פירוש על מעילה 6:1

השליח – the owner of the house/householder gave him (i.e., the agent) something that is dedicated to a sacred purpose of monies dedicated to the Temple to remove them in the designation of unconsecrated [things], and the agent performed his agency.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the question of one who sends another person to commit an act of sacrilege: who is guilty of the sacrilege, the sender or his agent?

בעל הבית מעל – for in regards to religious sacrilege, there Is a deputy to an illegal act (i.e., in this case, the responsibility for an illegal act can be shifted to the employer – as opposed to the normal scenario where it cannot – see Talmud Kiddushin 42b). But in entire Torah, there is no deputy for an illegal act except for the case of religious sacrilege/misappropriation because it is written concerning it (Numbers 5:6): “and that person realizes his guilt,” the person who acted inadvertently firs , which is the person who sent the individual representing him.

If an agent has fulfilled his agency, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his agency, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. The general rule is straightforward if the agent fulfills the sender’s instructions and neither knew that the item (food or otherwise) he was being sent to bring had been dedicated, the sender has committed sacrilege. But if the agent does not fulfill his agency, then we can’t hold the sender responsible and the agent has committed sacrilege. The mishnah now illustrates this.

תן בשר לאורחים – from that meat that is dedicated to a sacred purpose.

How so? If he [the employer] said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “[Give] liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege. “Meat” and “liver” are two different things, according to the lingo of the mishnah. If the sender sent his servant instructing him to give “meat” to the guests, and the servant gave liver (which I would have politely declined), then the agent has committed sacrilege because he did not fulfill his boss’s instructions. The same is true in the opposite case.

ונתן להם כבד – [liver] dedicated to a sacred purpose.

If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege. In this case, the servant fulfilled the agency when he gave the guests permission to take one piece. Therefore, the host has committed sacrilege. When the servant gave the second piece, which the host did not instruct him to do, the servant committed sacrilege. And finally, when the guests took a third piece (greedy guests), they committed sacrilege as well. Note that if they had not taken thirds, they would not have been guilty. I hope it teaches them a lesson.

והוא אומר טלו שתים – but only/provided that the agent would say, “take two [pieces],” from my own intention, then the owner of the house committed sacrilege/misappropriation , for the agent did not abrogate his agency even though he added on to the words of the person sending him, therefore, the person sending him misappropriated/committed sacrilege for his agency had been fulfilled, and the agent [himself] misappropriated/committed sacrilege because he added of his own consent/knowledge, and the guests also are liable on the third piece [of meat] that they took from their own consent/knowledge. But if the agent did not say, “take two [pieces of meat] from my own knowledge,” but rather [said], “take two [pieces of meat] through the agency of the owner of the house,” the person who sent him committed sacrilege for his words had been fulfilled, but the agent is exempt because he [merely] added upon the agency of the owner of the house and did not abrogate his agency – but what he had added, he did not add with his own consent.

If he [the employer] said to him, “Bring me [something] from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him [from one of these places] even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. In this case, the employer sent his employee to fetch something that turned out to be holy from one of either of two places. When the employee brings him the object and the employer uses it, the employer has committed sacrilege. Since he mentioned both places, he can’t say that he really meant for the object that was in the opposite place to have been brought. However, if he specifies precisely where the object is, and the employee brings an object from somewhere else, then the employee has not fulfilled his instructions and the employee is the one that is guilty of sacrilege.

גלוסקמא (chest/case) – in the Greek language, they call a chest/case a גלוסקמא (Genesis 50:26): “and placed in a coffin [in Egypt],” the Aramaic Targum/translation “and they placed him in a chest.”

אע"פ שאמר בעל הבית לא יה בלבי אלא מזה כו' מעל – because the agent acted according to his statement/word, but matters that are in the heart are not matters (as he had abrogated his agency).