Talmud for Meilah 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:

If an emissary has fulfilled his instructions [to take from something belonging to the Temple], the owner has violated meilah; if he has not fulfilled his instructions then the messenger has violated meilah. How so? If he [the owner] said to him [the emissary], give meat to the guests and he gave them liver,[or] if he said liver and he gave them meat, the emissary has violated meilah. If he [the owner] said [to the emissary] to give each of them [the guests] one piece and he [the emissary] told them to take two pieces each and the guests each took three pieces, they have all violated meilah. If he [the owner] said to him [the emissary], bring me [coins] from the window [sill] or from the case, and he [inadvertently] brought him [coins belonging to the Temple], even though the owner said I really meant from this one [that does not belong to the Temple] and he brought from the other one [coins belonging to the Temple], the owner has violated meilah. But if he said bring me [coins] from the window[sill] and he brought him [coins] from the case or if he told him to bring [coins] from the case and he brought [coins] from the window [sill], the messenger has violated meilah.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: There⁵¹Mishnah Me‘ilah 6:1, also quoted in Babli Ketubot 98b. The case discussed is of a host who invited guests, told his agent to give each guest a piece of meat, the agent told each one to take two pieces, and each guest took three. Then it turned out that the meat was sacrificial meat illegally taken. The problem is, why should the host be liable for the action of an agent who clearly overstepped his authority, when the Mishnah here declares the agency to be null and void. One would infer that the host should not be guilty of larceny. In the Babli, the owner is held liable only if the agent told the guests to take one piece from the host and one from himself. This cannot be the interpretation of the Yerushalmi., we have stated: “If he said to him, give them one piece, but he said, take two each, and they took three each, all committed larceny;” but here you say so? He said to him, there the agency of the owner stopped after the first piece⁵²But the owner bears the responsibility for the first piece, while in the case of heave for grain the responsibilities cannot be neatly divided; the agent either acts for the owner or he does not., but here each single grain of wheat is under the agency of the owner. What is the difference? If there were before him two heaps, one put in order by his intention, the other put in order not by his intention⁵³The heave from the first heap is valid, from the second invalid..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse