If a Jew buys an object from a gentile with money of hekdesh [that belongs to the temple] he transgresses the prohibition of meila, [the prohibition of using things for secular purposes that have been consecrated to the temple. in laws of meila in the Rambam. this is a surprize since the law is like R Yochanan that money or coins cause acquisition by the law of the Torah but the sages nullified that as far as Jews are concerned, and held that only picking up or pulling the object causes acquisition. What is therefore a surprise in this law is that the Jew has physically given the money, but that money has not acquired anything, since as far as a Jew is concerned, only picking up the object causes acquisition. This is just my first thought about this subject, but I realize there is a tremendous amount of work I need to do in tractate Bava Metzia page 47 to 48 and tractate Avoda Zara page 63. I have tried for a few days to go to the local Litvack Beit Midrash [study hall that follows the Gra and Rav Shach] in my area to learn this subject, but I have barely scratched the surface. But on second thought, it occurs to me that the Rambam does not hold with change of domain in terms of melia, only gaining benefit. (This was pointed out by the Or Sameach chapter 6 in laws of meila, the Keren Ora and Rav Shach ) So, the fact that the money has changed hands (even if it did not acquire anything) might be enough to liable for meila. Maybe. [Tosphot holds with change of domain, not the Rambam.] ----------------------------------------------------------------If a Jew buys an object from a gentile with money of הקדש [that belongs to the temple] he transgresses the prohibition of מעילה, [the prohibition of using things for secular purposes that have been consecrated to the temple )in הלכות of מעילה in the רמב’’ם(. This is a surprize since the law is like ר' יוחנן that money or coins cause acquisition by the law of the תורה but the חכמים nullified that as far as Jews are concerned, and held that only picking up or pulling the object causes acquisition. What is therefore a surprise in this law is that the Jew has physically given the money, but that money has not acquired anything, since as far as a Jew is concerned, only picking up the object causes acquisition. But on second thought, it occurs to me that the רמב’’ם does not hold with change of domain in terms of מעילה, only gaining benefit. So, the fact that the money has changed hands, (even if it did not acquire anything), might be enough to liable for מעילה. Maybe. [תוספות holds with change of domain, not the רמב’’ם.]