One who deposits money with a money changer, if they are wrapped up [in a bundle] he [the money changer] may not use them. Therefore if he spent it [and then he finds out that it belongs to the Temple] he has violated <i>meilah</i>. If they are loose he [the money changer] may use them, therefore if he spent them he has not violated <i>meilah</i>. [If he deposited the money] with private owner, in either case he [the private owner] may not use them. Therefore if he spent [the money], he [the private owner] violated <i>meilah</i>. A storekeeper is considered a private owner, says Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, he is considered a money changer.
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
אם צרורין – tied up with an unusual knot even though it doesn’t have upon it a seal, or knots like the other knots and seals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it; and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege. If one deposits dedicated money with a moneychanger and the money is tied up, the moneychanger should not use the coins. If he does use the coins, then he is guilty of sacrilege. Having tied them up, it is as if the owner told him not to use them. However, if they are loose, the owner should expect that the moneychanger might use the coins, and replace them with other coins later on when he returns them. Therefore, if the moneychanger uses them, he has not committed sacrilege. The Talmud explains that in such a case the depositor has committed sacrilege because it is as if he gave the coins to the moneychanger with the explicit permission to use them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
לא ישתמש בהן – for he (i.e., the owner) revealed his intention that it was not appropriate that he should use that which was deposited, for since, he bound them in an unusual knot or placed upon it a seal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
If [the money was deposited] with a private person, he may not use it in neither case, and therefore if he did spent it he is guilty of sacrilege. A private person is not supposed to use money deposited with him. Therefore, if he does so and the money is dedicated, he is guilty of sacrilege, whether the money was tied up or given to him loosely.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
מותרין – it is called (i.e., loose), all the time that it is not tied with an unusual knot but rather it is tied like other ties and lacks a seal upon it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a money-changer. According to Rabbi Meir a shopkeeper is like a private person. If someone gives him coins, he may not use them, whether they are tied up or loose. Therefore, in both cases, if he uses the coins he has committed sacrilege. Rabbi Judah holds that a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. Therefore, if the coins were given to him loosely he may use them and in such a case the depositor is the one who will have committed sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
לפיכך אם הוציא מעל – for it is like the depositor said to him that he can use them, since they are not bound up, and he had indeed performed his agency, and the depositor also did not commit an act of sacrilege for he did not state explicitly that he (i.e., the money changer) can use them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
החנוני – who sells produce or spices in the store.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
כבעל הבית – if he deposited with him (i.e., the storekeeper) money, even though they are not tied up, he may not use them, therefore if they were monies devoted to a sacred purpose and they were used, he has committed religious sacrilege/misappropriation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Meilah
כשלחני – and he is permitted to use the monies that were deposited with him when they are not bound up, therefore, he did not commit a religious sacrilege.
