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? [Zichron Shmuel is the book which brings the ideas of Rav Shmuel Rozovski which I bring here.]

הסתכלתי על ההוכחה של ר' שמואל רוזובסקי [ספר זיכרון שמואל דף ש' ] שגזילה נכללת במעילה [חפצי המקדש], ולכן אם יש מקרה שבו מעילה אינה חלה, עדיין ישים גזל. אבל ההוכחה באה מהירושלמי (תרומה פרק ו') ושם כתוב אם גונב תרומה של הקדש, אז הוא משלם את הערך הרגיל של החפץ, אבל מוסיף שתי חמישיות, האחת לתרומה והשנייה למעילה. אם החפץ שווה פרוטה, אבל אין לו נפח של זית, אז לר' ינאי הוא משלם חמישית וזה הולך לכהן. אם יש לו נפח של זית, אך אינו שווה פרוטה, החמישי הולך להקדש (אוצר המקדש). אם זו הגרסה הנכונה, אז ר' שמואל הגיוני. אבל הגרסה של הגר''א והרמב''ם היא הפוכה. אם יש לו ערך של פרוטה, אך חסר לו הנפח, אז הוא הולך להקדש. אם יש לו את הנפח, אך לא את הערך הכספי הנכון, הוא הולך לכהן. בגרסה זו, אין שום דבר שמצביע על כך שגזל כלול במעילה. אלא, הוא אינו אומר דבר על גזל, וגם אם גזל היה נכלל, לעולם לא היה מקרה שבו אחד (מעילה) חל והשני (הקדש) לא

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.____________________

za83 F Minor midi file za83 nwc file

היה ראש ישיבה של פונוביץ לפני רב שך. שמו היה ר' שמואל רוזובסקי. היום התבוננתי בכמה מרעיונותיו ושמתי לב שהוא סבור כדלקמן: לדעת הר"ם, אדם שגונב מהקדש [פריטים המוקדשים למקדש] צריך להחזיר את ערך הפריט, לא בגלל עבירה של שימוש בחפצי קודש אלא פשוט בגלל עבירה של גניבה. אבל למרות זאת, הוא לא משלם כפליים כי הפסוק בתורה פוסל אותו מלשלם כפליים. עבור הרבא''ד, עליו להחזיר את הסכום העיקרי שהיה שווה הפריט בגלל מעילה, לא בגלל גניבה רגילה, [ואם גנב בטעות אז עליו גם להחזיר חמישית ולהביא קרבן, קורבן אשם]. אולם רב שמואל אומר שגם הר''ם וגם הראב''ד מסכימים שאם גנב את הקדש, אז עליו להחזיר את הסכום העיקרי בגלל גזל, לא מעילה. כלומר, הראב''ד אינו חולק על הר''ם במקרה זה. בגלל זה, ניתן להבין את התוספות בקידושין נ''ה ע''א שקובע שפקיד בית דין (גזבר) שלוקח את הקדש שברשותו למשמרת ונותן אותו לאדם אחר בכוונה מוציא את החפץ מקטגוריה של הקדש והוא מאבד את קדושתו. הסיבה היא שמדובר במקרה של גזל, לא גניבה בהסתרה כמו גנב בלילה. לכן הגזבר אחראי על גזל וזה לא מקרה של מעילה. לכן, החפץ יוצא מלהיות הקדש. מה שאני מתכוון כאן הוא שאם החטא היה מעילה, אז הוא היה מוציא את החפץ מקטגוריה של מעילה רק אם היה מוסר אותו בטעות כמו ר' יהודה בקידושין נ''ה

There was a rosh yeshiva of Ponovitch before Rav Shach. His name was Reb Shmuel Rozovski. I was lookinng at some of his ideas todayת and noticed that he holds as follows: To the opinion of the Rambam, a person that steals 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 item 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. i.e., the Raavad does not disagree with the Rambam in this case. Because of this, it is possible to understand Tosphot in Kidushin page 55 that holds that a officer of the court that takes hedesh that is in his possesion for safekeeping and 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 speacial case of meila. Therefore the obkject goes out of being hedesh. What I mean here is that if the sin would be meila, then he would take the object out of the categotry of meia only if he gave it away by mistake like R. Judah 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 steals 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 (meila), 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 that 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 this, 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 and 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.

היום הסתכלתי על הגמרא בקידושין דף נ''ה, ועלה בדעתי שתוספות נראית במבט ראשון כקובעת את ההלכה כר' מאיר שאומר "הקדש {חפץ שהוקדש לבית המקדש} בכוונה יוצא לחולין, אבל בטעות הוא לא".[הקדש במזיד מתחלל] זה הפריע לי, כי הגמרא עצמה מבהירה שההלכה היא כמו ר' יהודה, שבשוגג הקדש מאבד את קדושתו, אבל במזיד הוא נשאר קדוש. אבל בדרך חזרה מהים, עלה בדעתי למה התוספות מתכוון. הוא אומר שהוויכוח בין ר' יהודה לר' מאיר מתייחס רק לשימוש בקודש. השימוש בקודש בידיעה שהוא קדוש הוא הוויכוח. לר' יהודה נשאר הקדש. אבל תוספות כאן בקידושין דף נ''ה מתייחס לגניבת הקדש. לשיטת תוספות, אם הגזבר גונב אותו בכוונה (על ידי מתן אותו ביודעין לאדם אחר), זה מוציא אותו מקטגוריית הקדש גם לר' מאיר וגם לר' יהודה