Daf TB Nedarim 35 discusses the role of misappropriation of the Temple’s sanctified property (me’ilah -מְעִילָה) and vows. There is two ways a person can misappropriate a sanctified object (hekdash-הֶקְדֵּשׁ). He can misappropriate this sanctified object for his own personal use. Let’s say he donates a loaf of bread to the Temple by declaring this loaf of bread is hekdash. After he makes this declaration he forgets he sanctified it and eats this loaf of bread at home. The second way of misappropriating a sanctified object is by accidentally moving it from the Temple’s domain to a different domain. The person who misappropriates the hekdash must do three things. He must make full restitution, pay a fine of 25%, and bring a guilt offering, an asham (אָשָׁם).
When taking a vow prohibiting
something, sometimes people compare (hatpasah- התפסה) it to hekdash, sanctified to the Temple. An
example would be this loaf of bread is forbidden to me like hekdash. Does this prohibition take on
all the penalties of me’ilah?
“Rava raised a dilemma
before Rav Naḥman: Is there liability for misuse of
consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the
legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of
consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it
like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of
consecrated property?
“Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property (because he has forbidden all benefit from that person. The reward for returning a lost item will qualify as a benefit.-gg). That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.” (Sefaria.org translation) According to Rav Naḥman the prohibition (אִיסוּר) takes on all the penalties of me’ilah. (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara says that the tanna’im disagreed whether the
prohibition (אִיסוּר) takes on
all the penalties of me’ilah.
“The Gemara comments on
this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna’im. If
one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property,
and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate
it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since
its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of
desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam
for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated
property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated
property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the
possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is
not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of
Rabbi Meir.
“And the Rabbis say: In the case of both
vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused
consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of
consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir
disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Interestingly enough the halakhah doesn’t follow the majority,
the rabbis, but Rabbi Meir. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Avodah , Laws of Me’ilah, chapter 4, halakha 9. “The
prohibition against me'ilah applies to articles set aside through vows.
What is implied? A person said: "This loaf is considered like a
sacrifice" or "...consecrated property for me." If he partakes
of it, he violates the prohibition against me'ilah, even though the loaf
is permitted to others. Therefore such an article cannot be redeemed, for it is
only considered as consecrated for this person.
If he said: "This loaf is consecrated" or "...a sacrifice,"
whether he or someone else partakes of it, the prohibition against me'ilah
is violated. Therefore it can be redeemed. If an ownerless loaf was before a
person and he said: "This loaf is consecrated," should he take it to
partake of it, he is considered to have misappropriated its entire value. If he
took it to endow it to others, he is considered to have misappropriated the
value of giving such a gift.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Me'ilah is a terrible trespass.
Needless to say we need to be careful how we vow.
No comments:
Post a Comment