Mishná
Mishná

Talmud sobre Meilá 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:

Si un emisario ha cumplido sus instrucciones [de tomar de algo que pertenece al Templo], el propietario ha violado meilah ; Si no ha cumplido sus instrucciones, entonces el mensajero ha violado Meilah . ¿Cómo es eso? Si él [el dueño] le dijo [al emisario], dale carne a los invitados y él les dio hígado, [o] si él dijo hígado y les dio carne, el emisario ha violado la meilah . Si él [el propietario] dijo [al emisario] que les diera a cada uno de ellos [a los invitados] una pieza y él [el emisario] les dijera que tomaran dos piezas cada uno y que los invitados tomaran tres piezas, todos habrían violado a Meilah . Si él [el dueño] le dijo [al emisario], tráigame [monedas] de la ventana [alféizar] o de la caja, y él [inadvertidamente] le trajo [monedas pertenecientes al Templo], aunque el dueño dijo Realmente quise decir con este [que no pertenece al Templo] y él trajo del otro [monedas que pertenecen al Templo], el propietario ha violado la meilah . Pero si él dijo, tráigame [monedas] de la ventana [alféizar] y él lo traiga [monedas] del estuche o si le dice que traiga [monedas] del estuche y él trajo [monedas] de la ventana [alféizar] , el mensajero ha violado 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
Capítulo completoVersículo siguiente