meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Meilah/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Meilah
  משנה מעילה
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Meilah
  
  
  
  
  
  [Offerings of]<i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered only on the north-west corner of the altar, and consumed only within the Temple compound by male priests, or burnt entirely.]  that were slaughtered in the south [of the Temple Courtyard]  one is liable for  <i> me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property]. If they were slaughtered in the south [side], but their blood was gathered in the north [side]; if they were slaughtered in the north, but their blood was gathered in the south; if they were  slaughtered during the day, and their blood was sprinkled at night; [if they were slaughtered] at night, and their blood was sprinkled during the day; or one slaughtered them [with the intent to eat it] after its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place,  one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>.  Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general rule: Any [offering] that had even a brief period of time when it was permitted to the <i>kohanim</i> [priests], one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. [However] anything which did not have a brief period of time when they were  permitted to the <i>kohanim</i>, one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that had a brief permitted time  to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was left past its [permitted] time, or which became impure, or went out [was removed from the Temple Courtyard]. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that did not have a brief permitted time to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was slaughtered [with the invalid intent to eat it] beyond its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place, or an invalid one [<i>kohen</i>] gathered and sprinkled its blood.
  The meat of <i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices] that was removed [from the Courtyard] before their blood was sprinkled, Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> but   they are not liable for <i>pigul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention to be eaten beyond its time], <i>notar</i> [a sacrifice that was leftover beyond the time of consumption] and <i>tamei</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit because it became defiled]. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>,  but they are  liable for  <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva said: Why in the case when someone sets aside a sin offering and it got lost and he then sets aside another one in its place [and it was slaughtered], and then the first one was found [and was slaughtered], and now they [the blood] of both are in front of us [ready to be sprinkled], is it not so that just as the  [sprinkling] the blood of the first one  exempts its meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>], so too it should exempt the meat of the second one? And if the [sprinkling] of the blood of one exempts the meat of  the other one from  <i> me'ilah</i>, is it not logical [through  fortiori reasoning] that it should exempt its own meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>].
  The limbs of  [sacrifices] <i> kodashim kalim</i> [sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard and consumed by most anyone, anywhere in Jerusalem] that were removed [out of the Courtyard] before the sprinking of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says, one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>  and one is not liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva says one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>  and  is liable for  <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>.
  The of sprinkling the blood of  <i>kodshei kodashim</i> may have  a lenient [affect] and a stringent [affect], but with <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it affects them all stringently. How so? [With respect to] <i>kodshei kodashim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to both the limbs [of the animal to be burned on the altar] and the meat; after the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat], one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident that the sprinkling of the blood  has a lenient and stringent affect. [But with respect to] <i>kodashim kalim</i> it has only a stringent affect. How so? <i>Kodashim kalim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply neither to the  limbs  nor to the meat. After sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs, but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat],  one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident, that with respect to <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it has only a stringent effect. 
  
  
  
  [With respect to] the bird sin offering,  one is liable for <i> meilah</i> once they have been sanctified.  Once they were slaughtered through <i>melika</i> [the kohen pierces the back of the bird's neck with his thumbnail] they become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by a <i>tevul yom</i> [ a person who has immersed himself in the <i>mikveh</i> that day and is waiting for sunset to become pure] or [a person who is] a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> [lacks atonement; he has not yet brought his sacrifice], or through <i>linah</i> [leaving certain portions of certain offerings overnight, thereby invalidating them].  Once their blood has been sprinkled one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>, and one is liable for <i>meilah</i>.
  The <i>olah</i> [completely burnt] bird sacrifice,  one is liable for <i> meilah</i> once they have been sanctified.  Once they were slaughtered through <i>melika</i> they become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> or through <i>linah</i>.  Once their blood has been squeezed [against the wall of the altar] one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i> , and one is liable for <i>meilah</i> until they are taken to the place of the ashes [where it is burnt outside of Jerusalem]. 
  The bull [sin offering] that is burned and the he-goat [sin offering] that is burned, one is liable for <i> meilah</i> once they have been sanctified. Once they have been slaughtered, they become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>. Once their blood has been sprinkled, one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>, and one is liable for <i>meilah</i> until the meat has become charred in the place of ashes.  
  The [animal] <i>olah</i>, the laws of  <i>meilah</i> apply once they have been sanctified.  Once they were slaughtered they becomes susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>. Once its blood has been sprinkled one is liable  for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Its hides are not subject to meilah, but the meat is still subject to <i>meilah</i>  until it goes out to the place of ashes. 
  The <i>chatat</i> [sin offering], the <i>asham</i> [guilt offering] and the <i> zivchei shalmei tsibur</i> [<i>shelamim</i> offering brought by/on behalf of all Israel – specifically, the two sheep brought along with the leavened grain-offering on Shavu’ot], the laws of <i>meilah</i> apply  once they have been sanctified.  Once they have been slaughtered, they become susceptible  to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>.  Once their blood has been sprinkled one is liable  for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. The meat is [no longer] subject to meilah, but the limbs are until they are taken to the place of burning.  
  The <i> shtei halechem</i> [the two breads of Shavuot] are subject to meilah once they have been sanctified.  Once they   formed a crust in the oven, they become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>, and for the  sacrifices [two lambs of Shavuot] to be slaughtered [on their account].  Once the blood of lambs has been sprinkled,  one is liable  for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i> and and one is not liable for <i>meilah</i>.
  The <i> lechem hapanim</i> are subject to <i>meilah</i> once they been sanctified.  Once they have formed a crust in the oven, they become become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i> and then they can be placed on the [golden] table [in the Temple].  Once the spoons of frankincense have been offered [on the altar] one is liable  for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i> and and one is not liable for <i>meilah</i>.
  The <i>minchah</i> [meal offering] is subject to <i>meilah</i> once they have  been sanctified.  Once it has been sanctified in a [service] vessel, it becomes susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>.  Once the <i>kometz</i>[ a handful of the meal offering, which is placed on the altar] has been  offered, one is liable  for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>.  The leftovers are not subject to <i>meilah</i>, but the <i>kometz</i> is subject to <i>meilah</i> until it is taken to the place of burning.  
  The <i>kometz</i> [threefingerfull of a meal offering that was placed on the altar], the frankincense, the <i>ketoret</i> [incense], the meal offering of the priests, and the anointed priest [the high priest] or the  libation meal offering are subject to <i>meilah</i> once they've been sanctified.  Once they have been sanctified in a [service] vessel, they become susceptible to becoming ineligible [if touched] by  a <i>tevul yom</i>,  a <i>mechusar kippurim</i> and through <i>linah</i>, and one is liable for <i>notar</i> [leaving it past its appropriate time] or <i>tamei</i>,  but they are not subject to <i>pigul</i>. This is the rule, anything   [which is currently forbidden, but] whose prohibition will under certain conditions will eventually pass and become permissible, one is not liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i> until that which renders it permissible occurs. Anything whose prohibition will not eventually pass and make it permissible, as soon as it was sanctified in a [service] vessel, one is liable for <i>notar</i> and <i> tamei</i>, but they are not subject to pigul.
  
  
  
  The offspring of a <i>chatat</i> and the <i>temurah</i> [substitute] of a <i>chatat</i> and a <i>chatat</i> whose owner has died, must be left to die.  If a year has passed or was lost or found with a blemish, if the owners has already atoned [with another offering] , it must be left to die and it cannot make a <i>temurah</i>  [substitute], one cannot obtain benefit from it, but one is not liable for <i>meilah</i>.  If the owners have not atoned, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish and then it is sold and its money is used to buy another [<i>chatat</i>] offering, and it can make a <i>temurah</i> and it is subject to <i>meilah</i>. 
  One who separates money for his <i>nazir</i> sacrifices, he cannot derive benefit from it and it is not subject to <i>meilah</i> because they [the money]is fit to be used for shelamim.  If he [nazir] died and the money was unspecified [for which offering it is to be used] they should be used for voluntary offerings.  If they are specified for which sacrifice they should be used, the money for the <i>chatat</i> should be thrown into the Dead Sea, one cannot derive benefit from it, and is not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  The money for the <i>olah</i> should be used to bring an <i>olah</i> and is subject to <i>meilah</i>.  The money for the <i>shelamim</i> should be used to buy a <i>shelamim</i> and may be eaten for one day but does not require the accompanying bread [of the Nazarite offering].  
  Rabbi Yishmael says, blood [of sacrifices] is lenient at the beginning and stringent at the end, but libations are stringent at the beginning but lenient at the end.  Blood, at the beginning is not subject to <i>meilah</i>, but once it goes out [of the Temple] to the Kidron valley it does become subject to <i>meilah</i>.  Libations, at the beginning are subject to <i>meilah</i> but once they have run off into the pits [located beneath the altar] they are no longer subject to <i>meilah</i>. 
  The ashes taken away from the inner altar and the menorah, one may not derive benefit from them but they are not subject to  <i>meilah</i>. If someone sanctifies the [removed] ashes, they become subject to  <i>meilah</i>.  Turtledoves that have not yet reached their time [underage] and pigeons that have passed their time [overage], one cannot derive benefit from them, but they are not subject to  <i>meilah</i>.  Rabbi Shimon says, turtledoves that have not yet reached their time are subject to  <i>meilah</i> but pigeons that have passed their time one cannot derive benefit from them, but they are not subject to <i>meilah</i>. 
  The milk of sanctified animals and the eggs of [sanctified] turtledoves, one cannot derive benefit from them but they are not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  In what case were these said? In the case of things sanctified for the altar, but things sanctified  for the Temple maintenance [for example], if one sanctified a hen, it [the hen] and its eggs are subject to <i>meilah</i>.  [If one sanctified] a donkey, it and its milk are subject to <i>meilah</i>.  
  Anything [sanctified] which is fit for the altar, but not [fit for] the Temple maintenance, or for maintenance but not the altar, or neither for maintenance nor the altar, are subject to <i>meilah</i>.  How so?   If he sanctified a pit filled with water, a dung pit full of manure a dovecote filled with doves, a tree full of fruit, a field full of grass, both they and what is in them are subject to <i>meilah</i>.  But if he consecrated a pit and it was later filled with water, a dung pit that was later filled with manure, a dovecote that was later filled with doves, a tree that was later filled with fruit, a field that was later filled with grass, they are subject to <i>meilah</i>, but not what is in them, so says Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says, one who sanctified his field or a tree, they and all that grows from them are subject to <i>meilah</i> because they are the growths of sanctified things.  The offspring of <i>ma'aser</i> [tithed animals] should not nurse from  <i>ma'aser</i> animals [their mothers], others would therefore donate their animals for this purpose [of nursing].  The offspring of sanctified animals should not nurse from other consecrated animals, and others would therefore donate their  animals for this purpose [of nursing].  Workers should not eat the dried figs that have been sanctified and similarly a cow should not eat from the fodder that was sanctified. 
  The roots of a tree belonging to a layman that extend into a sanctified area and roots of a sanctified tree that extend into a layman's area, one cannot derive benefit from them, but they are not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  A spring that emanates [flows] from a sanctified field one cannot derive benefit from it, but it is not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  If it flows outside the field then one can derive benefit from it.  Water in the golden jugs [used for libations on Sukkot] one cannot derive benefit from it but it is not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  If it was then placed in a jug [to be poured on the altar] it is subject to <i>meilah</i>.  The willow branch [used in the Temple during Sukkot] one cannot derive benefit from it but it is not subject to <i>meilah</i>. Rabbi Elazer the son of Rabbi Tsadok says, the elders used to [benefit from it] and use it in their lulavim. 
  A bird's nest that is in a tree that belongs to the Temple, one cannot derive benefit from it, but it is not subject to <i>meilah</i>.  If it is in an <i> asherah</i> [a tree or grove devoted to idolatrous worship] he can knock it down with a branch.  One who consecrates a forest, all of it [everything in it] is subject to meilah.  If the Temple treasurers bought [unprocessed] trees, the wood is subject to <i>meilah</i>, but the bark and the leaves are not subject to <i>meilah</i>. 
  
  
  
  [Different] sanctified items intended to be offered on the altar combine with each other for the purposes of <i>meilah</i> and to make one liable for <i>piggul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to the intention of the officiating priest, while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time], <i>notar</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit, due to being left unconsumed until after the time limit for its consumption]and <i>tamei</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit because it has become defiled].  [Different] sanctified items for the maintenance of the Temple combine with each other. Items sanctified to be offered on the altar and items sanctified for the maintenance of the Temple treasury can combine with each other to make one liable for <i>meilah</i>. 
  Five parts of an olah combine with each other for [liability], the meat, the <i>chelev</i> [fats around the stomach, intestines, and kidneys of some animals which are forbidden for eating], the flour, the wine and the oil, while  six parts [combine with each other] by a <i>todah</i> [a special form of Shelamim offering accompanied by many loaves of various forms of bread, both leavened and unleavened, brought in thanks for emerging alive and well from one of several specified dangers considered particularly threatening], the meat, the <i>chelev</i>, the flour, the wine , the oil, and the [loaves] of bread.
  All foods that are <i>pigul</i> combine with each other. All [foods] that are <i> notar</i> combine with each other. All <i> neveilot</i> [improperly slaughtered animals of a permitted species],combine with each other. All <i> sheratzim</i>[creeping animals] combine with each other.  The blood of a <i> sheretz</i> and its flesh combine with each other.  Rabbi Yehoshua said a general rule: anything whose transmission of impurity and its [minimum] measure [to make something else impure] are the same, they can combine [with each other]. If their transmission of impurity is the same, but their [minimum] measure [to make something else impure] is not the same, [or if their minimum] measure [to make something else impure] is the same  but their transmission of impurity is not the same, they do not combine.
  <i>Piggul</i> and <i>notar</i> do not combine because they have two different names. Creeping animal and animals which died without being properly slaughtered and similarly animals which died without being properly slaughtered and the meat of a dead animal do not combine to transmit impurity, even in the more lenient [feature] of the two. Food that have become impure through [by coming in contact with] an <i> av hatumah</i> [Primary source of impurity which renders even vessels and persons impure, all the more so foodstuffs] or that have become impure through [by coming in contact with] a <i> velad hatumah </i> [something rendered impure on a derivative level, by contact ultimately with an original source of impurity] can combine with each other to transmit impurity as the more lenient of the two. 
  All foods combine to invalidate a body, [if one consumed] in the amount similar to a half of a half of a loaf of bread loaf of bread; [so too] the amount of food needed for two meals for an <i>eruv</i> [a halachic merging of separate domains by means of setting aside an amount of food in a designated place]; [so to] the size of an egg in order to transmit food impurity [to other things]; the size of a dry fig to make one liable for carrying out on Shabbat; the size of a [large] date to make one liable on [for eating on] Yom Kippur.  All liquids combine to invalidate the body with a <i>revi'it</i> [specific unit of volume]; and the "cheek-full" size to make one liable on Yom Kippur. 
  <i>Orlah</i> [the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting, the consumption or usage of which is forbidden] and <i>kilei hakerem,</i> [the product of the prohibited planting of other species in a vineyard] combine with each other. Rabbi Shimon says they do not combine.  Cloth and sack, sack and hide, hide and matting can combine with each other.  Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to impurity through [serving as a] seat. 
  
  
  
  One who derived even a <i>perutah's</i> [a coin of minimum value] worth of benefit from Temple property, even if he did not decrease its value has violated <i>meilah</i>, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. The Sages say: anything that can be devalued, one has not violated <i>meilah</i> until its value has actaully decreased.  Anything that is not able to be devalued, as soon as he derives benefit from it, has violated <i>meilah</i>.  How so?  If she [a woman] placed a necklace [belonging to the Temple treasury] around her neck or a ring [belonging to the Temple treasury] on her hand or if one drank from the golden cup [belonging to the Temple treasury] , as soon as he [or she] derived benefit from it, he [or she] has violated <i>meilah</i>.  If one wore a shirt or covered himself with a cloak or chopped [wood] with an axe [all of which belonged to the Temple treasury], has not violated <i>meilah</i> until he decreases its value.  If he derived benefit from a <i>chatat</i> [sin offering]  while it is still alive, he has not violated <i>meilah</i> until he decreases its value.  Once it is dead, he violates <i>meilah</i> as soon as he derives benefit from it. 
  If one derived benefit [from an item of Temple treasury property] worth a half a <i>perutah</i> and caused its devaluation of a half a <i>perutah</i> or if he derived a <i>perutah's</i> worth of benefit from one item [of Temple treasury property] and decreased the value of another item by a <i>perutah</i>, he has not violated <i>meilah</i> until he derives a <i>perutah's</i> worth of benefit and causes a <i>perutah's</i> worth of loss to the same item. 
  There is no <i>meilah</i> after <i>meilah</i> [one cannot violate <i>meilah</i> twice with the same item] with sanctified items, except for animals [sanctified for offerings] and temple vessels.  How so?  If one rode on top of an animal [sanctified for an offering] and his friend came and rode on it and then another friend came and rode on it, they all violated <i>meilah</i>. If he drank from the golden cup [belonging to the Temple] and his friend came and drank from the cup and then another friend came and drank from it, they all violated <i>meilah</i>. If he plucked [wool] from a <i>chatat</i> and his friend then came and also plucked  and then another friend came and also plucked , they all violated <i>meilah</i>. Rabbi Meir says, anything that is not redeemable is subject to <i>meilah</i> after <i>meilah</i> [i.e., multiple <i>meilah</i> violations].
  If one took a stone or a beam from the Temple [treasury], he has not committed <i>meilah</i>. If he gave it to his friend, he has violated <i>meilah</i>, but his friend has not violated <i>meilah</i>. If he built it into his house, he had not violated <i>meilah</i> until he lives under it for a value of a <i>perutah</i>. If one took a <i>perutah</i> from the Temple [treasury] he has not violated <i>meilah</i>. If he gave it to his friend, he has violated <i>meilah</i>, but his friend has not violated <i>meilah</i>.  If he gave it to a bath house attendant [as a fee] even though he did not bathe he has violated <i>meilah</i>, because the attendant will say to him, "The bathhouse is open to you, come in and bathe." 
  His eating [half a <i>peruta's</i> worth] and his friend's eating  [half a <i>peruta's</i> worth], his benefit and his friend's benefit, his eating and his friend's benefit, his benefit and his friend's eating combine with each other even if there was a large gap of time between them. 
  
  
  
  If an emissary has fulfilled his instructions [to take from something belonging to the Temple], the owner has violated <i>meilah</i>; if he has not fulfilled his instructions then the messenger has violated <i>meilah</i>. How so? If he [the owner] said to him [the emissary], give meat to the guests and he gave them liver,[or] if he said liver and he gave them meat, the emissary has violated <i>meilah</i>.  If he [the owner] said [to the emissary] to give each of them [the guests] one piece and he [the emissary] told them to take two pieces each and the guests each took three pieces, they have all violated <i>meilah</i>.  If he [the owner] said to him [the emissary], bring me [coins] from the window [sill] or from the case, and he [inadvertently] brought him [coins  belonging to the Temple], even though the owner said I really meant from this one [that does not belong to the Temple] and he brought from the other one [coins belonging to the Temple], the owner has violated <i>meilah</i>.  But if he said bring me [coins] from the window[sill] and he brought him [coins] from the case or if he told him to bring [coins] from the case and he brought [coins] from the window [sill], the messenger has violated <i>meilah</i>.
  If [an owner] sent [money belonging to the Temple] in the hands of a deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, or a minor [to purchase something for him from the storekeeper], and they carried out his instructions, the owner has violated <i>meilah</i>.  If they do not follow their instructions, the store owner has violated <i>meilah</i>.  If he sent it in the hands of a normal person and he remembered before he [the emissary] got to the store keeper, the store keeper violated <i>meilah</i> when he eventually spends the money.  What should he [the owner] do [so that the storekeeper does not violate <i>meilah</i>?]  He should take a <i>peruta</i> or a vessel [worth a <i>peruta</i>] and say: The <i>peruta</i> belonging to the Temple where ever it is may be deconsecrated on this [<i>peruta</i> or vessel], for items that belong to the Temple can be redeemed with money or items worth money. 
  If he [the owner] gave him [the emisssry] a <i>peruta</i> [that belongs to the Temple] and told him to buy with half of it [the <i>peruta</i>] candles and with the other half to buy wicks, and he [the emissary] bought with all of it wicks or with all of it candles, or if he told him to buy candles with all the money or with all of the money wicks and he bought him half candles and half wicks they have both violated <i>meilah</i>. But if he told him to buy with half the money candles from one place and with the other half wicks from another place, and he went and bought the candles from the place of [where he was to purchase] the wicks and the wicks from the place of [where he was to purchase] the candles, the messenger has violated <i>meilah</i>. 
  If he [the owner] gave him [the emissary] two <i>perutot</i> [that belong to the Temple] and told him to buy a citron for him and he went and bought him a citron worth a <i>peruta</i> and a pomegranate worth a <i>peruta</i>they both have violated <i>meilah</i>.  Rabbi Yehudah says the owner did not commit <i>meilah</i>, because he can tell him [the emissary] that I asked for a big citron and you brought me a small bad one.  If he gave him a golden <i>dinar</i>, and told him to buy him a shirt, and he went and bought him a shirt for three [<i>sela</i>, worth half a golden <i>dinar</i>] and a cloak for three [<i>sela</i>] they both violated <i>meilah</i>.  Rabbi Yehudah says the owner did not violate <i>meilah</i> because he can say to him, I asked for a big cloak and you brought me a small bad one. 
  One who deposits money with a money changer, if they are wrapped up [in a bundle] he [the money changer] may not use them.  Therefore if he spent it [and then he finds out that it belongs to the Temple] he has violated <i>meilah</i>.  If they are loose he [the money changer] may use them, therefore if he spent them he has not violated <i>meilah</i>.  [If he deposited the money] with private owner, in either case he [the private owner] may not use them.  Therefore if he spent [the money], he [the private owner] violated <i>meilah</i>. A storekeeper is considered a private owner, says Rabbi Meir.  Rabbi Yehudah says, he is considered a money changer. 
  If a <i>peruta</i> belonging to the Temple fell into one's pouch or if he said that a <i>peruta</i> that is in this pouch  belongs to the Temple [thus mixing it with his private coins], as soon as he takes out the first one [<i>peruta</i>], he has violated <i>meilah</i>,  so says Rabbi Akiva.  The Sages say he has not violated <i>meilah</i> until he has spent all the coins in the pouch.  Rabbi Akiva [however] agrees with the Sages in the case where he said one <i>peruta</i> that is in this pouch belongs to the Temple, that he can spend the coins until he has spent the entire contents of the pouch [before committing <i>meilah</i>]. 