Why does the Mishnah mention in the second case that he is Chayav Me'ilah
only if the Korban was offered, but makes no mention of this in the first
case? If one is only Chayav Me'ilah for misusing the money of Hekdesh when
it was used to buy a Korban, then the same should be true in the first case.
On the other hand, if it is the Terumas ha'Lishkah which makes one Chayav
Me'ilah, then in the second case the Mishnah should not mention that the
animal was brought!
(a) The ROSH (in Perishas ha'Rosh), BARTENURA and KORBAN HA'EDAH explain
that there are really two parts to the Aveirah of Me'ilah. First, the Shekel
which belonged to his friend which he now misuses must be *Hekdesh* in order
for him to be Chayav Me'ilah for using it for his own purposes (that is, to
fulfill his own obligation of giving a Shekel to the Beis ha'Mikdash).
Second, the Hekdesh which he misuses must be misused in such a way that its
value of Hekdesh is diminished.
Regarding the first point, normally the Shekalim -- even after they are
given to the collector -- are *not* Hekdesh until the Terumas ha'Lishkah is
done, at which point all of the Shekalim become Hekdesh. The first case of
the Mishnah stipulates that the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done in order for the
Shekalim to be considered Hekdesh.
In the second case, the Mishnah is discussing something which is already
Hekdesh, and thus there is no reason to describe how it became Hekdesh.
Rather, the Mishnah discusses the second point -- in what way did the person
benefit from his misuse of Hekdesh? Even though the Gemara will explain that
he benefits from it because by giving it, he prevents the Beis Din from
seizing his property as collateral for his Shekel, that benefit alone will
not make him Chayav Me'ilah. In order to be Chayav Me'ilah, one must do
something with the Hekdesh item that diminishes its value in some way for
Hekdesh, and when he gave a Shekel that was Hekdesh to the Beis ha'Mikdash,
it is still being used by Hekdesh! Therefore, the Mishnah says that only
once the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done *and* the Korban was brought -- at
which point the Shekel was actually used for something that it was not
intended to be used for -- is he Chayav Me'ilah!
The Bartenura explains that the same applies in the first case as well. He
is only Chayav Me'ilah once the Shekel is used to purchase the animal for
the Korban, until then, the Shekel has not actually been misused. The
Mishnah does not mention this point in the first case because it was not
discussing what misuse was made of the Shekel, but rather what makes the
Shekel into Hekdesh, that one will be Chayav Me'ilah for misusing it.
(b) RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY explains that the Halachah in the Mishnah is the
subject of a Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah, which the
Yerushalmi mentions here, and which is explained in more depth in the
Tosefta in Me'ilah (ch. 1). The first case in the Mishnah expresses the
opinion of Rebbi Shimon, and the second case expresses the opinion of Rebbi
Rebbi Shimon holds that as soon as the Beis ha'Mikdash is able to use the
money, it is *as if it has been used already*. Rebbi Yehudah says that the
money is considered to be used only when the animal was actually bought and the Zerikah was done. Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains that the Yerushalmi means
to say that the Mishnah in the first case does not mention that the Korban
was brought, because that case is expressing the opinion of Rebbi Shimon,
who holds that once the money was given and is able to be used, it is as if
it has been used already and the person is Chayav Me'ilah. The Mishnah in
the second case mentions that the Korban was brought because it is
expressing the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
(c) The VILNA GA'ON (cited by the TAKLIN CHADETIN) explains that there is a
clause in the Halachos of Me'ilah that states that in certain circumstances,
there is only a Chiyuv Me'ilah when the person not only benefits from
Hekdesh, but he also causes damage, or depreciation, to the Hekdesh. Without
damage, there is no Chiyuv Me'ilah (as mentioned above, (a) ). This clause
applies only to the type of object that is damaged, or diminished, through
ordinary use. When one uses such as item, which is Hekdesh, for his personal
benefit, he is not Chayav Me'ilah unless he uses it in such a way that
diminishes it in some respect, causing it to depreciate. However, when it
comes to the type of object which does not depreciate with normal use, one
is Chayav Me'ilah for merely using it.
In the first case, the Mishnah is discussing using one's friend's Shekel for
his own obligation. The purpose of giving the Shekel is to add it to the
Lishkah, which does not diminish its value in any way. Therefore as soon as
one has benefit from it (such as not having to give a collateral), he is
Chayav Me'ilah. (The Terumas ha'Lishkah must have been done in order to make
the Shekel considered Hekdesh, but not to make it considered used, for it is
not necessary for it to be considered used).
The second case is discussing Hekdesh of Bedek ha'Bayis, the purpose of
which is for Hekdesh to actually use it to buy things needed in the Beis
ha'Mikdash or to buy them. Since the ordinary use is to spend it, it is
normally used up and diminished. Therefore, it is only considered Me'ilah if
one does something with it to use it up. That is why it is only Me'ilah if
the money was used to buy the animal.
Rav Chaim Kanievsky (in SHEKEL HA'KODESH, Bi'ur ha'Halachah to 3:11)
questions this point. First, the Shekel is not just placed in the Lishkah --
it is used up by being spent, just like any other Hekdesh. Second, spending
is not considered using it up; spending does not diminish the value of the
object, because one ends up with the same value in a different form.
Perhaps the Vilna Ga'on meant that in the second case of the Mishnah a
person gave as his Machatzis ha'Shekel a half Shekel which had been
dedicated to the Beis ha'Mikdash and could be hammered into a silver utensil
for the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since it is going to be used to be made into a
utensil, and after that the utensil will be used, some of the silver will be
lost during its use and therefore it is considered an object that is used in
a way that diminishes its value. Therefore, one is Chayav Me'ilah only once
it is spent (or devaluated).
(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shekalim 3:10), when he records the first case of
the Mishnah as Halachah, he adds to it that "one paid [his Shekel
obligation] with his friend's Shekel *in order that they should not take a
collateral (Mashkon) from him*. Perhaps the Rambam understood the Mishnah as
saying that the Chiyuv Me'ilah depends whether Beis Din is presently trying
to take a Mashkon from him. If they are, then the person has immediate
benefit by giving them his friend's Shekel, and he is Chayav Me'ilah right
away without having to wait until an animal is bought with the money. The
second case of the Mishnah is discussing a case when one was not under
pressure to give the Shekel in order to prevent a Mashkon from being taken
from him, and therefore his benefit in preventing a Mashkon is not an
immediate benefit and does not constitute Me'ilah. Therefore, he is only
Chayav Me'ilah when the coin is actually used to buy the animal. (In Hilchos
Me'ilah 6:12-13, however, the RAMBAM does not add "in order that they not
take a Mashkon from him" when discussing these cases, as he adds in Hilchos
(e) The RA'AVAD (Hilchos Me'ilah, end of ch. 6, and TORAS KOHANIM, Vayikra
Dibura d'Chova, Parshah 11:6), as cited by Rav Chaim Kanievsky in SHEKEL
HA'KODESH 3:76) explains that the second case is talking about when the
person himself is a *Gizbar* (treasurer) of Hekdesh. A Gizbar of Hekdesh
does not commit Me'ilah when he picks up the Hekdesh to take it for himself;
he commits Me'ilah only when the item is actually spent or given away. The
reason is because the object, when it is in the Gizbar's possession, is
considered to be safe and in the possession of Hekdesh no matter how many
times he picks it up (see RA'AVAD, Hilchos Me'ilah 6:8).
What about the *benefit* he gets from preventing a Mashkon from being taken
from him? The Gizbar does not receive that benefit, because collateral is
not taken from a Gizbar in the first place, just like it is not taken from a
Kohen, as the Mishnah said earlier (Ra'avad in Toras Kohanim, cited by Rav
Chaim Kanievsky, Shekel ha'Kodesh 1:76).
The first case in the Mishnah, however, is talking about a person who is not
a Gizbar, and therefore he is Chayav Me'ilah right when he picks up the
Shekel for his own use and gives it to the Gizbar (since the Shekel was
already considered Hekdesh because the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done). By
doing so he is transferring it to a new domain, and he also receives benefit
from it by being saved from giving a Mashkon.