[א] "נפש" – לרבות כהן משיח למעילה. "כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל" – אין מעילה אלא שינוי. וכן הוא אומר 'וימעלו בה' אלהי אבותם ויזנו אחרי הבעלים' (דה"א ה, כה). וכן הוא אומר בסוטה (במדבר ה, יב) "איש..כי תשטה אשתו ומעלה בו מעל". 1) (Vayikra 5:15) ("A soul, if it profanes, and sins unwittingly of the sanctified things of the L–rd, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd"): "a soul": to include the anointed (high-) priest as subject to profanation (me'ilah). (For I would think: It is written (Shemoth 30:33): "If a man compounds its (the anointing oil's) like and places of it upon a stranger," but not upon the anointed priest, who is no stranger to it, (it is, therefore, written, to negate this, "a soul," i.e., any soul). "if it profanes (timol ma'al). "Meilah" is a change (from the sacred to the profane), viz. (Chronicles 5:25): "And they profaned (vayimalu) the G d of their fathers, and went astray after the ba'alim," and (Bamidbar 5:12): "A man, if his wife goes astray and profanes him."
[ב] "כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל..מִקָּדְשֵׁי יהוה" – יכול נהנה ולא פגם או פגם ולא נהנה? במחובר לקרקע ובשליח שעשה שליחותו? תלמוד לומר "וְחָטְאָה". נאמר כאן 'חטא' ונאמר בתרומה (ויקרא כב, ט) 'חטא'. 2) "if he profanes and he sins unwittingly in the sanctified things of the L–rd": I might think that (even) if he derived benefit (from the object), but did not damage it, or if he damaged it but did not derive benefit from it, or it were attached to the ground, or it involved a messenger that did not perform his embassy — (I might think that even then he were liable); it is, therefore, written (here) "and he sins," and it is written "sin" in respect to terumah (Bamidbar 22:9).
[ג] מה 'חטא' האמור בתרומה – פגם ונהנה, מי שפגם נהנה, בדבר שפגם בו נהנה, פגמו והנאתו כאחד, בתלוש מן הקרקע, ובשליח שעשה שליחותו. 3) Just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, there is (liability only where there is) damage and benefit, he who damages benefits, the object damaged provides the benefit, the damage and the benefit are simultaneous, the object in question is not attached to the ground, and the messenger performed his embassy —
[ד] אף 'חטא' האמור כאן – פגם ונהנה, מי שפגם הוא נהנה, ובדבר שפגם בו נהנה, ופגמו והנאתו כאחד, בתלוש מן הקרקע, ובשליח שעשה שליחותו. 4) so with the sin here.
[ה] אי מה 'חטא' האמור בתרומה לא צירף שתי אכילות כאחד, אף כאן לא יצרף שתי אכילות כאחד; מנין – אכל היום ואכל למחר, נהנה היום ונהנה למחר, נהנה היום ואכל למחר, אכל היום ונהנה למחר – אפילו לאחר שלש שנים בהעלם אחד, מצטרפין זה עם זה? תלמוד לומר "תִמְעֹל מַעַל" – ריבה. 5) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah it is (only) he (himself) who eats and derives benefit, here, too, (there is liability only where) he (himself) eats and derives benefit? Whence do I derive (that there is liability, too) for: his eating (of consecrated food) and the eating of his (invited) neighbor, that they combine (for the minimum liability amount), his derivation of benefit (e.g., from the anointment oil) and that of his neighbor, his eating and the benefit of his neighbor, his benefit and the eating of his neighbor? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al" (lit., "profanes, profanes," in any event).
[ו] אי מה 'חטא' האמור בתרומה אוכל ונהנה, אף אין לי אלא אוכל ונהנה; מנין – אכילתו ואכילת חברו, הנאתו והנאת חברו, הנאתו ואכילת חברו, אכילתו והנאת חברו – מצטרפין זה עם זה ואפילו לזמן מרובה? תלמוד לומר "תִמְעֹל מַעַל" – ריבה. 6) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, two eatings (each one short of the required amount for liability) do not combine (for liability), here, too, two eatings do not combine? Whence is it derived that if he ate today and ate tomorrow, derived benefit today and derived benefit tomorrow, derived benefit today and ate tomorrow, ate today and derived benefit tomorrow — even after three years in one act of forgetfulness — (whence is it derived that they combine )for liability)? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event).
[ז] אי מה 'חטא' האמור בתרומה – המוציא מהקודש לחול, אף כאן המוציא מהקודש לחול; מנין המוציא מהקודש לקודש? (כגון לקח קיני זבים וזבות וקיני יולדות, הביא חטאתו ואשמו ופסחו מן ההקדש, והשוקל שקלו מן ההקדש – כיון שהוציא מעל דברי ר' שמעון. וחכמים אומרים לא מעל עד שיזרקו דמם)? תלמוד לומר "תִמְעֹל מַעַל" – ריבה. 7) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, (liability obtains only) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) non-sanctity, here, too, the same applies? Whence do I derive that the same applies (even) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) sanctity, as when there are brought from the sanctuary funds — the couple of sacrificial birds of those with a discharge (zavim), or of women who had given birth, one's sin-offering and guilt-offering, one's Pesach offering, or one's shekel? [Once he takes the monies out, he is guilty of meilah. These are the words of R. Shimon. And the sages say: He is not guilty of meilah until he sprinkles their blood] — (Whence is it derived that in the above instances he has committed an act of meilah? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event).
[ח] "בשגגה" – פרט למזיד. והלא דין הוא! ומה אם שאר מצות – שזדונם כרת – פטר בהן את המזיד, מעילה – שאין זדונה כרת – אינו דין שיפטר בה את המזיד?! לא! אם אמרת בשאר מצות – שאינם בעון מיתה, תאמר במעילה שהיא בעון מיתה! הואיל והוא בעון מיתה – לא יפטר בה את המזיד! תלמוד לומר "בשגגה" – פרט למזיד. 8) "and sins unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately. Now does this not follow a fortiori? If in other mitzvoth, where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off), deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering), meilah, where deliberate transgression is not punishable by kareth, does it not follow that deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering)? — No, this may be the case with other mitzvoth, which are not subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), as opposed to meilah, which is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven). And since it is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), (I would say that) deliberate transgression should not be exempt (from an offering)! It is, therefore, (to negate this), written "unwittingly" — to exclude deliberate transgression.
[ט] אמר ר' אלעזר, זה בא על חטא וחטאת בא על חטא. מה חטאת אינה בא על הזדון כשגגה, אף זה לא יבא על הזדון כשגגה. 9) R. Elazar said: This one (the guilt-offering for meilah) comes for a sin, and a sin-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering does not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression.
[י] או כלך לדרך זה: זה קרוי 'אשם' ושאר אשמות קרוים 'אשם'. מה שאר אשמות באים על הזדון כשגגה, אף זה יבא על זדון כשגגה. 10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.
[יא] נראה למי דומה: דנים דבר שהוא עון מיתה מדבר שהוא עון מיתה ואל יוכיחו שאר אשמות שאין בהם עון מיתה… או כלך לדרך זו: דנים אשם קשה בן שתי שנים מאשם קשה בן שתי שנים ואל תוכיח חטאת נקבה בת שנתה… תלמוד לומר "בשגגה" – פרט למזיד. 11) Let us see to what it is similar. Shall we derive a thing (meilah) that is subject to the death penalty (at the hands of Heaven) from a thing (such as the sin-offering for eating forbidden fats), which is subject to the death penalty (kareth, and which is not subject to an offering for deliberate transgression) and not be refuted by other guilt-offerings, which are not subject to the death penalty (and which come for both unwitting and deliberate transgression)? Or, go in this direction: Derive a two-year old male offering (the meilah ram [Vayikra 5:15]) from a two-year old male offering (that for unwitting transgression of forbidden fats, where there is no offering for deliberate transgression), and not be refuted by a one-year old female sin-offering (for other sins, where there is an offering for deliberate transgression). It is, therefore, (to resolve this impasse) written "unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately.