עד שיצא מן הקדש לחול
a non-priest who partakes of teruma is not liable until the teruma leaves from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the non-sacred, as one who partakes of teruma becomes its owner, the same should apply to misuse.
מן הקדש לקדש כגון לקח קיני זבים וקיני זבות וקיני יולדות
But in fact one is also liable for misuse if he moves an item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the sacred for another purpose, such as if he spent funds from the Temple treasury and acquired bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons or doves, for zavim (see Leviticus 15:13–15), or the bird nests for zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30), or the bird nests for women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8). Although the individual is using the money of the Temple treasury for a sacred purpose, nevertheless, since these obligatory offerings should be purchased with private funds, he commits misuse by deriving personal benefit from sacred funds.
ושקל שקלו והביא חטאתו ואשמו מן ההקדש כיון שהוציא מעל דברי ר' שמעון רבי יהודה אומר עד שיזרוק הדם מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ה, טו) תמעול מעל מכל מקום
And similarly, with regard to one who contributed his shekel, or brought his sin offering or his guilt offering from consecrated property, once he spends the funds he has committed misuse. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable until the priest sprinkles the blood of the offerings, through which he achieves atonement, at which point he has derived his benefit from the consecrated property. The baraita returns to its question: From where is it derived that such use is also categorized as misuse? The verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse.” The inclusive language of the verse teaches that he is liable in any case.
אמר מר נפש אחד היחיד ואחד הנשיא ואחד המשוח במשמע שיכול מאי פשיטא נפש כתיב
The Gemara analyzes the beginning of the baraita. The Master said above: The verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse” (Leviticus 5:15). All people are included in this halakha, whether the guilty person is the common individual, and whether he is the king, and whether he is the anointed High Priest. The Gemara asks: What else might one have thought? It is obvious that the king and the High Priest are included, as it is written: “Anyone.”
מהו דתימא אמר רחמנא (שמות ל, לג) ואשר יתן ממנו על זר והאי לאו זר הוא דהא אימשח בגוויה קמ"ל
The Gemara explains that the statement of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that these individuals are excluded from the halakha of misuse because the Merciful One states with regard to the anointing oil: “Or whosoever puts any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:33). And with regard to the anointing oil, this distinguished person, i.e., the High Priest or the king, is not considered a “stranger,” as he is anointed with it. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even a High Priest and a king are included in the prohibition of misuse.
ואקשה רחמנא לסוטה ולעבודת כוכבים ולתרומה לסוטה דאף על גב דלא פגם גבי הקדש נמי נתנה טבעת בידה מעלה
§ The Gemara summarizes the derivations with regard to the halakha of misuse. The Merciful One compared the halakha of misuse to the case of a sota, and to idol worship, and to teruma, in order to teach several basic principles. Misuse is compared to a sota, in the verse: “If any man’s wife goes aside, and acts unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12), as here one is liable for committing adultery even though the adulteress did not damage her body through her actions. With regard to consecrated property as well, even without causing damage, as in the case in which a woman placed a consecrated gold ring on her hand, i.e., her finger, she has thereby become liable for misuse.
כי אקשה רחמנא לעבודת כוכבים דעד דאית בה שינוי גבי הקדש נמי עד דביקע בקרדום ויפגם ופגום
When the Merciful One compared misuse to idol worship, in the verse: “And they broke faith with the God of their fathers” (I Chronicles 5:25), this teaches that one is not liable for idol worship until there is a change effected by his act, as the idolater changes his worship of God for worship of idols. With regard to consecrated property as well, if the item is susceptible to damage, a person does not become liable for misuse until the act of misuse changes the item from being available for use for sacred purposes to being available for use only for non-sacred purposes, as in a case where he chops non-sacred wood with a consecrated ax and concurrently damages the ax, as the consecrated property is thereby damaged.
אקשה רחמנא לתרומה מה תרומה (ויקרא כב, יד) כי יאכל פרט למזיק גבי הקדש נמי כל דבר אכילה כי מזיק ליה פטור
Finally, the Merciful One compared misuse to the partaking of teruma by a non-priest, through the verbal analogy of the words “sin” and “sin” (see 18b). What is the halakha with regard to teruma? The verse states: “And if a man eats of the sacred item through error, then he shall add its fifth part upon it” (Leviticus 22:14). This excludes one who causes damage to the teruma without partaking of it, e.g., by spilling it on the ground. Such a person is exempt from the payment of the additional one-fifth. With regard to consecrated property as well, in the case of any consecrated edible item, or some other item, when one damages it without deriving benefit from the damaging act, he is exempt with regard to misuse.
כיצד נתנה קטלא כו' אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב זביד ודהבא לאו בר איפגומי הוא והא דהבא דכלתיה דנון להיכא אזל
§ The mishna teaches: How is one liable for misuse of an item that is not subject to damage? For example, if a woman placed a consecrated gold chain around her neck. Rav Kahana said to Rav Zevid: And is it correct that gold is not subject to damage? But where did the gold of the daughter-in-law of the wealthy man Nun go? When Nun married off his son, he gave the bride many golden items of jewelry, which deteriorated over time. Evidently, gold is also subject to damage.
אמר ליה דלמא דהבא דרמיין כלתיך הוא ועוד נהי דלא איכא נהנה ופגם לאלתר לעולם מי לא איכא פגימה
Rav Zevid said to Rav Kahana: Perhaps the gold of Nun’s daughter-in-law suffered the fate of the gold that your daughters-in-law cast aside. Like your daughters-in-law, Nun’s daughter-in-law treated her gold carelessly, which is why it deteriorated. And furthermore, granted that gold does not have the status of an item that is damaged immediately [le’altar] when someone derives benefit from it, but even so, does gold never sustain damage? Even gold deteriorates slowly and suffers measurable damage over long periods of time.
הנהנה מן החטאת וכו' מכדי אי בבהמה תמימה היינו כוס של זהב א"ר פפא בבעלת מום עסקינן
§ The mishna further teaches: One who derives benefit from a sin offering or from other items of the most sacred order, as in the case of one who detaches its wool while the animal is alive, is not liable for misuse unless he causes damage of the value of one peruta. The Gemara asks: Now, if the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to an unblemished domesticated animal, which is fit for sacrifice, this case is the same as that of a consecrated gold cup, which is not subject to damage. Since the animal remains fit as an offering even after wool has been detached from it, why is it subject to misuse only if it is damaged? Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a blemished animal. Since it is unfit for sacrifice, it will be sold by the Temple treasury, and therefore the removal of wool reduces its sale price. Consequently, it is subject to misuse only if such use causes it damage.