Rav Shmuel Rozovski was the major rosh yeshiva of Ponovitch before Rav Shach. He brings a proof that meila [using an item dedicated to the temple] includes liability for robbery.] The proof he brings is the Yerushalmi tractate Truma chapter 6 the first and second mishna. The Gemara there says that if one stole truma from the father of his mother who is a priest [kohen], then R. Yochanan says he pays back the tribe of kohanim priests (descendants of Aaron). Reish Lakish said he pays back himself [since he is the only inheritor. Reish Lakish asked on R Yochanan from the later Mishna: “If one stole trumah of hedesh, he pays back two fifths and one full amount.” If R. Yochanan would be right, three should be paid back. R Yeesa said the verse that says to pay back for meila means the theft is included in the payment. The Ridvaz (Rav Yakov David of Sluzk and later Safed) explains the Yerushamli thus. To the Raavad, the question of Reish Lakish is three full sums should be paid back, one for hedesh and the other for theft of trumah, and payment of theft is always two full amounts i.e. the full amount and its double. (But double does not apply to hedesh.) The Ridvaz explains that the Rambam holds the question was three fifths ought to be paid back, one for hedesh, one for trumah and one for thee oath denying the theft. But neither explanation seems to provide a proof for Rav Shmuel Rozovski. All you get from the Yerushalmi is that when there is meila, the robbery is included. But in any case, where meila would not apply, neither would robbery. What we need is a case where meila would not apply and robbery would apply. [Here I assume that that is what R. Rozovski meant. However that might not be the case. It could be only I need this conclusion in order to explain Tosphot in Kidushin page 55.] However we can get this from the mishna itself if the correct text (version) is that meila applies in a case of a volume of an olive, while robbery applies when that volume is lacking, but there is a an amount of a coin called a pruta. On a side note, I would like to mention that in the way the Ridvaz explains the Raavad, I can not see how the answer of R Yeesa answers the question on R Yochana. The question was in the way of R Yochanan we should require three full amounts, i.e. one for hedesh, and two for truma. Now that robbery is included in hedesh, we still have two full amounts for the truma. How did we go from three to one full amount alone?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- רב שמואל רוזובסקי was the major ראש ישיבה of פונוביז' before רב שך. He brings a proof that מעילה [using an item dedicated to the temple] includes liability for robbery.] The proof he brings is the ירושלמי tractate תרומה chapter ו' the first and second משנה. The גמרא there says that if one stole תרומה from the father of his mother who is a כהן, then ר' יוחנן says he pays back the שבט היינו כהנים. BUT ריש לקיש said he pays back himself [ IF he is the only inheritor[. ריש לקיש asked on ר' יוחנן from the later משנה: “If one stole תרומה of הקדש, he pays back two fifths and one full amount (קרן .” If ר' יוחנן would be right, three should be paid back. ר' ייסא said the verse that says to pay back for מעילה means the גזלה is included in the payment. The רידב''ז (ר' יעקב דוד מסלוצק and later צפת) explains the ירושלמי thus. To the ראב'’ד, the question of ריש לקיש is three full sums should be paid back, one for הקדש and the other for theft of תרומה, and payment of theft is always two full amounts, i.e. the full amount and its double. (But double does not apply to הקדש.) The רידב’’ז explains that the רמב''ם holds the question was THAT three fifths ought to be paid back, one for הקדש, one for תרומה and one for the oath denying the theft. But neither explanation seems to provide a proof for רב שמואל רוזובסקי. All you get from the ירושלמי is that when there is מעילה, the robbery is included. But in any case, where מעילה would not apply, neither would robbery. What we need is a case where מעילה would not apply and robbery would apply. [Here I assume that that is what רב רוזובסקי meant. However that might not be the case. It could be only I need this conclusion in order to explain תוספות in קידושין page נ''ה.] However, we can get this from the משנה itself if the correct גירסה is that מעילה applies in a case of a volume of an olive, while robbery applies when that volume is lacking, but there is an amount of a פרוטא. On a side note, I would like to mention that in the way the רידב’’ז explains the ראב’ד, I can not see how the answer of ר' ייסא answers the question on ר' יוחנן. The question was in the way of ר' יוחנן we should require three full amounts, i.e. one for הקדש, and two for תרומה. Now that robbery is included in הקדש, we still have two full amounts for the תרומה. How did we go from three to one full amount alone?