Bava Mezia 43 side a. If an officer of the court who is appointed to take care of money or objects that are dedicated to the temple (a gizbar) gives a bundle of money that is not tied up to a money changer, the officer is liable to the law of trespassing. That is the law that states that one must not use objects dedicated to the Temple for any use other than that which they were intended for. The Rambam writes (laws of trespassing chapter 7 law 10) "If one gives over a bundle of money that is not tied to a money changer or storeowner, neither he nor the money changer are liable." This seems in direct contradiction to the Gemara. My answer is based on Tosphot (Bava Mezzia page 98 side A). In Tosphot, Rabainu Izhak said the only time there can be trespassing after trespassing is when one officer gives to another and that other to another and so on. Each is liable because the object never left to domain of the Temple even though it was used for personal use by each one of the officers. So, the Rambam never says he is talking about a officer. Rather he writes that a person that has money of that is dedicated to the Temple in a bundle that is not tied gives it to another, neither is liable. That first one because he did not tell the other to use the money, and he never took it out of the domain of the Temple, since the money has not yet gotten into the hands of a officer. [I would like to add here that in Tosphot there are two ways to be liable for trespassing, either taking out of the domain or possession of the Temple, or using the object even while it is still in the possession of the Temple. But taking out of the domain of the Temple on purpose or by accident makes no difference.]A possible problem with my answer here is that the רמב''ם brings that same תוספתאthat תוספות זbrings that says that if one person uses hekdesh (an object that belongs to the Temple), and then hands it over to another and he uses it and so on and so forth, each one is liable for trespassing. Now, תוספותsays this refers to officers of the court(גזברים) , and the רמב''ם writes this plainly with no indication of any distinctions like תוספות makes. But the rambam says it refers to an animal of hedesh and so there is no question on my answer in our case where we are talking about money. In that there is no trespass after trespass and neither intends to take the object out of the domain of the temple. --------------------------------------------בבא מציעא דף מ''ג ע''א. If an officer of the court who is appointed to take care of money or objects that are dedicated to the temple (a גיזבר) gives a bundle of money that is not tied up to a money changer, the officer is liable to the law of מעילה. That is the law that states that one must not use objects dedicated to the Temple for any use other than that which they were intended for. The רמב''ם writes laws of מעילה chapter 7 law 10. if one gives over a bundle of money that is not tied to a money changer or storeowner neither he nor the money changer are liable. This seems in direct contradiction to the Gemara. My answer is based on תוספות . In תוספות , רבינו יצחק said the only time there can be מעילה after מעילה is when one officer gives to another and that other to another and so on. Each is liable because the object never left to domain of the Temple even though it was used for personal use by each one of the officers. So, the רמב''ם never says he is talking about a officer. Rather, he writes that a person that has money of that is dedicated to the Temple in a bundle that is not tied gives it to another, neither is liable. That first one because he did not tell the other to use the money, and he never took it out of the domain of the Temple, since the money has not yet gotten into the hands of a officer. I would like to add here that in תוספות there are two ways to be liable for מעילה, either taking out of the domain or possession of the הקדש, or using the object even while it is still in the possession of the הקדש. But, taking out of the domain of the הקדש on purpose or by accident makes no difference.---------A possible problem with my answer here is that the רמב''ם brings that same תוספתאthat תוספות brings that says that if one person uses הקדש (an object that belongs to the Temple), and then hands it over to another and he uses it and so on and so forth, each one is liable for trespassing. Now, תוספותsays this refers to officers of the court(גזברים) , and the רמב''ם writes this plainly with no indication of any distinctions like תוספות makes. But the רמב''ם says it refers to an animal of הקדש ,and so there is no question on my answer in our case where we are talking about money. In that there is no מעילה after מעילה and neither intends to take the object out of the domain of the temple.