## Mishnah Meilah Chapter 6

###### Mishnah Meilah 6:1
[Mishnah Meilah 6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:1)

הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ, תֵּן בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִים וְנָתַן לָהֶם כָּבֵד, כָּבֵד וְנָתַן לָהֶם בָּשָׂר, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. אָמַר לוֹ, תֵּן לָהֶם חֲתִיכָה חֲתִיכָה, וְהוּא אָמַר טֹלוּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, וְהֵם נָטְלוּ שָׁלשׁ שָׁלשׁ, כֻּלָּן מָעֲלוּ. אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי מִן הַחַלּוֹן אוֹ מִגְּלֻסְקְמָא, וְהֵבִיא לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיָה בְלִבִּי אֶלָּא מִזֶּה וְהֵבִיא מִזֶּה, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי מִן הַחַלּוֹן וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מִגְּלֻסְקְמָא, אוֹ מִן גְּלֻסְקְמָא וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מִן הַחַלּוֹן, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעָל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **an agent who performed his agency** properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, **the homeowner,** who appointed him, **is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he **did not perform his agency** properly, **the agent is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him. **How so?** If the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver;** or if he said: Give them **liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse** of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Give them** meat, **a piece** for this guest and **a piece** for that guest, **and** the agent **says:** Each of you **take two** pieces, **and** each of the guests **took three** pieces, **all of them are liable for misuse.** The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent. If the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Bring me** this item or this money **from the window** in the wall **or from the chest [*hadeluskema*], and** the agent obeyed and **brought** it **to him** from the place that he instructed him, **even though the homeowner said: In my heart,** my desire was **only** that he should bring me the item **from that** other place, **and** as **he brought** it **from** this place he did not fulfill my instructions, nevertheless **the homeowner is liable for misuse** if the item or money is consecrated, as the agent did in fact fulfill his instructions. **But** if the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Bring me** this item or this money **from the window** in the wall, **and** the agent **brought** it **to him from the chest; or** if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money **from the chest, and** the agent **brought** it **to him from the window, the agent is liable for misuse.**


###### Mishnah Meilah 6:2
[Mishnah Meilah 6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:2)

שָׁלַח בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, אִם עָשׂוּ שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשׂוּ שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הַחֶנְוָנִי מָעַל. שָׁלַח בְּיַד פִּקֵּחַ, וְנִזְכַּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל הַחֶנְוָנִי, הַחֶנְוָנִי מָעַל כְּשֶׁיּוֹצִיא. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. נוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה אוֹ כְלִי וְיֹאמַר, פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא, מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זֶה, שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ נִפְדֶּה בְכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כָסֶף:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where the homeowner **sent** consecrated money **in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,** who lack halakhic competence and cannot be commissioned as agents, in order to purchase an item from a storekeeper, **if they performed his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse,** as his instructions were fulfilled. If **they did not perform his agency** but purchased a different item from the storekeeper, **the storekeeper is liable for misuse.** If the homeowner **sent** the money **in the hand of** a halakhically **competent** person **and** the homeowner **remembered** that the money was consecrated **before** the agent **reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends** the money for his personal use. The homeowner is exempt from liability for misuse, because once he remembers that the money is consecrated his misuse is no longer unwitting, and one is liable to bring an offering for misuse only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property. **What shall** the homeowner **do** in a case where he remembers that the money is consecrated, in order to prevent the storekeeper from liability for misuse? **He takes one *peruta* or a vessel and says:** The **consecrated *peruta*, wherever it may be, is desacralized with this** *peruta* or vessel. The *peruta* is thereby desacralized, **as a consecrated item is desacralized with money and with** an item that has **the equivalent** value of **money.** The result is that the storekeeper spends non-sacred money.


###### Mishnah Meilah 6:3
[Mishnah Meilah 6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:3)

נָתַן לוֹ פְרוּטָה, אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת, הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת, הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת, שְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא מָעֲלוּ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ נֵרוֹת מִבֵּית פְּתִילוֹת וּפְתִילוֹת מִבֵּית נֵרוֹת, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעָל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the homeowner **gave** the agent **one** consecrated ***peruta*** and **said to him: Bring me lamps [*nerot*] with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, and** the agent **went and brought him wicks with the entire** *peruta*, **or lamps with the entire** *peruta*; **or** in a case **where** the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Bring me lamps with the entire** *peruta* **or wicks with the entire** *peruta*, **and** the agent **went and brought** him **lamps with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, both of them are not liable** for misuse of the *peruta*. In both cases, the homeowner is exempt because his instructions were fulfilled only with regard to half of a *peruta*, and the agent is exempt as he spent only half of a *peruta* on his own initiative. **But if** the homeowner **said to** the agent: **Bring me lamps from such and such place with one-half of** the *peruta* **and wicks from such and such place with one-half of** the *peruta*, **and** the agent **went and brought him lamps from the place** that he designated for **wicks, and wicks from the place** that he designated for **lamps, the agent is liable for misuse,** as he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by the sum of an entire *peruta*.


###### Mishnah Meilah 6:4
[Mishnah Meilah 6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:4)

נָתַן לוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי אֶתְרוֹג, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִפְרוּטָה אֶתְרוֹג וּבִפְרוּטָה רִמּוֹן, שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ, אֶתְרוֹג גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי קָטָן וָרָע. נָתַן לוֹ דִינַר זָהָב, אָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי חָלוּק, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִשְׁלשָׁה חָלוּק וּבִשְׁלשָׁה טַלִּית, שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ, חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי קָטָן וָרָע:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the homeowner **gave** the agent **two** consecrated ***perutot*, and said to him: Go and bring me an *etrog*, and he went and brought him an *etrog* with one** *peruta* **and a pomegranate with one** *peruta*, **both of them are liable for misuse.** The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the sum of one *peruta*, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions with one *peruta*. **Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he** can **say to** the agent: **I was seeking a large *etrog*** worth two *perutot*, **and you brought me a small, inferior** *etrog* worth one *peruta*. If the homeowner **gave** the agent a consecrated **gold dinar,** which is worth twenty-five silver dinars, as four silver dinars constitute a *sela*; **and said to** the agent: **Go and bring me a robe,** **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.


###### Mishnah Meilah 6:5
[Mishnah Meilah 6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:5)

הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי, אִם צְרוּרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, מָעַל. אִם מֻתָּרִים, יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, לֹא מָעַל. אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, מָעַל. הַחֶנְוָנִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כְּשֻׁלְחָנִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Mishnah Meilah 6:6
[Mishnah Meilah 6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Meilah/r/6:6)

פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכִּיס, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר, פְּרוּטָה בְכִיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס. מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּאוֹמֵר פְּרוּטָה מִן הַכִּיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ, שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא וְהוֹלֵךְ 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*. **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*.