I was looking at the Gemara in Kidushin page 55 today and it occurred to me that Tosphot seems at first glance to decide the law to be like R. Meir who holds “Hedesh {an object that has been dedicated to the Temple}on purpose goes out to be secular, but accidently it does not.” This bothered me because the Gemara itself is clear that the law is like R. Judah that accidently it loses its holiness, but on purpose it stays holy. But on the way back from the sea, it occurred to me what Tosphot intends. He is saying that the argument between R. Judah and R. Meir refers only to using Hedesh. Using hedesh while knowing it is hedesh is the argument. To R. Judah it stays hedesh. But Tosphot here in Kidushin page 55 refers to stealing hedesh. To Tosphot if the gizbar intentionally steals it (by giving it knowingly to another person), that takes it out of the category of hedesh to both R. Meir and R Judah.--------------------------------------------------------------------------I was looking at the גמרא in קידושין דף נ''ה today and it occurred to me that תוספותseems at first glance to decide the law to be like ר' מאיר who holds “הקדש {an object that has been dedicated to the Temple}on purpose goes out to be חולין, but accidently it does not.” This bothered me because the גמרא itself is clear that the law is like ר' יהודה that accidently it loses its holiness, but on purpose it stays holy. But on the way back from the sea, it occurred to me what תוספותintends. He is saying that the argument between ר' יהודהand ר' מאיר refers only to using הקדש. Using הקדש while knowing it is הקדש is the argument. To ר' יהודהit stays הקדש. But תוספות here in קידושין דף נ''ה refers to stealing הקדש. To תוספותif the גזבר intentionally steals it (by giving it knowingly to another person), that takes it out of the category of הקדש to both ר' מאיר and ר' יהודה.