Meilah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3. Our chapter has been mapping out exactly which acts of benefit from hekdesh trigger meilah and what happens to the item afterward. This mishnah takes up the next question: once meilah has been committed with a consecrated object, can it happen a second time?
The Chachamim derive from the Torah that when a person commits meilah, the sanctity of the object departs from it. The item becomes ordinary, and from that point on it may be used freely, even lechatchilah. The direct consequence is that a second act of meilah is impossible, because there is simply no hekdesh left to misuse.
The Rule and Its Exceptions
"Ein mo'el achar mo'el bamukdashin": one does not commit meilah after another has already committed meilah with consecrated property. The first misuse stripped the sanctity, so nothing remains for the second person to violate.
"Ela behemah uchlei sharet": two categories stand outside this rule. One is a flawless animal that was set aside for the altar; the other is k'lei sharet, the vessels used in the service of the Beit Hamikdash. Regarding these, meilah can occur over and over.
The reason lies in the type of kedushah involved. These two categories bear kedushat haguf, a holiness inherent in the object itself, and they are not subject to redemption. Where redemption is impossible, meilah lacks the power to extract the item from hekdesh; it stays sacred. Thus the one who first misused that animal or that vessel left its holiness untouched, and whoever benefits from it afterward has likewise transgressed meilah.
An object that carries only kedushat damim, monetary sanctity, is a different matter entirely. Such an item can be redeemed out of hekdesh, and therefore meilah accomplishes what redemption would have accomplished: the object leaves the domain of hekdesh, becomes fully chullin, and may be used by anyone without hesitation.
Keitzad: The Illustrations
"Keitzad": how does repeated meilah actually look?
- "Rachav al gabei behemah": one man rode upon a flawless animal that had been designated for the altar, then, "uva chaveiro verachav", another came and rode upon it, and after him a third rode as well.
- "Shatah bechos shel zahav": one man drank from a gold cup belonging to the vessels of the Temple service, then another came, "uva chaveiro veshatah", and drank, and a third drank after him.
- "Talash min hachatat": one man pulled wool from a flawless animal set aside as a chatat, then a second came and pulled from it, "uva chaveiro vetalash", and then a third did the same.
"Kulan ma'alu": all of them are liable for meilah. All three riders, all three drinkers, all three who plucked hair. Since the object retains its sanctity even after the first violation, each subsequent act is a fresh meilah.
The Opinion of Rebbi
The Opinion of Rebbi
Rebbi teaches: "Kol she'ein lo pidyon, yesh bo mo'el achar mo'el." He extends the principle to every consecrated item for which no redemption exists, and such items can be misused repeatedly. According to him, this category takes in the following case as well: a beast originally set aside for the altar which afterward became blemished, and which was then slaughtered while still in its consecrated state, no redemption having been performed.
The debate rests on a principle called ha'amadah veha'arachah, presentation and valuation. Redeeming a consecrated animal requires that the animal be presented alive, standing upright, while a kohen appraises what it is worth for purposes of redemption. Rebbi maintains that this demand governs two kinds of animals: one given over to the funds of the Sanctuary, and equally one set aside for the altar that afterward became blemished. Such a creature is redeemable only during its lifetime. Once it has been slaughtered there is no longer any way to present and appraise it, so redemption is permanently closed off. And an item that can never be redeemed does not lose its sanctity through meilah, which is precisely why meilah can be committed with it time after time.
The Tanna Kamma sees it otherwise. He confines the principle of ha'amadah veha'arachah to an animal handed over as a gift toward the upkeep funds of the Sanctuary, and he does not apply it to a sacrificial animal that afterward became blemished. Where such an animal went unredeemed and was slaughtered, redemption is still available even at that stage. And because redemption has not been foreclosed, meilah does succeed in stripping away its holiness: after the first person misuses it, the animal becomes chullin, and no further meilah can be committed with it.
The Tanna Kamma agrees, of course, that the proper procedure is to redeem the animal before slaughtering it. His point is only about the case where that was not done. In that situation, because he sees no obligation of ha'amadah veha'arachah here, redemption after slaughter is still possible, and therefore the sanctity is the kind that meilah can remove.