Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Note the parallels in Hilchot Gezeilah Va’Aveidah 13:12.

If it is attached to the ground, this prohibition does not apply, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 5:1), the Rambam writes that “pure gold will not be diminished to a significant extent even over the course of several hundred years.”

To exemplify this concept, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2), the Rambam speaks of a person who partakes of consecrated food. He derived benefit from that food and consumed it.
Implied by the same principle is that a person who damages a consecrated article, but does not derive benefit from it, does not violate the prohibition against me’ilah (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Chapter 5, Halachot 3-4; see also Hilchot Shegagot 9:9.

This ruling does not apply to sacrificial animals of a lesser degree of sanctity, for the prohibition against me’ilah does not apply to such animals before they are slaughtered, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

I.e., even if the animal has been weakened and its value diminished, it is still fit for a sacrifice and will bring atonement for the owner (Rashi, Me’ilah 19a). Although the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that the Ra’avad did not possess the complete text of that Talmudic passage.

Not necessarily as a result of that person’s activities.

For the more wool there is on an animal, the more it is worth.

Taking the wool will damage the animal’s worth, because now it would be worth less.

Seemingly, this would apply whether the animal was blemished or not.

Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

I.e., the holiness is transferred to the money brought as atonement.

Since its holiness has departed, it is not considered as if he benefited from a consecrated article.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 6:2), the Rambam writes that a person who intentionally misappropriates a consecrated object is not required to bring a sacrifice because “his sin is too severe to be atoned for by merely bringing a sacrifice and making restitution.”

I.e., that when one violates the prohibition against me'ilah inadvertently, a second person who benefits from the article does not violate the prohibition.

Selling it or giving it as a present (ibid. 5:3).

And indeed, even a thousand such people (ibid.).

Here the Rambam is speaking about a non-kosher animal as apparent from the example he gives and from the following halachot.

For its ownership was not transferred; Since none of the individuals sought to give it away to another person, it never departed from its status as consecrated property.

Transferring its ownership.

Since the goblet was made of gold, the prohibition is violated even though it was not damaged, as stated in Halachah 1.
As the Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus explain, the Rambam’s rulings come from his juxtaposition of the teachings of the Mishnah (Me’ilah 5:3) with those of the Tosefta (Me’ilah 2:1). In doing so, he resolves those sources in a different manner than other commentaries.

For renting it for a limited period of time is equivalent to selling it, since during the time it is rented, it is no longer in the legal domain of the renter.

Even though the axe is consecrated, there are no restrictions on his colleague.

Consecrated for the Temple treasury.

I.e., one consecrated as a sacrifice of the highest order of sanctity, as explained in Halachah 1.

This reflects the difference between an entity that is consecrated to be offered as a sacrifice and one consecrated for its value.

I.e., a conclusion made by the Rambam by deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source.

So that it could be used for mundane purposes.

And not its physical person.

I.e., it follows the rulings mentioned in Halachah 4 and not the rulings found in Halachah 5.

Me’ilah 19b.

For, as stated in Halachah 3, when a person intentionally misappropriates a consecrated object, its sacred quality does not depart. Hence, anyone who uses it after him also violates the prohibition against me’ilah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 5:4), the Rambam explains that since the article was in the treasurer’s possession before the person took it and it remained in his possession after it was given to him, and he did not benefit from it, he does not violate the prohibition against me’ilah.
This represents the Rambam’s interpretation of Me’ilah 19b-20a. The Ra’avad, Rashi, and others understand the passage differently. The Kessef Mishneh also understands the Rambam differently

In contrast to one who misappropriates it inadvertently, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
The statements beginning “It appears to me” did not appear in the original version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), but were added in the later version.

See Halachah 4 and the halachot that follow.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (toe. cit.), the Rambam explains that this applies even if he damages the article. As long as he does not derive benefit, he does not violate the prohibition.

Even if he does not dwell under its shade at all, he violates the prohibition against me’ilah, because incorporating the consecrated article into a building is considered as benefit.

It is not obvious that he is placing it there for a purpose.

Rav Yosef Corcus emphasizes that we are speaking about a situation in which the craftsman performs a service, but there is no article associated with that service. Otherwise, he would need to draw the article after him as mentioned in the following halachah.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Mechirah 3:1, according to Scriptural Law, the payment of money completes a transaction. Nevertheless, the Sages ordained that the transaction not be completed until he pulls it after him (meshichah).

According to the Rambam (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14), a gentile can complete his acquisition of an article through either the payment of money or through drawing it after him. (Many other authorities differ and maintain that also for a gentile, the payment of money is not sufficient to finalize a transaction.) Thus according to the Rambam, since the article has been transferred to the gentile’s ownership, the prohibition against me’ilah applies.

Because the object has not been transferred to the Jew’s ownership.

A zav, zavah, or the like who may not partake of sacrificial offerings until they bring the offerings required of them. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1.

For even though he is bringing a sacrifice, he is deriving personal benefit, his atonement, from doing so.

For it is the casting of blood that brings him atonement.

I.e., the half-shekel that each person is obligated to give each year to contribute towards the purchase of communal sacrifices. See Hilchot Shekalim, ch. 1.

Although he transgresses, he is considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah of giving a half-shekel (Hilchot Shekalim 3:11).

Three times a year money was taken from the funds collected and placed in one of the Temple chambers and placed in baskets. The money in the baskets is referred to as teru.mat halishkah (ibid., ch. 3).

For every Jew has a portion in the communal sacrifices.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:2), the Rambam writes that initially, when the person pays the money to the Temple treasurers, its status does not change. The half-shekel remains consecrated and the person is not considered to have violated the prohibition against me’ilah. When the animal is sacrificed, the priest has the intent that everyone who gave his half-shekel has a share in the animal. It is then that the person acquires his share and violates the prohibition against me’ilah.
In that commentary, the Rambam cites our Sages’ statement (Eruvin 31a) that rnitzvot were not given for our satisfaction and asks: Since the money was used to fulfill a mitzvah, what benefit did the person receive? He explains that people who did not pay their half-shekalim were physically compelled to do so (the Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim 1:3). The benefit the person receives is that he is not subjected to this compulsion.

From his own funds.

The Rambam’s wording is somewhat difficult and has attracted the attention of the commentaries. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that we are not speaking about a situation in which a person gave the half-shekel to a colleague and the colleague used it for his own purposes, because it is already stated in Halachah 3 that in such a situation the person who originally owned the money violates the prohibition against me’ilah, but the recipient does not. Instead, this is speaking about a situation where the half-shekel never left the original owner’s domain and either he or a colleague used it there.
From a comparison to the latter clauses of the halachah, it appears that this is speaking about a situation where the money for the sacrifices had already been set aside, as stated in note 49.

I.e., money was taken from the collected funds and set aside for use for the purchase of sacrifices.

For he is taking a consecrated article, the half-shekel, and using it on his own behalf. The benefit he derives is that, as explained above, coercion will not be used to compel him to pay the half-shekel.

I.e., when the priest sets aside the money for the communal sacrifices, he has in mind that if someone had not given his half-shekel as of yet, when he does give it, it will be retroactively considered as if he had a share in the sacrifices purchased with this money set aside.

Hilchot Shekalim 2:9.

Although in actuality it had not reached the treasury, it was considered as consecrated funds.

Because at the time he took it for himself, it had not been consecrated. He is obligated to reimburse his colleague for the half-shekel (Hilchat Shekalim 3:10).

As stated in Hilchot Shekalim 2:4, after the money that was used to purchase communal sacrifices and take care of other necessities in the Temple were set aside from the collection of half-shekalim, any money that remained was considered as “money remaining in the chamber.” As stated in Hilchot Shekalim 4:8-9, this money was used for improvements to the Temple and the city of Jerusalem and for burnt-offerings sacrificed when the altar was free.
Once the third batch of money set aside for the purchase of the communal sacrifices was separated, the remainder of the money was considered as ordinary funds. Hence the prohibition against me'ilah no longer applies to it.