## Meilah Daf 21b

###### Meilah 21b:1
[Meilah 21b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:1)

וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חָלוּק וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה טַלִּית – שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ, וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי קָטָן וְרַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the agent **went and brought him a robe with three** *sela* **and a cloak with three** *sela*, **both of them are liable for misuse.** The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the purchase of the robe for three *sela*, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by purchasing the cloak. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The **homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he** can **say to** the agent: **I was seeking a large robe** worth a gold dinar **and you brought me a small, inferior** robe worth three *sela*, i.e., twelve silver dinars.


###### Meilah 21b:2
[Meilah 21b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, מַאן דְּאָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ: ״זִיל זְבֵן לִי כּוֹרָא דְאַרְעָא״, וַאֲזַל וּזְבַן לֵיהּ לִיתְכָּא – קָנֵי לוֹקֵחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara notes: One can **learn from** the mishna the resolution to an unresolved dilemma in tractate *Ketubot* (98b), that in a case of **one who said to his agent: Go** and **sell** on **my** behalf **a *kor* of land, and he went and sold for him a half**-***kor*, the purchaser acquires** the half-*kor* of land that he purchased. Although the agent did not fulfill his agency entirely, the part that he did perform is valid.


###### Meilah 21b:3
[Meilah 21b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:3)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ שָׁוֶה שֵׁשׁ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Some Sages **say** that one cannot infer this resolution from the mishna. **What are the circumstances** of the mishna **here?** It is referring a case **where** the agent **brought him** a robe **worth six** *sela*, i.e., the value of the gold *dinar* that the homeowner gave him, which he acquired **for three** *sela*. If so, the homeowner received exactly what he wanted and the agent did not deviate from the agency, except that he also purchased a cloak without being instructed to do so. This is dissimilar to the case of an agent who sells a half-*kor* of land.


###### Meilah 21b:4
[Meilah 21b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:4)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ, וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי חָלוּק קָטָן וְרַע״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is the case of the mishna, **say the latter clause: Rabbi Yehuda says:** The **homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he** can **say to** the agent: **I was seeking a large robe** worth a gold dinar, **and you brought me a small, inferior robe** worth three *sela*. It is clear from the mishna that the homeowner did not receive exactly what he wanted, but rather an inferior robe.


###### Meilah 21b:5
[Meilah 21b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:5)

דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי יָהֲבַתְּ דִּינָר כּוּלֵּיהּ, אַיְיתֵית לִי שָׁוֶה שְׁנֵי דִינָרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda means **that** the homeowner could have **said to** the agent: Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, **if you had given the entire dinar** as I requested, **you** could have **brought me** a much finer robe, **worth** at least **two dinars.**


###### Meilah 21b:6
[Meilah 21b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:6)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּקִטְנִית שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּפְרוּטָה וְקִטְנִית בְּדִינָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **This too stands to reason,** that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna, **as it teaches** in **the latter clause,** i.e., it is taught in the *Tosefta* (2:4): **Rabbi Yehuda concedes in** a case where the agent purchased only part of the **legumes** which the one who appointed him requested, **that both are liable for misuse of consecrated property.** The reason for this ruling is **that** a small amount of **legumes** is always sold **for one *peruta* and** a larger amount of **legumes** is invariably sold **for a dinar.** One can infer from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that in the case of another item, e.g., a robe, purchasing a superior-quality robe for a higher price would bring additional benefit to the homeowner.


###### Meilah 21b:7
[Meilah 21b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:7)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בְּאַתְרָא דְּזָבְנִי בְּשׁוּמָא – גַּבֵּי קִטְנִית נָמֵי, דְּיָהֵב סֶלַע מוֹזְלִי לֵיהּ טְפֵי! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּמְזַבְּנִי בְּכַנֵּי כַּנֵּי, כַּנָּא כַּנָּא בִּפְרוּטָה, דְּהָתָם פְּסִיק מִילְּתַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **What are the circumstances? If** it is referring **to a town where they sell** legumes **by appraisal** of an item’s value, then **with regard to** these **legumes as well,** purchasing a larger quantity should reduce the price, which would mean **that** if one **gave a *sela*** the price of the legumes would **become cheaper. Rav Pappa said:** The *Tosefta* is referring **to a town where they sell** and set the price **by containers,** and each **container** is the same price: **Each and every container** is sold **for one *peruta*.** The significance of this fact is **that there the matter is fixed,** i.e., each container of legumes is sold for the same price, regardless of the quantity of legumes purchased; there is no reduction for buying in bulk.


###### Meilah 21b:8
[Meilah 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל שׁוּלְחָנִי, אִם צְרוּרִין – לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא – מָעַל. אִם מוּתָּרִין – יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא – לֹא מָעַל. אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא – מָעַל. הַחֶנְווֹנִי – כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוּלְחָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who deposits** consecrated **money with a money changer, if** the money **is bound,** the money changer **may not use it. Therefore, if** the money changer **spent** the money, **he is liable for** its **misuse.** If the money **was unbound he may use it,** and **therefore if** the money changer **spent** the money, **he is not liable for** its **misuse.** By contrast, if one deposited money **with a homeowner, whether** it **is bound or whether** it **is unbound,** the one with whom it was deposited **may not use it,** and **therefore if he spent** the money, **he is liable for misuse.** In this regard, the halakhic status of **a storekeeper is like** that of **a homeowner;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** The halakhic status of a storekeeper is **like** that of **a money changer.**


###### Meilah 21b:9
[Meilah 21b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:9)

נָפְלָה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ כִּיסוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר ״פְּרוּטָה בְּכִיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה – מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **a consecrated *peruta* fell into one’s purse,** in which there were non-sacred *perutot*, **or** in a case **where one said: One *peruta* in this purse is consecrated, once he spent the first** *peruta* from the purse for non-sacred purposes, **he is liable for** its **misuse.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say:** He is not liable for misuse **until he spends** all the *perutot* **in the entire purse,** as only then is it certain that he spent the consecrated *peruta*.


###### Meilah 21b:10
[Meilah 21b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:10)

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַחֲכָמִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״פְּרוּטָה מִן כִּיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in** a case where **one says: One *peruta* from** the coins in **this purse is consecrated, that he may continue spending** the *perutot* in the purse for non-sacred purposes and becomes liable for misuse only **once he spends** all the *perutot* **in the entire purse.** His formulation indicates that his desire was that the final remaining *peruta* in the purse would be consecrated, and therefore one is liable for misuse only when he spends that *peruta*.


###### Meilah 21b:11
[Meilah 21b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: רָמֵי לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in a case where one says: One *peruta* from the coins in this purse is consecrated, that he may continue spending the *perutot* in the purse for non-sacred purposes and that he becomes liable for misuse only once he spends all the *perutot* in the entire purse. With regard to this case, the Gemara relates that **when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that **Reish Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is different** in **the first clause,** which addresses a situation where one says: One *peruta* in this purse is consecrated, in which case Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the Rabbis, **and what is different** in **the latter clause,** where he agrees with them?


###### Meilah 21b:12
[Meilah 21b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵיפָא בְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא יִפָּטֵור כִּיס זֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Reish Lakish: **The latter clause** of the mishna is referring to a case **where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration.** In other words, his desire was that he would not spend all of the *perutot* in the purse without consecrating one to the Temple. Consequently, he is liable for misuse only when he uses the last coin in the purse for non-sacred purposes and leaves none to be consecrated.


###### Meilah 21b:13
[Meilah 21b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Meilah/r/21b:13)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אֲמַר: כִּיסִין אַשְּׁווֹרִים רְמָא לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֶחָד מִשְּׁווֹרַיי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ – הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם, הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵיפָא בְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא יִפָּטֵור כִּיס זֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates that **when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia **he said** that Reish Lakish **raised a contradiction to** Rabbi Yoḥanan **between** the mishna here, discussing **purses, and** another mishna, discussing **bulls. As we learned** in a mishna (*Menaḥot* 108b): With regard to **one who says: One of my bulls is consecrated,** if **he had two** bulls, then **the larger of them is consecrated.** The reason is that there is an assumption that one consecrates generously, and therefore he would have had the larger of the two bulls in mind. If so, in the case of the purses, why does the mishna not rule that his intent was for the best, i.e., the least worn-out, of the *perutot*? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: The latter clause** of the mishna is referring to a case **where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration.** In other words, he did not have in mind the best of the *perutot*, but the last of the coins.