GEMARA: Connected with the mishna’s discussion of idol worship it was stated: In the case of an object of idol worship that broke by itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from it, as the fact that it is broken does not constitute nullification, and Reish Lakish says: It is permitted to derive benefit from it.

The Gemara clarifies their opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is prohibited, as a gentile did not nullify the object of idol worship, and its status is nullified only if a gentile broke it with the intention of nullifying it. And Reish Lakish says it is permitted, as it can be presumed that its gentile owner, upon seeing that it was broken, would have nullified it, saying to himself: If the object of idol worship could not even save itself from destruction, will it save me from harm?

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from the mishna: With regard to the bird’s nest that is atop the consecrated tree, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if he derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse. In order to acquire a bird’s nest that is atop the tree worshipped as idolatry one should dislodge the nest by striking it with a pole.

Reish Lakish analyzes the second halakha: What, is it not referring to a case where the nest was built from branches that broke off from the worshipped tree itself, and yet the mishna teaches: One should dislodge it by striking it with a pole? This indicates that branches that are broken off are permitted, despite the fact that they were not broken off by a gentile. Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: No, there is no proof from the mishna, as it is referring to a case where the bird brought branches from elsewhere, not from the worshipped tree itself.

Reish Lakish rejects this answer: If so, why does the mishna teach in the parallel case of a consecrated tree, where presumably the nest was likewise built of branches brought from elsewhere, that one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse? If the nest was built from non-sacred material, why is one not permitted to derive benefit from it ab initio?

The Gemara answers: Rather, the mishna must be discussing cases where the nest was constructed from branches that came from the tree in which it was built, and it is referring to growths of consecrated property that came afterward, i.e., after the property was consecrated. And the tanna of the mishna holds one is not liable for misusing growths of consecrated property, but it is prohibited to derive benefit from them ab initio.

The Gemara adds: This, too, stands to reason, that the mishna is referring to a case where the nest was built of branches from the tree in which it is located, as, if it enters your mind that the mishna is referring to a case where the bird brought the branches from elsewhere, why, in the case of the tree worshipped as idolatry, must one dislodge it from its place by striking it with a pole? Let him take it directly without using a pole.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in response to this question: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the bird brought the branches from elsewhere, and what is the meaning of the clause: One should dislodge? It does not mean he should dislodge the nest with a pole, but rather he should dislodge the chicks that are in the nest. Since it is difficult to take the chicks without climbing the tree, as they can move, there is more of a concern in this case that he might climb the tree, in which case he would be deriving benefit from it, which is prohibited.

Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: With regard to chicks that can fly away and are not confined to this specific tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a consecrated tree and in the case of a worshipped tree, it is permitted to derive benefit from them. But with regard to eggs, both here and there, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them, as they are dependent on the prohibited tree. Rav Ashi further says: If the chicks are young and still need their mother to survive they are considered like eggs, i.e., they have the same status as eggs and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.

MISHNA: In the case of the Temple treasurers who purchased non-sacred logs to use for repairs in the Temple, one is liable for misusing the wood itself, but one is not liable for misusing the sawdust, nor is he liable for the leaves [baneviyya] that fall from the log, as the treasurers purchased for the Temple only those materials fit for use in its construction.

GEMARA: Shmuel says that the method of construction in the Temple, for repairs or improvements, is as follows: One builds the structures in the Temple with non-sacred materials, and afterward consecrates those materials upon completion of the work.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one does not consecrate the materials immediately? One who donates money for Temple maintenance consecrates the money and it is therefore subject to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property. Consequently, one may not use this money to purchase items for Temple maintenance, as the supplier would be liable for misuse as soon as he received the money as payment. The only way to use donations for Temple maintenance is if the Temple treasurer said that the sanctity of this money which was consecrated by the donor shall take effect on the completed structure, rather than on the construction materials or the wages of the artisans during the construction.

Therefore, once the construction is completed, the sanctity is transferred from the money to the structure, and then the money is non-sacred. And at that point, the Temple treasurers give the money to the artisans and the suppliers as their wages.