Tosphot in Bava Mezia page 99a, (2) Tosphot in Kidushin page 55a, (3) Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna מסכת מעילה

t I think I have gained some clarity about Tosphot and the Rambam about trespass. What I would like to say is this. There is a three way argument about trespass: (1) The RI (rabbainu izhak) in Tosphot in Bava Mezia page 99a, (2) Tosphot in Kidushin page 55a, (3) Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna. But to everyone, if something was hedesh (holy by being dedicated to the Temple) and has goes out of being hedesh, then anyone that uses it is not liable for trespass. (Only the one that caused it to go out of that category is liable.) If something is hedesh, and someone uses it, he is liable. The question is what can cause an object to go out of being hedesh? (This refers to a regular object, but not an animal nor vessels used in preparing the sacrifices.) To the RI (Rabainu Izhak) for a gizbar (officer of the court) to loan out an object of hedesh (that was dedicated to the Temple) does not cause it to leave the category of hedesh, but giving it away does cause it to go out of that category. [That is his final conclusion. But at first the RI thought even loaning out the object also causes it to lose it’s holiness.] It seems doing this on purpose, or by accident makes no difference. (2) Tosphot in Kidushin page 55a. If the officer (gizbar) by mistake thinks the object belongs to him, and he loans or gives it out, it stays holy. But if he knows it is hedesh (of the Temple) and gives it out, it loses its holiness. Anyone that uses it after that is not liable. (3) Rambam bases himself on the Gemara in Kidushin page 55 that equates redeeming an animal that is to be a sacrifice and has no blemish, to one causing an object of hedesh to lose its holiness. (Normally, one cannot redeem an animal that is dedicated to be a sacrifice unless it has a blemish.) To the Rambam, if the officer (gizbar) knows the object is hedesh and gives it out anyway, the object stays hedesh. This is like the opinion of R. Judah in Kidushin page 55. But if the officer did not know or forgot it is hedesh and gave it out by mistake, the object loses its holiness. This is against the opinion of R. Meir who holds the opposite. R. Meir holds if he gave it out knowingly, then it loses it holiness, not if he gave it out by mistake forgetting that is hedesh. I at one point, thought that Tosphot here in Kidushin holds like R. Meir, but today it occurred to me that probably Tosphot thinks that original equivalence between redeeming an animal with no blemish and going out of hedesh is only a “I would have thought”, I.e., a preliminary hypothesis, but not the conclusion of the Gemara. --------------------------------------------------------------------I think I have gained some clarity about תוספות and the ר’’ם about מעילה. What I would like to say is this. There is a three way argument about מעילה: (1) The ר''י (רבינו יצחק) in תוספות in בבא מציעא page צ''ט ע''א, (2) תוספות in קידושין page נ''ה ע''א, (3) ר’’ם in his commentary on the משנה. But to everyone, if something was הקדש (holy by being dedicated to the Temple) and has goes out of being הקדש, then anyone that uses it is not liable for מעילה. (Only the one that caused it to go out of that category is liable.) If something is הקדש, and someone uses it, he is liable. The question is what can cause an object to go out of being הקדש? (This refers to a regular object, but not an animal nor vessels used in preparing the sacrifices.) To the ר''י (רבינו יצחק) for a גזבר (officer of the court) to loan out an object of הקדש (that was dedicated to the Temple) does not cause it to leave the category of הקדש, but giving it away does cause it to go out of that category. [That is his final conclusion. But at first the ר''י thought even loaning out the object also causes it to lose its holiness.] It seems doing this on purpose, or by accident makes no difference. (2) תוספות in קידושין page נ''ה ע''א. If the גזבר by mistake thinks the object belongs to him, and he loans or gives it out, it stays holy. But if he knows it is הקדש (of the Temple) and gives it out, it loses its holiness. Anyone that uses it after that is not liable. (3) רמב''םbases himself on the גמרא in קידושין page נ''ה that equates redeeming an animal that is to be a sacrifice and has no blemish, to one causing an object of הקדש to lose its holiness. (Normally, one cannot redeem an animal that is dedicated to be a sacrifice unless it has a blemish.) To the ר’’ם, if the officer (גזבר) knows the object is הקדש and gives it out anyway, the object stays הקדש. This is like the opinion of ר' יהודה in קידושין page נ''ה. But, if the גזבר did not know or forgot it is הקדש and gave it out by mistake, the object loses its holiness. This is against the opinion of ר' מאיר who holds the opposite. ר' מאיר holds if he gave it out knowingly, then it loses it holiness, not if he gave it out by mistake forgetting that is הקדש. I at one point, thought that תוספות here in קידושין holds like ר' מאיר, but today it occurred to me that probably תוספות thinks that original equivalence between redeeming an animal with no blemish and going out of הקדש is only a “I would have thought”, I.e., a preliminary hypothesis, but not the conclusion of the גמרא.