מַתְנִי׳ הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין MISHNA: The fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] (see Leviticus 19:23), and diverse kinds,i.e., grain sown in a vineyard (see Deuteronomy 22:9) join together to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture that they are mixed into. This applies when the volume of the permitted produce is less than two hundred times the prohibited produce. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not join together.
גְּמָ׳ וּמִי צָרִיךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְצָרוֹפֵי וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַכּוֹת תְּנִי אֵין צְרִיכִין לְצָרֵף GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, do the two half-measures need to join together, in order for one who eats them to be liable? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats any measure of a prohibited food is liable to receive lashes, as the Sages stated the measure of an olive-bulk only with regard to the requirement to bring an offering? The Gemara answers: The wording of the mishna is not precise and must be emended, to teach that Rabbi Shimon says: They do not need to join together, as one is flogged even for less than the minimum measure.
מַתְנִי׳ הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק הַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר הָעוֹר וְהַמַּפָּץ כּוּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה MISHNA: A garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity, by means of ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav. A sack made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths, while an animal hide must be five by five, and a mat six by six. The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide, and the hide and the mat all join together to constitute the requisite measure to become ritually impure in accordance with the material of the greater measure.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מָה טַעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִן לִיטָּמֵא בְּמוֹשָׁב Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that they join together, despite the fact that their requisite measures are not equal? Because all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since the measure of all these materials is equal in the case of a zav, they join together for other forms of ritual impurity as well.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא קִיצַּע מִכּוּלָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן בֶּגֶד לְמִשְׁכָּב שְׁלֹשָׁה לְמוֹשָׁב טֶפַח לַאֲחִיזָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּ GEMARA: A Sage taught in a baraita: In a case where one cut from each of the materials listed in the mishna, i.e., the garment, the sack, the hide, and the mat, a piece of less than three by three handbreadths, and sewed them together, thereby fashioning a garment from them; if he formed the garment for lying upon it, then the minimum measure for it to become a primary source of ritual impurity is three handbreadths. If he intended it for sitting, the minimum measure is one handbreadth. If he intended to use it for holding, it becomes impure in any measure.
מַאי לַאֲחִיזָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁכֵּן עוֹמֵד לְנַוְולָה בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְקוֹצְצֵי תְאֵנִים The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the halakha in the case where one intended to use it for holding? Why is this cloth classified as a garment? Reish Lakish says that Rabbi Yannai says: It is considered a garment because it stands to be used as protection for the hands when weaving [lenavla], so that the weaver does not cut his fingers when straightening the threads. It was taught in a baraita: It is considered a garment since it is suited for fig cutters to place the material on their hands, to prevent them from getting dirty.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ
הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגַם מָעַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ פְּגָם לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ פְּגָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מָעַל MISHNA: One who derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from a consecrated item, even though he did not damage it, is liable for its misuse; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: With regard to any consecrated item that has the potential to be damaged, one is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta of damage; and with regard to an item that does not have the potential to be damaged, once he derives benefit from it he is liable for misuse.
כֵּיצַד נָתְנָה קַטְלָא בְּצַוָּארָהּ טַבַּעַת בְּיָדָהּ שָׁתָה בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מָעַל לָבַשׁ בְּחָלוּק כִּסָּה בְּטַלִּית בִּיקַּע בְּקַרְדּוֹם לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם The mishna elaborates: How so? If a woman placed a consecrated gold chain [ketala] around her neck, or a gold ring on her hand, i.e., her finger, or if one drank from a consecrated gold cup, since they are not damaged through use, once he derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from them, he is liable for misuse. If one wore a consecrated robe, covered himself with a consecrated garment, or chopped wood with a consecrated ax, he is not liable for misuse until he causes them one peruta of damage.
הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מָעַל One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta of damage. When it is dead, once he derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta from it, he is liable for misuse.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַחֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ פְּגָם בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in the case of an item that has the potential to be damaged through its use that one is liable for misuse only if he causes one peruta of damage. The Gemara asks: Since this is apparently exactly the same as the opinion of the Rabbis, with regard to what do Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree?
אָמַר רָבָא בִּלְבוּשׁ מְצִיעָאָה וּמַלְמְלָא Rava said: With regard to outer garments such as coats, which are exposed to the weather and other elements, and garments worn touching the skin, which can be damaged by perspiration, Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis agree that one is liable for misuse only when the garments are damaged at least by the value of one peruta. They disagree in the case of a middle garment, i.e., that which is neither an outer garment nor one that is worn against the body. And they also disagree in the case of a garment made of malmala, very thin fabric; since this garment is expensive, one who wears it would be very careful not to let it be damaged, and consequently it is not subject to measurable depreciation each time it is worn. In these cases, Rabbi Akiva holds that one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit equal to the value of one peruta even though the garments were not depreciated by one peruta, whereas the Rabbis maintain that as there is cumulative depreciation, one is liable for misuse only when he causes one peruta of damage.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן נֶפֶשׁ אֶחָד הַיָּחִיד וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׂיא וְאֶחָד הַמָּשִׁיחַ § The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to misuse of consecrated property, the verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). It is derived from the general term “anyone” that this halakha applies whether the guilty person is a common individual, and whether he is the king, and whether he is the anointed High Priest. Although in other contexts they have obligations to bring different offerings, these individuals have a uniform liability with regard to the sin of misuse.
כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל אֵין מַעַל אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מַעַל וְאוֹמֵר וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵּאלֹהֵי The baraita further interprets the verse: “If anyone commits a misuse [ma’al], and sins” (Leviticus 5:15). The term ma’al means nothing other than deviation from the norm. And similarly, the verse states with regard to a woman suspected of adultery: “If any man’s wife goes aside, and acts unfaithfully [ma’al] against him” (Numbers 5:12). And it states with regard to idol worship: “And they broke faith [vayimalu] with the God of