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:

Se um emissário cumpriu suas instruções [de retirar algo pertencente ao Templo], o proprietário violou a meilah ; se ele não cumpriu suas instruções, o mensageiro violou a meila . Como assim? Se ele [o dono] dissesse a ele [o emissário], desse carne aos convidados e ele lhes desse fígado, [ou] se ele dissesse fígado e ele lhes desse carne, o emissário violaria a meila . Se ele [o dono] dissesse [ao emissário] que desse a cada um deles [os convidados] uma peça e ele [o emissário] dissesse a eles que pegassem duas peças cada e os convidados pegassem três peças, todos eles violariam a meilah . Se ele [o dono] disser a ele [o emissário], me traga [moedas] do parapeito da janela ou do estojo, e ele [inadvertidamente] lhe trará [moedas pertencentes ao templo], mesmo que o proprietário tenha dito Eu realmente quis dizer com este [que não pertence ao templo] e ele trouxe do outro [moedas pertencentes ao templo], o proprietário violou a meilah . Mas se ele dissesse me traga moedas do peitoril da janela e ele trouxesse moedas do estojo ou se lhe dissesse que trouxesse moedas do estojo e ele trouxesse moedas do peitoril da janela , o mensageiro violou a 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 completo Próximo versículo