Wenn er [dem Besitzer] ihm [dem Abgesandten] zwei Perutot [die zum Tempel gehören] gab und ihm sagte, er solle eine Zitrone für ihn kaufen, und er ging und kaufte ihm eine Zitrone im Wert einer Peruta und einen Granatapfel im Wert einer Peruta , die beide haben Meila verletzt . Rabbi Yehudah sagt, der Besitzer habe keine Mila begangen , weil er ihm [dem Abgesandten] sagen kann, dass ich um eine große Zitrone gebeten habe und Sie mir eine kleine schlechte gebracht haben. Wenn er ihm einen goldenen Dinar gab und ihm sagte, er solle ihm ein Hemd kaufen, und er ging und kaufte ihm ein Hemd für drei [ Sela , einen halben goldenen Dinar wert ] und einen Umhang für drei [ Sela ], verstießen beide gegen Meilah . Rabbi Yehudah sagt, der Besitzer habe Meilah nicht verletzt, weil er zu ihm sagen kann, ich habe um einen großen Umhang gebeten, und Sie haben mir einen kleinen schlechten gebracht.
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
שניהם מעלו – as long as that Etrog/citron would be worth two pennies like the houseowner gave him. The houseowner committed sacrilege since the agent purchased for him according to what he said and worth as he gave him, he thusly performed his agency, but the agent committed a misappropriation for he purchased of his own intention a pomegranate with a penny that was not in the agency of the houseowner.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” According to the first opinion, the employer is guilty of sacrilege with one of the perutahs, because the agent did perform the instructions to buy an etrog. The agent is guilty of sacrilege with the other perutah because he changed the instructions and bought a pomegranate with the other perutah. Rabbi Judah argues that the employer is not guilty at all, because he can claim that he wanted a two-perutah etrog, not a one-perutah etrog. Therefore, we don’t consider the agent as having fulfilled half of his instructions; rather he has not fulfilled the instructions at all and he alone is guilty of sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
ר' יהודה אומר בעה"ב לא מעל – for he (i.e., the houseowner) said to the agent, If you would purchase an Etrog/citron for two pennies like I gave to you, you would bring me a large Etrog/citron worth four pennies, [but] now that you didn’t give other than a penny, you brought me an Etrog/citron worth two pennies which is a small and bad, it is found that you did not perform my agency. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.” The employer sends him with a golden denar to buy a shirt. A golden denar is worth 25 silver denars, or 6.5 silver selas. The agent uses half of the money to buy the cloak, and the other half to buy a shirt. As in the previous section, the first opinion considers them both to have committed sacrilege. The employer committed sacrilege with the first half of the money, and the agent by changing the instructions with the second half. Again, Rabbi Judah argues that only the agent committed sacrilege. The employer sent him to buy a golden denar shirt (Gucci?) and not a cheaper one (Target?), so the agent didn’t fulfill any of his instructions.
