Meilah 15A

קדשי מזבח, מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה ולחייב עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא. קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה. אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית מצטרפין זה עם זה למעילה.

Mishnah: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.

גמ׳ השתא יש לומר דקתני: ״אחד קדשי מזבח ואחד קדשי בדק הבית״ דהאי קדושת הגוף והאי קדושת דמים, אפילו הכי קתני: ״מצטרפין זה עם זה״. ״קדשי מזבח עם קדשי מזבח״ מיבעיא?

Talmud: The Talmud asks: Now that one says that the Mishnah teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the Mishnah teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the Mishnah to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?

משום דקתני עלה ״לחייב עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא״, דקדשי בדק הבית לא איכא הכי, משום הכי קא פליג ליה.

The Talmud answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.