פירוש על מעילה 5:4

הרי זה לא מעל – In the Gemara (Tractate Meilah 20a), it establishes it with the treasurer of the that which is consecrated, as they were the stone or beam that were transmitted to his hand from the outset, but when he took them for himself, they still were in the domain of that which is consecrated, for where he carried them in his house, they were in the domain of the consecrated as at first, but if he gave it to his fellow, he removed it from his domain and changed it from that which is consecrated to unconsecrated and he committed religious sacrilege, but his fellow did not commit sacrilege for it had already gone to unconsecrated matters.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses when exactly a person who takes something from Temple property is considered to have committed sacrilege.

בנאה בתוך ביתו – he didn’t build it within the structure of his house in actuality , for if so, he would benefit immediately when he added it to the building of his house. But rather, as for example, when he placed it in the aperture in the roof looking to the ground floor that is not in the building, for now, he has no benefit until he will live underneath it and benefit from it the equivalent of a penny, such as that his produce were placed underneath the aperture in the roof, but rains were dripping upon them, but he closed the mouth of the aperture in the roof with a sanctified stone, since it protected them for the equivalent of a penny, he committed religious sacrilege.

If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. Simply removing a stone or a beam from Temple property is not considered sacrilege, because he has not yet benefited from it. However, all he has to do is give it to his friend and he has committed sacrilege because his friend will think highly of him for having given him a present. This is considered enough benefit for him to be considered as having committed sacrilege. His friend who receives the stone or beam cannot be guilty of sacrilege because as we learned in mishnah three, once sacrilege has been committed with an item it becomes hullin and the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege.

נתנה לבלן – in order that he would permit him to bathe in the bathhouse.

If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah. Using the stone or beam to build his house does not constitute sacrilege until he actually lives in the house with the holy stone or beam.

If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. The same rule that we stated above with regard to the stone or beam is stated here with regard to a simple coin.

If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.” If he gives it to the bathhouse keeper, he is liable for sacrilege even before he takes a bath. Once he has paid for his bath, he has a right to take his bath whenever he so wishes. This right is considered to be benefit, and therefore he has committed sacrilege.