Me鈥檌lah 5:1
Is it a crime if you cause no damage?
讛谞讛谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖, 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻讙诐, 诪注诇, 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗. 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐: 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 驻讙诐, 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬驻讙讜诐. 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 驻讙诐, 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讛谞讛, 诪注诇. 讻讬爪讚, 谞转谞讛 拽讟诇讗 讘爪讜讗专讛, 讟讘注转 讘讬讚讛, 砖转转讛 讘讻讜住 砖诇 讝讛讘, 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讛谞讬转, 诪注诇讛. 诇讘砖 讘讞诇讜拽, 讻住讛 讘讟诇讬转, 讘拽注 讘拽专讚讜诐, 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬驻讙讜诐. 转诇砖 诪谉 讛讞讟讗转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讬讛, 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬驻讙讜诐. 讻砖讛讬讗 诪转讛, 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讛谞讛, 诪注诇.
If one makes even a prutah (i.e., a cent鈥檚) worth of profit from sanctified property, even if he does not diminish its value, he is guilty of 尘补鈥檃濒(misappropriation), according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, if it is a type of property that could be diminished, he is not guilty of misappropriation until it is diminished. But for any type of property that is not diminished [in value by being used], he is guilty of 尘补鈥檃濒 the moment he benefits. How so? If [a woman] put a [consecrated] necklace on her neck or a ring on her finger, or drank from a golden goblet, once she benefited [from the use] it is 尘补鈥檃濒 [even though the value is not diminished by her use]. But if [a man] wore a [consecrated] cloak, or garment, or chopped with a [consecrated] ax, it is not 尘补鈥檃濒until the item was diminished [from the use]. If he plucked [wool] from a purification offering that was alive, it is not 尘补鈥檃濒 unless he diminished its value. If it were already dead, any benefit would be 尘补鈥檃濒.
Comments
Ancient societies considered Temple property to be strictly off-limits for personal use. In Jewish law, even an unintentional transgression required the person to restore the property with a 20 percent penalty and to bring an asham (sin) offering. What if he or she did no harm? This mishnah makes an interesting distinction鈥攐nly if normal use would cause damage does it matter if in fact such damage occurred.
Question
How would you estimate the value of 鈥渂orrowing鈥� jewelry belonging to the Temple?
