Study Kiddushin folio 54A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
We reviewed all angles of the opinion of R' Meir, i.e., we have examined all of R' Meir’s statements with regard to consecrated property, and we did not find that he holds that consecrated property is not desacralized if it is misused unwittingly but it is desacralized if misused intentionally.
And as for our Mishnah, which indicates that this is R' Meir’s opinion, it should not be understood as R' Meir’s opinion with regard to consecrated property in general, but with regard to a case where a priest betrothed a woman using priestly tunics that have not worn out and that can still be worn
The Talmud raises a difficulty with Rav’s statement. Come and hear: With regard to priestly tunics that have worn out, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple by using them; this is the statement of R' Meir. What, is it not so that this halakha would apply even if they had not worn out, a
The Talmud raises a difficulty with the explanation of R' Meir’s statement. Come and hear: One is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using new shekels, i.e., those given this year, which are used to purchase animals for this year’s offerings, but one is not liable for misuse
The Talmud continues the question: But why should one be liable for using the old shekels? Let us say the same logic: One is not liable, because they were initially given on the condition that people may benefit from them, since the Torah was not given to the ministering angels and people could not