The discussion of the halakhot of consecrated items possessing inherent sanctity that are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property begins with the five sin offerings that are left to die. In the cases of the offspring of a sin offering, an animal that is the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died before the offering was sacrificed, although one may not derive benefit from them, if he did so he is not liable for misuse. In the cases of a sin offering whose year since birth passed and a sin offering that was lost, the halakha depends on whether or not the owner achieved atonement through the sacrifice of another animal. If he already achieved atonement, then although one may not derive benefit from it, either by Torah law or by rabbinic law, an individual who did derive benefit from it is not liable for misuse. If the owner had not yet achieved atonement then he is liable for misuse, as the animal possesses sanctity that inheres in its value. With regard to a nazirite who designated funds for the three offerings that he brings at the end of his term of naziriteship, provided that he did not specify which funds were for each of the three offerings, the money is not subject to the prohibition of misuse. If he did specify, then the funds designated for the sin offering and the burnt offering are subject to the prohibition of misuse, whereas the funds designated for the peace offering are not subject to the prohibition of misuse. This is the halakha if the nazirite is still alive. If he died after designating the funds for his offerings but did not specify which funds were for each of the three offerings, some say one is liable only for misusing the entirety of the funds and some say one is liable even for misusing any of the funds. If the nazirite had specified how his funds were to be distributed for his offerings, the funds designated for the burnt offering are subject to the prohibition of misuse while those designated for the sin offering and the peace offering are not subject to the prohibition of misuse. Funds designated for bird offerings are subject to the prohibition of misuse. Blood of sacrificial animals is not subject to the prohibition of misuse, as its primary purpose is to attain atonement for people, and therefore it is not in the category of: “The sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). The Sages disagree as to whether or not the blood of sacrificial animals after their mitzva has been performed is subject to the prohibition of misuse, as at that point the blood still has utility for the Temple treasury because it can be sold to gardeners as fertilizer. With regard to libations, the Gemara concludes that initially they are subject to the prohibition of misuse; once they have descended to the drainpipes built into the altar one is no longer liable for their misuse, because their mitzva has already been performed. By contrast, the ash removed from the altar is subject to the prohibition of misuse despite the fact that its mitzva has already been performed. Some commentaries maintain one is not liable to bring an offering for misusing the ashes, as there is merely a prohibition against deriving benefit from them. There is disagreement as to whether the limbs of the scapegoat after its death are permitted or if they are subject to the prohibition of misuse. The matter is left unresolved by the Gemara and is further discussed by the commentaries. The status of the linen vestments already worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are also subject to a dispute. Some Sages rule that they must be interred and are subject to the prohibition of misuse, while others maintain that an ordinary priest may wear them and they are not subject to misuse. Everyone agrees they may not be worn by a High Priest on Yom Kippur in a subsequent year. The Gemara concludes that although it is prohibited to derive benefit from the ash removed from the internal altar and the Candelabrum, one is not liable for misuse. The commentaries disagree as to whether or not these ashes are subject to the prohibition of misuse after they have been placed next to the altar. If one derives benefit from consecrated items that are suitable for the altar but not for Temple maintenance, such as wine, or that are suitable for Temple maintenance but not for the altar, such as stones, he is liable for misusing property that has been consecrated to the Temple. The same halakha applies even with regard to items that are not suitable for either purpose and are consecrated only for their value, such as a trash pile filled with manure. These are included in the halakha of misuse by the Torah’s amplification: “The sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). Consequently, if one consecrates a cistern full of water, a trash pile filled with manure, a dovecote filled with pigeons, a tree full of fruit, or a field filled with grass, in all those cases one who derives benefit from them and what they contain is liable for misuse. But if they were empty or devoid of fruit or grass when he consecrated them and they subsequently became filled, their contents are not subject to the prohibition of misuse. Some maintain that if one consecrates a tree or field, that which grows in them is subject to the prohibition of misuse. This applies only to sanctity for Temple maintenance and sanctity that inheres in its value, but not in the case of inherent sanctity, i.e., an item consecrated for the altar. The halakha that the growth of items consecrated for the altar is subject to the prohibition of misuse applies only to growth that is suitable for the altar. If there is a bird’s nest atop a consecrated tree, one may not climb the tree to reach the nest. If one violated the prohibition and climbed the tree he would not be liable for misuse. If the bird built the nest with branches from the consecrated tree, one would be liable for misuse if he derived benefit from the nest, unless those branches grew after the tree had been consecrated. One may not derive benefit from the eggs and from those chicks that are dependent on their mother and unable to fly. Logs that were acquired by the Temple treasurers for the purpose of Temple maintenance are consecrated and subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. One is not liable for misuse of their sawdust or leaves. The Gemara notes that this is the halakha only if the logs are purchased for use on that same day. If they were to be used over time they would not be consecrated immediately. Instead, they would be purchased from non-sacred funds or on credit, to avoid the possibility of people inadvertently transgressing by deriving benefit from them.