MISHNA: If one derived benefit equal to half of a peruta from a consecrated item and caused it half of a peruta of damage, or if he derived benefit equal to the value of one peruta from a consecrated item that has the potential to be damaged and caused damage of the value of one peruta to another consecrated item but derived no benefit from it, he is exempt. The reason is that one is not liable for misuse until he derives benefit of the value of one peruta from a consecrated item and causes damage of the value of one peruta to one, i.e., the same item.

One is liable for misuse after misuse in consecrated items only in the case of an animal and in the case of service vessels.How so? If one rode upon a sacrificial animal, and another person came and rode upon that animal, and yet another came and rode upon it as well, all of them are liable for misuse of the animal. In the case of service vessels, if one drank from a gold cup, and another came and drank from that cup, and yet another individual came and drank from it, all of them are liable for misuse of the cup. If one removed wool from a sin offering, and another came and removed wool from that animal, and yet another person came and removed wool from it, all of them are liable for misuse of the animal. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to any consecrated item that is not subject to redemption, there is liability for misuse after misuse with regard to it.

GEMARA: According to the mishna, one can be liable for misuse after misuse only in the case of an animal or service vessels. The Gemara inquires: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): One is liable for misuse after misuse only in the case of an animal alone. Since an animal designated for sacrifice is not awaiting redemption or sale, its sanctity is not compromised when someone misuses it. It is therefore susceptible to repeated misuse. But with regard to service vessels, as according to the first tanna of the baraita they may be redeemed, their sanctity is compromised after they are misused even once, and they are no longer subject to misuse. Rabbi Neḥemya says: One is liable for misuse both in the case of an animal and in the case of service vessels.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the first tanna in the baraita, who rules that service vessels are not susceptible to repeated misuse? The Gemara answers that he holds that the halakha of misuse is written with regard to the case of an animal. As it is written: “If anyone commits a misuse, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord…and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:15–16). It is derived from here that the liability for repeated misuse applies only to an animal.

And Rabbi Neḥemya could have said to you, in response, the following a fortiori inference: If a service vessel brings other materials placed in them to their state of sanctity, thereby rendering those materials susceptible to misuse after misuse, all the more so is it not clear that the vessel itself should be susceptible to misuse after misuse.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to any consecrated item that is not subject to redemption, there is liability for misuse after misuse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This opinion is the same as that of the first tanna. Why is this ruling presented as a dissenting opinion? Rava said: There is a difference between them in the case of donated wood. The first tanna maintains that wood does not have the status of an item consecrated as an offering; rather, it has the status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, and is therefore not subject to repeated misuse. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood has the status of items consecrated as an offering, which is not subject to damage and is therefore subject to repeated misuse.

As the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says, in the form of a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring wood to the Temple, he must not bring fewer than two logs for the arrangement on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Wood is considered an offering, as it is placed upon the altar, and therefore it requires salt, and it requires waving, like a meal offering.

Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires more wood as an accompaniment, so that the donated sacrificial wood is sacrificed in the same manner as other donated offerings. And Rav Pappa further says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful. Similar to the rite of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and burned first.

Rav Pappa said that there is another difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If there were unblemished animals consecrated for the altar, and they became blemished and were disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings, and someone transgressed and slaughtered them before they were redeemed, in this case there is a difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

And indeed, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis engage in a dispute in that case: If there were unblemished animals consecrated for the altar, and they became blemished, and someone transgressed and slaughtered them, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The consecrated animals may no longer be redeemed, as it is written: “He shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). A dead animal cannot be stood before the priest, and therefore the animal carcasses must be buried.

But the Rabbis say: The animals should be redeemed. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains the animals may not be redeemed, this indicates that they have inherent sanctity, and therefore they are subject to repeated misuse. By contrast, the first tanna, like the Rabbis, holds that their sanctity is a function of their value, and consequently they are not subject to repeated misuse.

MISHNA: In a case where one took for his use a consecrated stone or a beam, that person is not liable for its misuse.