I was looking at the proof of Reb Shmuel Rozovski [Zichron Shmuel page 300] that robbery is included in meila [using objects of the Temple], and therefore if there is a case where meila does not apply, robbery would still be applicable. But the proof comes from the Jerushalmi Talmud (Trumah chapter 6) and there it says if one steals trumah of hekdesh, then he pays the regular value of the object, but adds two fifths, one for truma and the other for meila. If the object has the worth of a pruta, but does not have the volume of an olive, then to R Yanai he pays only one fifth and it goes to the priest. If it has the volume of an olive but is not worth a pruta, the fifth goes to hekdesh (temple treasury). If this is the right version, then Reb Shmuel makes sense. But the version of the Gra and the Rambam is the opposite. If it has the worth of a pruta, but lacks the volume, then it goes to hedesh. If it has the volume, but not the right monetary value, it goes to the priest. In this version, there is nothing to indicate that robbery is included in meila. Rather it says nothing about robbery, and even if robbery would be included, there would never be an instance in which one applies and not the other. __________________________________________________________________________________I was looking at the proof of ר' שמואל רוזובסקי [ספר זיכרון שמואל page ש' ] that גזילה is included in מעילה [using objects of the Temple], and therefore if there is a case where מעילה does not apply, robbery would still be applicable. But the proof comes from the ירושלמי (תרומה chapter ו') and there it says if one steals תרומה of הקדש, then he pays the regular value of the object, but adds two fifths, one for תרומה and the other for מעילה. If the object has the worth of a פרוטה, but does not have the volume of an זית, then to ר' ינאי he pays only one fifth and it goes to the priest. If it has the volume of an olive but is not worth a פרוטה, the fifth goes toהקדש (temple treasury). If this is the right version, then ר' שמואל makes sense. But the version of the גר''א and the רמב''ם is the opposite. If it has the worth of a פרוטה, but lacks the volume, then it goes to הקדש. If it has the volume, but not the right monetary value, it goes to the priest. In this version, there is nothing to indicate that robbery is included in מעילה. Rather it says nothing about robbery, and even if robbery would be included, there would never be an instance in which one applies and not the other.____________________