פירוש על קידושין 107:15

According to Rav, R. Meir usually holds that if one uses hekdesh unwittingly, the hekdesh does not remain sacred. And if he uses it intentionally then it does not become non-sacred.
However, this is exactly opposite of what R. Meir says about using hekdesh for betrothal in our mishnah. In the mishnah he said that if one used it unwittingly the betrothal is invalid and the hekdesh remains sacred. If used intentionally, the betrothal is valid and the hekdesh becomes non-sacred. Since Rav believes this mishnah to be different from R. Meir’s usual opinion, he interprets it as referring to a priest who betroths with his priestly clothing. If he does so unwittingly (I know this is hard to imagine) then she is not betrothed and the clothes remain sacred. This is because the priests may benefit from their clothing even when not performing the worship service. It would simply be too hard to tell the priests that they cannot even wear this clothing when not serving in the Temple and the Torah was not given to angels.
If he intentionally uses them for betrothal, they become non-sacred and she is betrothed.

According to Rav, R. Meir usually holds that if one uses hekdesh unwittingly, the hekdesh does not remain sacred. And if he uses it intentionally then it does not become non-sacred.
However, this is exactly opposite of what R. Meir says about using hekdesh for betrothal in our mishnah. In the mishnah he said that if one used it unwittingly the betrothal is invalid and the hekdesh remains sacred. If used intentionally, the betrothal is valid and the hekdesh becomes non-sacred. Since Rav believes this mishnah to be different from R. Meir’s usual opinion, he interprets it as referring to a priest who betroths with his priestly clothing. If he does so unwittingly (I know this is hard to imagine) then she is not betrothed and the clothes remain sacred. This is because the priests may benefit from their clothing even when not performing the worship service. It would simply be too hard to tell the priests that they cannot even wear this clothing when not serving in the Temple and the Torah was not given to angels.
If he intentionally uses them for betrothal, they become non-sacred and she is betrothed.

The Talmud not tries to prove that one who unwittingly uses priestly clothing for a non-sacred purpose does commit trespass, against what Rav has just said. The baraita says that once they have worn out, they are susceptible to trespass. But this is only if they have worn out. Before they are worn out, the priest does not trespass even if he wears them when not performing the service.

The issue here is trespass with shekels donated to the Temple. The first opinion holds that one does commit trespass if he uses the new shekels, those donated this year, which will be used to buy sacrifices. But one cannot commit trespass with old shekels, for they are used for Temple maintenance. In contrast, R. Meir holds that one can even commit trespass with money set aside for Temple maintenance, such as the surplus of the Chamber, the money left over after the sacrifices were purchased.
But this is surprising for R. Meir holds “the Torah was not given to angels.” These shekels will be used pay for the city wall and its towers. People will obviously use these things for secular use. So here we see that one can commit trespass even it is obvious that people will make non-sacred use of them.

The issue here is trespass with shekels donated to the Temple. The first opinion holds that one does commit trespass if he uses the new shekels, those donated this year, which will be used to buy sacrifices. But one cannot commit trespass with old shekels, for they are used for Temple maintenance. In contrast, R. Meir holds that one can even commit trespass with money set aside for Temple maintenance, such as the surplus of the Chamber, the money left over after the sacrifices were purchased.
But this is surprising for R. Meir holds “the Torah was not given to angels.” These shekels will be used pay for the city wall and its towers. People will obviously use these things for secular use. So here we see that one can commit trespass even it is obvious that people will make non-sacred use of them.

Change the name of the author of this opinion and presto—no more difficulty. It is not R. Meir who holds that one can commit trespass with old shekels. It is R. Judah. Yes, the Talmud does pull this trick from time to time.

The stones of the walls and towers of Jerusalem are holy but of course we can expect that people will make use of them. Nevertheless, R. Meir holds that one does commit trespass with them. Thus even in a case where we might invoke the principle that “the Torah was not given to angels” people can still commit trespass.
Again, the Talmud changes the attribution to R. Judah.

The problem is that R. Judah does not believe that the things used to build Jerusalem are sacred. If one takes a vow and says that a certain object should be “as Jerusalem” he has not dedicated it. So how can we say that people commit trespass with the stones of Jerusalem?

The problem is that R. Judah does not believe that the things used to build Jerusalem are sacred. If one takes a vow and says that a certain object should be “as Jerusalem” he has not dedicated it. So how can we say that people commit trespass with the stones of Jerusalem?