there was a rosh yeshiva of ponovitch before rav shach. his name was reb shmuel rozovski. i was lookinng at some of his ideas today and noticed that he holds as follows. to the opinion of the rambam a person that steal from hedesh [items that are dedicated to the temple] has to pay back the value of the item, not because of the transgression of using holy items but rather simply because of the transgression of stealong.but even so, he does not pay double because the verse of the torah excludes him from paying double. to the raavad he has to pay back the main amount the aitem was worth because of meila, not because of normal theft, [and also if he stole by mistake then he also has to pay back a fifth and bring a sacriifice, a guilt offering.] however reb shmuel says both the rambam and raavad agree if he robbed hedesh, then he has to pay back the main amount because of rebbery, not meila. ie the raavad does not disagree with the rambam in this case. because of the it is possible to understand tosphot in kidushin page 55 that holds that a offivcer of the court that takes hedesh that is in his possesion for safekeeping a gives it away to another person on purpse takees the object out of the category of hedesh and it loses its holiness. the reason is that this is a case of robbery, not stealing by consealment like a thef in the night. and so the gizbar is liable for robbery and this is not a sopeacial case of melia. therefore the obkject goes out of being hedesh.what i mean here is that if the sin would be melia, then he would take the object out of the categotry of melial only if he gave it away by mistake like rabbi yudah there in kidushin page 55.===============================================There was a ראש ישיבה of פונוביץ before רב שך. His name was ר' שמואל רוזובסקי. I was looking at some of his ideas today and noticed that he holds as follows. to the opinion of the הר’’ם a person that steal from הקדש [items that are dedicated to the temple] has to pay back the value of the item, not because of the transgression of using holy items but rather simply because of the transgression of stealing. but even so, he does not pay double because the verse of the Torah excludes him from paying double. To the ראב''ד, he has to pay back the main amount the item was worth because of מעילה, not because of normal theft, [and if he stole by mistake then he also has to pay back a fifth and bring a sacrifice, a guilt offering.] However רב שמואל says both the הר’’ם and ראב''ד agree if he robbed הקדש, then he has to pay back the main amount because of robbery, not מעילה. I.e. the ראב''ד does not disagree with the הר’’ם in this case. because of the it is possible to understand תוספות in קידושין that holds that a officer of the court that takes הקדש that is in his possession for safekeeping a gives it away to another person on purpose takes the object out of the category of הקדש and it loses its holiness. the reason is that this is a case of robbery, not stealing by concealment like a thief in the night. So the גזבר is liable for robbery and this is not a special case of מעילה. Therefore, the object goes out of being הקדש. What I mean here is that if the sin would be מעילה, then he would take the object out of the category of מעילה only if he gave it away by mistake like ר' יהודה in קידושין נ''ה.