As we have learned, the laws of me’ila – benefiting from consecrated objects in a forbidden manner – are derived from the passage in Sefer Vayikra (5:15-16). Based on those verses, anything that is considered to be kodashei HaShem – holy to God – is included, which incorporates objects that have been consecrated for sacrifice in the Temple (kodashei mizbe’aḥ) as well as those that have been dedicated for general upkeep of the Temple (kodashei bedek habayit). In order for a person to be held liable for me’ila (misuse of consecrated property), he must derive a minimum amount of forbidden benefit – the value of a peruta.
The fourth perek of Massekhet Me’ila, which begins on today’s daf deals with such questions as whether these different types of consecrated objects can be combined to reach the value of a peruta for the purposes of me’ila and the status of a person who derives less that a peruta‘s worth of benefit from a number of different consecrated objects.
The Mishna on today’s daf teaches that different sacrifices can be joined together for the purposes of determining forbidden benefit to be me’ila, and that in fact, different types of consecrated objects – kodashei mizbe’aḥ and kodashei bedek habayit – can be joined, as well. (The Gemara comments that they are separated in the Mishna only because of other, non-related details, which are taught regarding kodashei mizbe’aḥ.)
In his Sha’arei Yosher, Rabbi Shimon Shkop argues that the underlying reason for me’ila is different in kodashei mizbe’aḥ and in kodashei bedek habayit. In the former, the culpability stems from the fact that he has derived forbidden benefit from a sacrifice that is to be brought on the altar, while in the latter he must pay because he stole an object that belongs to the Temple. Nevertheless, since both are considered kodashei HaShem they are viewed as similar enough to be combined. According to Rabbi Ḥayyim Soloveitchik, however, the obligation to pay is because the object is stolen even in the case of kodashei mizbe’aḥ. If that is true then the underlying reason for both is identical and we can easily understand why the two can be combined.