Meilah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1. Masechet Meilah is devoted to me'ilah, the improper use of consecrated property, and the chapter that opens here asks at what point the aveirah has actually been committed. One threshold never changes: the benefit taken must be worth at least a perutah. What this mishnah wants to determine is whether that benefit by itself completes the transgression, or whether hekdesh must also have lost something in the process.
The Two Extremes
Begin with the two clear cases. If the consecrated item is the sort of thing that is not ordinarily harmed by being used, a person is liable for me'ilah once he has enjoyed a perutah's worth of benefit, even though the item is exactly as valuable as it was before. If, on the other hand, the item is the sort of thing that is worn down by use, so that using it lowers its value, there is no me'ilah until the item has actually suffered a perutah's worth of damage.
Between these two poles lies a third category, and that is where the mishnah's dispute lives. What about an item that will eventually be worn down, an item whose use produces long term deterioration, but where nothing measurable happens at the moment of use? Do we classify it with the items that suffer no damage, so that benefit alone creates liability? Or do we classify it with the items that do deteriorate, so that liability waits until a perutah of damage has actually been caused?
The Text of the Mishnah
"Haneheneh shaveh perutah min hahekdesh," one who takes benefit worth a perutah out of consecrated property, "af al pi shelo pagam," though nothing at all was damaged, "maal," is guilty of me'ilah. The reference is to an object of the kind that suffers no immediate impairment when it is used, and the ruling is "divrei Rabbi Akiva," the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
"Vachachamim omrim," and the Chachamim say: "kol davar sheyesh bo pegam," any object that wears out through ordinary use, including one whose decline is gradual rather than instantaneous, "lo maal ad sheyifgom," carries no me'ilah until the use has diminished it by a perutah. "Vechol davar she'ein bo pegam," while any object that does not wear out at all through ordinary use, "keivan sheneheneh, maal": the moment a perutah of benefit has been enjoyed the transgression is complete, with no loss to hekdesh required.
Items That Are Not Diminished
The mishnah supplies illustrations: "keitzad," in what way? "Natnah katlah betzavarah," a woman put a consecrated necklace on her neck; "taba'at beyadah," she wore a consecrated ring; "shatat bechos shel zahav," she drank out of a golden goblet belonging to hekdesh. "Keivan sheneheneit, ma'alah": with a perutah of benefit enjoyed, she has committed me'ilah, since not one of these objects loses anything by being used this way.
Since there is no loss to measure, we measure the benefit instead: what would a person pay for the privilege of wearing this jewelry to a celebration? If the answer reaches a perutah, me'ilah has been committed.
Items That Are Diminished
The mishnah now presents the reverse situation. "Lavash bechaluk," someone put on a consecrated tunic next to his body; "kisah betalit," he draped a consecrated cloak over himself as his outer covering; "bikah bekardom," he chopped wood with a consecrated axe. In all three, "lo maal ad sheyifgom": no me'ilah has occurred before his use has diminished the item by a perutah.
Here even Rabbi Akiva agrees, because in each of these cases the item is genuinely diminished by a single use. A garment worn directly against the body absorbs perspiration and is worn down each time it is put on; it is now a used garment and worth less. A cloak worn on the outside is exposed to the elements and rubs against whatever it brushes past. And an axe is dulled a little with every stroke.
Locating the Dispute
Where, then, do Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim actually part ways? Consider a garment worn as a middle layer. A garment against the skin is agreed to deteriorate; a garment worn on the outside is agreed to deteriorate. The middle garment is precisely the borderline case: nothing measurable happens today, yet over time there will certainly be wear.
Rabbi Akiva places the middle garment among the objects that sustain no damage: harm that will only surface down the road is not harm in the present, so it plays no part in generating liability. As soon as a person has enjoyed a perutah of benefit by wearing the garment, me'ilah has occurred. The Chachamim assign that very same garment to the category of things that wear out, because wearing out is genuinely what such a garment does. In their view, so long as no value has yet been lost from the middle garment, no me'ilah has taken place.
The Same Distinction in a Korban
The mishnah closes with a parallel distinction concerning a consecrated animal, specifically a blemished chatat. A blemished korban cannot be brought on the mizbeach; it is redeemed, and the redemption money goes to the Beit Hamikdash to purchase a replacement korban.
"Talash min hachatat keshehi chayah": hair pulled from such a chatat during its lifetime brings no liability, "lo maal ad sheyifgom," until the value removed reaches a perutah. Since this animal is headed for redemption, whatever lowers its price lowers the sum that hekdesh will ultimately collect. It therefore stands with the tunic, the cloak and the axe: me'ilah begins only where an actual loss of a perutah has been inflicted.
"Keshehi meitah," but if he plucked the hair from the animal after it had died, "keivan sheneheneh, maal," once he derived a perutah's worth of benefit he has transgressed me'ilah, with no damage required. A dead animal can no longer be redeemed, so there is no value left to lose and nothing to diminish. It belongs with the necklace, the ring and the golden cup, where benefit alone completes the transgression.