dead person is seven [days], and defilement with a carrion is only until the evening.
4.3.9
לא טומאתו ולא שיעורו – as for example, a dead person and a reptile, for defilement with a dead person is seven days, but defilement with a reptile is only until the evening. But with its requisite measure also, they are not equal/equivalent, for the measure of defilement with the dead is an olive’s bulk, and the measure of a reptile is as a lentil’s bulk.
4.3.10
אלו אין מצטרפין זה עם זה – since they are separate entities.
4.4.1
שני שמות (two categories) – two separate negative commandments.
4.4.2
בקל שבשניהם (the lesser of the two of them)- that is to say, it combines for [ritual] defilement even with the lesser requisite measurement, as for example, that it would combine for less than the equivalent of a lentil’s bulk of a creeping reptile to complete the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of a carrion, and all the more so, that it would not combine to the requisite greater measurement. And similar, half of an olive’s bulk of a dead corpse does not combine to a half of an olive’s bulk of carrion to become impure, even for the impurity until evening.
4.4.3
אוכל שנטמא באב – this is the offspring of a first degree of uncleanness.
4.4.4
שנטמא בולד הטומאה – this is the offspring of second degree of uncleanness.
4.4.5
מצטרפין זה עם זה – to the equivalent of an egg’s bulk, which is the measurement of impurity for foodstuffs.
4.4.6
לטמא בקל שבשניהם – to become third-degree [of uncleanness] in the manner that the second [degree of uncleanness] becomes third [degree of uncleanness], which is the lesser of the two of them. But it does not combine to that which would become second [degree of uncleanness] like it makes the first [degree of uncleanness] become second [degree of uncleanness], for if so, it was like the greater/more stringent of the two of them.
4.5.1
לפסול את הגויה – a person (i.e., a Kohen) who consumes ritually impure foods at the volume of half-a-loaf [of bread] which is an egg and a half [in volume] according to the words of Maimonides, and two eggs’ [bulk] according to the words of my Rabbis/Teachers, his body is made invalid from eating heave-offering/Terumah and invalidates the Terumah through his contact until he immerses [in a Mikveh].
4.5.2
במזון שתי סעודות לעירוב (see also Tractate Eruvin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2) – A person who wants to walk more than two-thousand cubits on Shabbat makes a joining of borders/ עירובי תחומין and places the food for two [Sabbath] meals in the place where he desires that he will establish his Eruv, and he walks from the place of his Eruv and beyond [another] two-thousand cubits. And this is six eggs according to Maimonides and eight eggs according to my Rabbis/Teachers.
4.5.3
בכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלין – for food does not defile with less than an egg, as it is written (Leviticus 11:34): “As to any food that may be eaten, [if shall become impure if it came in contact with water],” that implies a food that is eaten at once, and the Sages estimated that the esophagus does not hold more than the egg of a chicken.
4.5.4
בכגרוגרת להוצאת שבת (see also Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4) – a person who removes foodstuffs on the Sabbath from one domain to another is not liable with less than a dry fig’s bulk.
4.5.5
בככותבת ביום הכיפורים (see also Tractate Yoma, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2)– The Biblical verse changed it and wrote (Leviticus 16:29): "תענו" /”you shall practice self-denial,” but did not write “תאכלו “/”you shall [not] eat,” that implies that the All-Merciful was not stringent other than with self-denial/affliction, and the Sages estimated that with a date a person’s mind is set at ease, ut less than a date, a person’s mind is not set at ease.
4.5.6
לפסול את הגויה ברביעית – a person who drinks impure liquids at a volume of a quarter-LOG, his (i.e., the Kohen’s) body is invalidated from consuming heave-offering/Terumah and invalidates Terumah through his contact until he immerses [in a Mikveh]
4.5.7
וכמלוא לוגמיו (a mouthful, a quantity of liquid filling up one’s cheek) – that he drinks a quantity filling up his cheek on Yoom Kippur is liable. Less than this, he is exempt (see Tractate Yoma, Chapter 8, Mishnah 2).
4.6.1
הערלה וכלאי הכרם מצטרפין (see also Tractate Orlah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) – that if he consumed half-of-a-measure from this one (i.e., Orlah/fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted) and half-of-a-measure from that one (i.e., Kilei HaKerem/food crops in a vineyard – which unlike the prohibition of a mixture of seeds, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the crop grown in the vineyard and all of the produce must be burned – see Tractate Kilayim), they combine [together to make that person liable] to be flogged [forty times – actually, forty minus one). Alternatively, Orlah and Kilei HaKerem are mixed together that fell into something permitted, they combine [to become prohibited] with dry produce in one out of two hundred, and with moist produce, if it provides a taste/flavor.
4.6.2
אינן מצטרפין – since they are two distinctive categories, but if there is in a pot to nullify her taste of the Orlah/fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted, on its own, and the taste of Kilei HaKerem/food crops in a vineyard on its own, everything is permitted. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
4.6.3
הבגד – which defiles [through the treading of someone with a flux] three handbreadths by three handbreadths.
4.6.4
והשק – that it defiles [through the treading of someone with a flux or other impurities] four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
4.6.5
והעור – five handbreadths by five handbreadths.
4.6.6
והמפץ (poor-man’s mattress) – six handbreadths by six handbreadths. The cloth/בגד combines with the sack/שק – that is less than it, to become defiled by four handbreadths by four handbreadths. And similarly, each other combines to that which is a less than it, and all of them combine with each other to defile according to the lesser measurement of defilement, but not the lesser with the greater.
4.6.7
מפני שהן ראוים לטמא מושב (suitable to be made unclean as that used for sitting) – that is to say, even though we have stated above (see Mishnah 3 of this chapter) that everything where their measurements are not equivalent they do not combine, here they combine even though their measurements are not equivalent, for since they are equivalent for this things – each one of them suitable to be made ritually impure as that used for the sitting of the person with a flux, therefore, they combine for the defilement of sitting.
5.1.1
הנהנה שוה פרוטה מן ההקדש אע"פ לא פגם מעל (even though he did not cause deterioration) – it is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 18a) in regard to a garment worn between other [garments] (literally, “middle garment), for the garment deteriorates immediately, because he rubs himself against the walls. But they also don’t dispute also regarding the inner garment that is against his skin, for that one also deteriorates immediately on account of sweat, but only regarding the “middle garment” [do they dispute]. Rabbi Akiva holds for since that is a thing that does not deteriorate immediately, even though it does deteriorate after time, it is like something that has no deterioration and they commit religious sacrilege with it, because he benefited from it the equivalent of a penny. But the Rabbis hold for since there is deterioration regardless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it until he causes deterioration.
5.1.2
כיצד – anything that does not deteriorate, as for example, [if a woman] put a chain around her neck, a golden chain/necklace dedicated to the Temple property, or a ring in her hand or she drank from a golden cup dedicated to the Temple property (see Tractate Tamid, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4). All of these, there is no deterioration in them, but rather, since she benefitted from them the worth of a penny, she has committed religious sacrilege. And how do we estimate benefit with them? We estimate how much a woman wants to give when she lends ornaments as they are to take them to a wedding meal to be honored by them, like that measurement that she pays to the Temple property the principal plus one-fifth when she used them.
5.1.3
וכל דבר שיש בו פגם – as for example, he wore a shirt or covered himself with a cloak or used an ax to split wood, because they will eventually deteriorate, he did not commit sacrilege until he caused deterioration in them the equivalent value of a penny.
5.1.4
תלש – [tore] hair.
5.1.5
מן החטאת – we are speaking of a sin-offering of something with a defect that stands to be redeemed and it is something that has a deterioration, therefore, he did not commit sacrilege until he causes deterioration the equivalent value of a penny, but in the pure sin—offering that the pulling of wool and hair out [of the lamb], he didn’t do anything, for as such it is appropriate to be offered now, like it was at the beginning, it would be like the golden cup which is something that has no deterioration, and since he benefitted from it, he has committed religious sacrilege.
5.1.6
כשהיא מתה כיון שנהנה מעל – for since it died, it is not redeemable, for we don’t redeem Holy Things to feed them to dogs, and we are speaking about whether it is was a pure sin-offering or a sin-offering with a defect (see Tractate Meilah 19a).
5.2.1
ופגם כחצי שיעור – as, for example, he wore Holy clothing with the benefit of the measurement equivalent to one-half of a penny and deterioration of one-half of a penny, that he tore it and caused deterioration to it like the measurement of one-half of a penny.
5.2.2
שנהנה בשוה פרוטה דבר אחד – that it has in it deterioration but he didn’t cause deterioration.
5.2.3
ופגם בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחר – as, for example, he spilled liquid of Holy things but did not benefit.
5.2.4
הרי זה לא מעל עד שיהנה בשוה פרוטה ויפגום בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחד – on himself, and there will be on the thing that has in it deterioration, for regarding religious sacrilege, it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass,] being unwittingly remiss [about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” and with the consuming of heave offering, it is written (Numbers 18:32): “You will incur no guilt,” just as the sin that is stated regarding the eating of heave-offering one causes deterioration and derives benefit, and just as he caused deterioration and benefited, even the sin offering mentioned In regard to religious sacrilege, it needs to be that he causes deterioration and benefits and in that thing itself that he causes deterioration, he derived benefit and not with another thing (see Talmud Meilah 19b).
5.3.1
במקודשין אלא בבמה וכלי שרת – a pure animal/beast, a pure animal/beast that is of the Holy Things of the altar. For these don’t exist for the redemption and are not eligible for deterioration, for even if one person rode on the animal/beast and it became weak or he tore out [hair] from its wool, it is still worthy for sacrifice, but there is sacrilege after another sacrilege in it. And similarly, if one person drank from a golden cup, even if he caused it deterioration and it became worse, because it has the holiness [of the body], and does not refer to redemption, it is still appropriate for [Divine] service and there is in it one sacrilege after another. But the Holy Things of keeping the Temple in repair, as, for the example, the beasts/animals of the Holy Things of Temple repair, there is no religious sacrilege after religious sacrilege, because they are things that are redeemed, but because one person committed sacrilege with it when he removed it to unconsecrated use, furthermore, it lacks religious sacrilege.
5.3.2
רבי אומר כל דבר – that has no deterioration and is not disqualified, which is every thing that has no redemption, like those that we mentioned, even if he caused deterioration to it, there is sacrilege following sacrilege. But there is a distinction between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi [Judah the Prince], regarding the pure Holy things of the Altar that were made in them defects, and he transgressed and slaughtered them prior to redemption. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] states that they should be buried, because they required placement and appraisement and that is not possible because they died Therefore, they should be buried, for since they no longer are capable of being redeemable, there is sacrilege following sacrilege, when someone benefits from them after ritual slaughter (and he adds the issue of the dedication of wood to the altar, for according to him, their law is like a sacrifice). But the Sages say that they should be redeemed (see Talmud Meilah 19b and Tractate Menahot 106b), for they don’t require placement and appraisement, and si the holiness of these monies there is no religious sacrilege following religious sacrilege. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.
5.4.1
הרי זה לא מעל – In the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 20a), it establishes it with the treasurer of the that which is consecrated, as they were the stone or beam that were transmitted to his hand from the outset, but when he took them for himself, they still were in the domain of that which is consecrated, for where he carried them in his house, they were in the domain of the consecrated as at first, but if he gave it to his fellow, he removed it from his domain and changed it from that which is consecrated to unconsecrated and he committed religious sacrilege, but his fellow did not commit sacrilege for it had already gone to unconsecrated matters.
5.4.2
בנאה בתוך ביתו – he didn’t build it within the structure of his house in actuality , for if so, he would benefit immediately when he added it to the building of his house. But rather, as for example, when he placed it in the aperture in the roof looking to the ground floor that is not in the building, for now, he has no benefit until he will live underneath it and benefit from it the equivalent of a penny, such as that his produce were placed underneath the aperture in the roof, but rains were dripping upon them, but he closed the mouth of the aperture in the roof with a sanctified stone, since it protected them for the equivalent of a penny, he committed religious sacrilege.
5.4.3
נתנה לבלן – in order that he would permit him to bathe in the bathhouse.
5.5.1
אכילתו ואכילת חברו – he ate one-half a measure and fed his fellow one-half a measure, or he benefitted one-half a measure and caused his fellow to benefit one-half a measure. And similarly, his benefit and the eating of his fellow, such as an amount which is one-half a measurement and his fellow ate half-a measurement or the opposite, all these combine to make him liable for a guilt-offering for sacrilege.
5.5.2
ואפילו לזמן מרובה – as for example, that he ate one-half of a measurement today and one-half of a measurement the next day in one act of forgetfulness, or he ate or benefitted like one-half a measurement today and he friend or caused his fellow to benefit like a half-measurement for the morrow, they combine and even for an extended period of time, and as long as they would be in one act of forgetfulness, as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “ When a person commits a trespass,” nevertheless, that he will commit a religious trespass, he would be liable for a guilt offering.
6.1.1
השליח – the owner of the house/householder gave him (i.e., the agent) something that is dedicated to a sacred purpose of monies dedicated to the Temple to remove them in the designation of unconsecrated [things], and the agent performed his agency.
6.1.2
בעל הבית מעל – for in regards to religious sacrilege, there Is a deputy to an illegal act (i.e., in this case, the responsibility for an illegal act can be shifted to the employer – as opposed to the normal scenario where it cannot – see Talmud Kiddushin 42b). But in entire Torah, there is no deputy for an illegal act except for the case of religious sacrilege/misappropriation because it is written concerning it (Numbers 5:6): “and that person realizes his guilt,” the person who acted inadvertently firs , which is the person who sent the individual representing him.
6.1.3
תן בשר לאורחים – from that meat that is dedicated to a sacred purpose.
6.1.4
ונתן להם כבד – [liver] dedicated to a sacred purpose.
6.1.5
והוא אומר טלו שתים – but only/provided that the agent would say, “take two [pieces],” from my own intention, then the owner of the house committed sacrilege/misappropriation , for the agent did not abrogate his agency even though he added on to the words of the person sending him, therefore, the person sending him misappropriated/committed sacrilege for his agency had been fulfilled, and the agent [himself] misappropriated/committed sacrilege because he added of his own consent/knowledge, and the guests also are liable on the third piece [of meat] that they took from their own consent/knowledge. But if the agent did not say, “take two [pieces of meat] from my own knowledge,” but rather [said], “take two [pieces of meat] through the agency of the owner of the house,” the person who sent him committed sacrilege for his words had been fulfilled, but the agent is exempt because he [merely] added upon the agency of the owner of the house and did not abrogate his agency – but what he had added, he did not add with his own consent.
6.1.6
גלוסקמא (chest/case) – in the Greek language, they call a chest/case a גלוסקמא (Genesis 50:26): “and placed in a coffin [in Egypt],” the Aramaic Targum/translation “and they placed him in a chest.”
6.1.7
אע"פ שאמר בעל הבית לא יה בלבי אלא מזה כו' מעל – because the agent acted according to his statement/word, but matters that are in the heart are not matters (as he had abrogated his agency).
6.2.1
ביד חרש שוטה וקטן – who are not capable of carrying out a commission/agency, nevertheless, since his agency was done, the person who sent him committed sacrilege/misappropriation.
6.2.2
החנוני – who received the money from the hand of the deaf-mute/חרש, imbecile/שוטה or the minor/קטן, is liable when he spends the monies of sacred property on his possessions.
6.2.3
ונזכר – the householder [is reminded] prior to the monies reaching the hand of the storekeeper, and since he remembered, he furthermore is not liable for a sacrifice of sacrilege/misappropriation, for there is no sacrifice of misappropriation/sacrilege for a wanton act.
6.2.4
החנוני חייב – and this is the case where the houseowner and the agent were reminded, for here, there is no one who acted inadvertently other than the storekeeper. But if the houseowner is reminded but the agent is not reminded, the agent committed misappropriation because inadvertently erred first.
6.2.5
כיצד יעשה – that is to say if the storekeeper knew about this penny that it is holy prior to his spending it or that it became combined with the rest of the pennies that he has, how should he act and be free to use his pennies.
6.3.1
שניהם לא מעלו – the houseowner did not commit sacrilege for his agency was not performed with a penny, but the agent did not commit misappropriation because he did not abrogate his agency of the houseowner with a penny, but for less than a penny, there isn’t an liability for sacrilege.
6.3.2
השליח מעל – that he abrogated the agency of the houseowner, whether with wicks or with candles, and there is In both of [the expenditure of] a penny.
6.4.1
שניהם מעלו – as long as that Etrog/citron would be worth two pennies like the houseowner gave him. The houseowner committed sacrilege since the agent purchased for him according to what he said and worth as he gave him, he thusly performed his agency, but the agent committed a misappropriation for he purchased of his own intention a pomegranate with a penny that was not in the agency of the houseowner.
6.4.2
ר' יהודה אומר בעה"ב לא מעל – for he (i.e., the houseowner) said to the agent, If you would purchase an Etrog/citron for two pennies like I gave to you, you would bring me a large Etrog/citron worth four pennies, [but] now that you didn’t give other than a penny, you brought me an Etrog/citron worth two pennies which is a small and bad, it is found that you did not perform my agency. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
6.5.1
אם צרורין – tied up with an unusual knot even though it doesn’t have upon it a seal, or knots like the other knots and seals.
6.5.2
לא ישתמש בהן – for he (i.e., the owner) revealed his intention that it was not appropriate that he should use that which was deposited, for since, he bound them in an unusual knot or placed upon it a seal.
6.5.3
מותרין – it is called (i.e., loose), all the time that it is not tied with an unusual knot but rather it is tied like other ties and lacks a seal upon it.
6.5.4
לפיכך אם הוציא מעל – for it is like the depositor said to him that he can use them, since they are not bound up, and he had indeed performed his agency, and the depositor also did not commit an act of sacrilege for he did not state explicitly that he (i.e., the money changer) can use them.
6.5.5
החנוני – who sells produce or spices in the store.
6.5.6
כבעל הבית – if he deposited with him (i.e., the storekeeper) money, even though they are not tied up, he may not use them, therefore if they were monies devoted to a sacred purpose and they were used, he has committed religious sacrilege/misappropriation.
6.5.7
כשלחני – and he is permitted to use the monies that were deposited with him when they are not bound up, therefore, he did not commit a religious sacrilege.
6.6.1
כיון שהוציא את הראשונה – for the needs of his use, he has committed religious sacrilege.
6.6.2
וחכמים אומרים – he did not commit religious sacrilege
6.6.3
until he spent all the money that was in the purse for the needs of unconsecrated products. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.
6.6.4
פרוטה מן הכיס זה – that is to say, do not use up the penny from this purse until there will be in it something consecrated.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org Licence: CC-BY. Source.