פירוש על מעילה 5:3

במקודשין אלא בבמה וכלי שרת – a pure animal/beast, a pure animal/beast that is of the Holy Things of the altar. For these don’t exist for the redemption and are not eligible for deterioration, for even if one person rode on the animal/beast and it became weak or he tore out [hair] from its wool, it is still worthy for sacrifice, but there is sacrilege after another sacrilege in it. And similarly, if one person drank from a golden cup, even if he caused it deterioration and it became worse, because it has the holiness [of the body], and does not refer to redemption, it is still appropriate for [Divine] service and there is in it one sacrilege after another. But the Holy Things of keeping the Temple in repair, as, for the example, the beasts/animals of the Holy Things of Temple repair, there is no religious sacrilege after religious sacrilege, because they are things that are redeemed, but because one person committed sacrilege with it when he removed it to unconsecrated use, furthermore, it lacks religious sacrilege.

One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry. Once a person has made non-holy use of an item dedicated to the Temple, the item becomes non-sacred and therefore the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege. This is true, however, only of items that become non-sacred (hullin) after secular use has been made of them. Animals that can be used as sacrifices and the vessels of ministry used in the Temple can never become hullin. Therefore, even after sacrilege has already been committed with them, they are still subject to the laws of sacrilege.

רבי אומר כל דבר – that has no deterioration and is not disqualified, which is every thing that has no redemption, like those that we mentioned, even if he caused deterioration to it, there is sacrilege following sacrilege. But there is a distinction between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi [Judah the Prince], regarding the pure Holy things of the Altar that were made in them defects, and he transgressed and slaughtered them prior to redemption. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] states that they should be buried, because they required placement and appraisement and that is not possible because they died Therefore, they should be buried, for since they no longer are capable of being redeemable, there is sacrilege following sacrilege, when someone benefits from them after ritual slaughter (and he adds the issue of the dedication of wood to the altar, for according to him, their law is like a sacrifice). But the Sages say that they should be redeemed (see Talmud Meilah 19b and Tractate Menahot 106b), for they don’t require placement and appraisement, and si the holiness of these monies there is no religious sacrilege following religious sacrilege. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.

How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. The mishnah now cites three examples of sacrilege done either with a sacrificial animal or with a vessel of ministry. In all three of these cases, those who use the animal or vessel after the first sacrilege has already been performed are still liable for sacrilege.

Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] adds that anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to multiple acts of sacrilege, because it too, like the vessels, cannot become hullin. This would include birds set aside to be sacrifices, wood and incense (see Menahot 12:1).