Meilah 18B

אבתיהם ויזנו אחרי הבעלים״.

their fathers, and went astray after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them” (I Chronicles 5:25). Likewise, one who misuses consecrated property deviates from the purpose for which the particular item was meant to be used.

יכול פגם ולא נהנה, או נהנה ולא פגם,

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the comparison between misuse and idol worship teaches that one is liable for misuse even if he damaged the consecrated item but did not derive benefit from it, as that is the halakha with regard to idol worship, where one changes worship of God to idol worship without deriving benefit. Or, in light of the comparison between misuse and suspected adultery, it might have been thought that one would be liable for misuse if he derived benefit from the consecrated item but did not damage it, just as the adulteress derives benefit from the illicit act of sex without suffering any physical damage.

ובמחובר לקרקע, ובשליח שעשה שליחותו?

And perhaps one should be liable for misuse of an item attached to the ground. And in the case of an agent who committed misuse while he performed his assigned agency, it might be thought that the agent himself, rather than the one who appointed him, should be liable for the misuse.

תלמוד לומר ״וחטאה״. נאמר: ״חטא״ בתרומה, ונאמר: ״חטא״ במעילה.

The halakha in these cases is derived from the fact that the verse states: “If anyone commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of YHWH” (Leviticus 5:15). The word “sin” is stated with regard to teruma, in the verse: “And you should bear no sin by reason of it, as you have set apart from it its best” (Numbers 18:32); and “sin” is also stated with regard to misuse of consecrated property. Several halakhot are derived from this verbal analogy.