Meilah 5:2 - 5:3

ופגם כחצי שיעור – as, for example, he wore Holy clothing with the benefit of the measurement equivalent to one-half of a penny and deterioration of one-half of a penny, that he tore it and caused deterioration to it like the measurement of one-half of a penny.

שנהנה בשוה פרוטה דבר אחד – that it has in it deterioration but he didn’t cause deterioration.

ופגם בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחר – as, for example, he spilled liquid of Holy things but did not benefit.

הרי זה לא מעל עד שיהנה בשוה פרוטה ויפגום בשוה פרוטה בדבר אחד – on himself, and there will be on the thing that has in it deterioration, for regarding religious sacrilege, it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass,] being unwittingly remiss [about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” and with the consuming of heave offering, it is written (Numbers 18:32): “You will incur no guilt,” just as the sin that is stated regarding the eating of heave-offering one causes deterioration and derives benefit, and just as he caused deterioration and benefited, even the sin offering mentioned In regard to religious sacrilege, it needs to be that he causes deterioration and benefits and in that thing itself that he causes deterioration, he derived benefit and not with another thing (see Talmud Meilah 19b).

במקודשין אלא בבמה וכלי שרת – a pure animal/beast, a pure animal/beast that is of the Holy Things of the altar. For these don’t exist for the redemption and are not eligible for deterioration, for even if one person rode on the animal/beast and it became weak or he tore out [hair] from its wool, it is still worthy for sacrifice, but there is sacrilege after another sacrilege in it. And similarly, if one person drank from a golden cup, even if he caused it deterioration and it became worse, because it has the holiness [of the body], and does not refer to redemption, it is still appropriate for [Divine] service and there is in it one sacrilege after another. But the Holy Things of keeping the Temple in repair, as, for the example, the beasts/animals of the Holy Things of Temple repair, there is no religious sacrilege after religious sacrilege, because they are things that are redeemed, but because one person committed sacrilege with it when he removed it to unconsecrated use, furthermore, it lacks religious sacrilege.

רבי אומר כל דבר – that has no deterioration and is not disqualified, which is every thing that has no redemption, like those that we mentioned, even if he caused deterioration to it, there is sacrilege following sacrilege. But there is a distinction between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi [Judah the Prince], regarding the pure Holy things of the Altar that were made in them defects, and he transgressed and slaughtered them prior to redemption. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] states that they should be buried, because they required placement and appraisement and that is not possible because they died Therefore, they should be buried, for since they no longer are capable of being redeemable, there is sacrilege following sacrilege, when someone benefits from them after ritual slaughter (and he adds the issue of the dedication of wood to the altar, for according to him, their law is like a sacrifice). But the Sages say that they should be redeemed (see Talmud Meilah 19b and Tractate Menahot 106b), for they don’t require placement and appraisement, and si the holiness of these monies there is no religious sacrilege following religious sacrilege. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.