Commentary for Kiddushin 108:2

אמר עולא משמיה דבר פדא אומר היה ר"מ הקדש במזיד מתחלל בשוגג אין מתחלל ולא אמרו בשוגג מתחלל אלא לענין קרבן בלבד וכי מאחר דאין מתחלל קרבן במאי מחייב

But since it is not secularised, whereby does he become liable to a sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that his act is null.');">⁴</span> But when Rabin came [from Palestine], he explained it in Bar Pada's name: R'Meir used to say that hekdesh, deliberately used, is secularised; unwittingly, is not secularised. And only in respect of consumption was it said that it is secularised by unwitting misuse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the object is actually consumed; then it has obviously passed out of the ownership of hekdesh.');">⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Kiddushin 108:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.