their fathers, and went astray after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them” (I Chronicles 5:25). Likewise, one who misuses consecrated property deviates from the purpose for which the particular item was meant to be used.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the comparison between misuse and idol worship teaches that one is liable for misuse even if he damaged the consecrated item but did not derive benefit from it, as that is the halakha with regard to idol worship, where one changes worship of God to idol worship without deriving benefit. Or, in light of the comparison between misuse and suspected adultery, it might have been thought that one would be liable for misuse if he derived benefit from the consecrated item but did not damage it, just as the adulteress derives benefit from the illicit act of intercourse without suffering any physical damage.

And perhaps one should be liable for misuse of an item attached to the ground. And in the case of an agent who committed misuse while he performed his assigned agency, it might be thought that the agent himself, rather than the one who appointed him, should be liable for the misuse.

The halakha in these cases is derived from the fact that the verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). The word “sin” is stated with regard to teruma, in the verse: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, as you have set apart from it its best” (Numbers 18:32); and “sin” is also stated with regard to misuse of consecrated property. Several halakhot are derived from this verbal analogy.

The baraita elaborates: Just as with regard to the word “sin” stated with regard to teruma, when someone sins by partaking of forbidden teruma, it is a circumstance in which one damages and derives benefit, and the one who damaged the teruma is the same person who derived benefit; and with regard to teruma, one is liable only if he derives benefit from the same item that he damages; and he is liable in the case of teruma only if his damage and his benefit occur simultaneously; and the status of teruma applies only to an item detached from the ground; and the status of teruma takes effect in the case of an agent who performed his assigned agency in designating an item teruma, the same applies to misuse.

The baraita further explains: So too, the word “sin” stated with regard to misuse applies specifically when the individual both damages and derives benefit from consecrated items; and when the one who damaged also derived benefit from it himself; and he derives benefit from the same item that he damages; and his damage and his deriving benefit occur simultaneously; and misuse applies only to an item detached from the ground; and misuse is committed by the one appointing the agent in the case of an agent who performed his assigned agency.

The baraita continues: From the verbal analogy I have derived only that one is liable for misuse if he eats consecrated items when he is not permitted to do so, similar to the case of teruma. But with regard to one who derives benefit from an item that does not have the potential to be damaged, from where do I derive that this also constitutes misuse?

Similarly, if one eats from a consecrated item and gives to another person to eat, where there is his consumption and another’s consumption; or if he derives benefit and gives to another to derive benefit, where there is his deriving benefit and another’s deriving benefit; and likewise his deriving benefit and another’s consumption; and his consumption and another’s deriving benefit; the halakha is that in all these cases, benefit and consumption combine with one another, even over a long period of time on the same day, to amount to the value of one peruta that effects liability for misuse. From where is this halakha derived?

The verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse.” This general and inclusive clause teaches that one is liable for misusing one peruta worth of consecrated property in any case, i.e., even if he gave it to another and one of them ate while the other derived benefit, and even if it took some time on that day to use the value of one peruta.

The baraita further states: If there is a comparison between teruma and misuse, one can claim as follows: Just as in the case of the word “sin” that is stated with regard to teruma, the Torah does not combine two distinct acts of consumption as one prohibited act, so too, perhaps with regard to the word “sin” that is stated with regard to misuse, the Torah does not combine two acts of consumption as one. From where is it derived that if one ate half of the minimum amount of an olive-bulk today and ate another half tomorrow, even if much time has passed, the distinct acts of misuse combine and are considered one act, which means that the one who did so is liable for misuse? The verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse.” The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable in any case.

The baraita continues: If there is a comparison between teruma and misuse, one can claim as follows: Just as in the case of the word “sin” that is stated with regard to teruma, the damage to the teruma and the individual’s deriving benefit from the teruma occur simultaneously, the same should apply to misuse of consecrated items. From where is it derived that one is liable for misuse for his consumption and another’s consumption, when each person alone has eaten less than the value of one peruta, and even if the two acts of consumption are separated in time from now until three years later; from where is it derived that the instances of misuse combine? The verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse.” The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable in any case.

The baraita continues: If it is derived from the verbal analogy that there are several halakhot common to both teruma and committing misuse, one can claim as follows: Just as in the case of the word “sin” that is stated with regard to teruma,