Комментарий к Меила 6:9

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).

ביד חרש שוטה וקטן – who are not capable of carrying out a commission/agency, nevertheless, since his agency was done, the person who sent him committed sacrilege/misappropriation.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who unknowingly sends money that has been dedicated to the Temple with an agent to a storekeeper to buy something.

החנוני – who received the money from the hand of the deaf-mute/חרש, imbecile/שוטה or the minor/קטן, is liable when he spends the monies of sacred property on his possessions.

One who has sent a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor: If they carried out their agency the employer is guilty, If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty. A deaf-mute, imbecile and minor cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. However, if they fulfill their agency, then the one who sent them is liable for sacrilege, just as he is in all cases. If they do not fulfill the agency, then when the shopkeeper spends the money that they gave him, he will be guilty of sacrilege. The money has remained holy until this point, because the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor are not capable of being liable for sacrilege. Had the agent been a person of sound senses, he would have been liable for sacrilege when he didn’t fulfill the employer’s instructions. In such a case, when the storekeeper spends the money he will not be liable.

ונזכר – the householder [is reminded] prior to the monies reaching the hand of the storekeeper, and since he remembered, he furthermore is not liable for a sacrifice of sacrilege/misappropriation, for there is no sacrifice of misappropriation/sacrilege for a wanton act.

If one sent one of sound senses and remembers [that the money belongs to Temple property] before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it. Here the employer remembers that the money he gave to his agent is holy, but he remembers too late. The employee is already on his way. At this point the sender cannot be liable for sacrilege, or at least not to bring a sacrifice to atone for sacrilege, because a sacrifice is not brought by one who intentionally commits sacrilege. Although he sent it without knowing it was holy, since he knows before it is used, he is considered as one who intentionally commits sacrilege.

החנוני חייב – and this is the case where the houseowner and the agent were reminded, for here, there is no one who acted inadvertently other than the storekeeper. But if the houseowner is reminded but the agent is not reminded, the agent committed misappropriation because inadvertently erred first.

What should he do? He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this;” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money's worth. Don’t worry! There is a remedy to prevent the poor innocent storekeeper from committing sacrilege. The sender can redeem the coins even when they are not in his presence. All he has to do is take a perutah or a vessel that is worth at least a perutah and declare that the holiness of the coins that he already sent is transferred to the coin or vessel in his hand. The mishnah concludes by noting that Temple property can be redeemed both by coin and by things that are worth money.

כיצד יעשה – that is to say if the storekeeper knew about this penny that it is holy prior to his spending it or that it became combined with the rest of the pennies that he has, how should he act and be free to use his pennies.

שניהם לא מעלו – the houseowner did not commit sacrilege for his agency was not performed with a penny, but the agent did not commit misappropriation because he did not abrogate his agency of the houseowner with a penny, but for less than a penny, there isn’t an liability for sacrilege.

If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Bring me for half a perutah lamps and for the other half wicks,” and he went and brought for the whole perutah wicks or for the whole perutah lamps; Or if he said to him, “Bring me for the whole lamps or for the whole wicks,” and he went and brought for half [a perutah] lamps and for the other half wicks, neither is guilty of sacrilege. In this case the employer has not committed sacrilege because the agent changed his instructions. The agent also has not committed sacrilege for he only changed the instructions by half of a perutah (by spending the whole perutah on one thing and not half on each item). In order for the agent to be liable, he has to change the instructions for the entire perutah.

השליח מעל – that he abrogated the agency of the houseowner, whether with wicks or with candles, and there is In both of [the expenditure of] a penny.

But if he said to him, “Bring for half a perutah lamps from one place and for half a perutah wicks from another,” and he went and brought the lamps from the place where the wicks [were to be bought] and the wicks from the place where the lamps [were to be bought], the agent is guilty of sacrilege. In this case the agent changed the instructions completely and didn’t precisely fulfill any of the instructions that he was sent to fulfill. Therefore, he has committed sacrilege.

שניהם מעלו – as long as that Etrog/citron would be worth two pennies like the houseowner gave him. The houseowner committed sacrilege since the agent purchased for him according to what he said and worth as he gave him, he thusly performed his agency, but the agent committed a misappropriation for he purchased of his own intention a pomegranate with a penny that was not in the agency of the houseowner.

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” According to the first opinion, the employer is guilty of sacrilege with one of the perutahs, because the agent did perform the instructions to buy an etrog. The agent is guilty of sacrilege with the other perutah because he changed the instructions and bought a pomegranate with the other perutah. Rabbi Judah argues that the employer is not guilty at all, because he can claim that he wanted a two-perutah etrog, not a one-perutah etrog. Therefore, we don’t consider the agent as having fulfilled half of his instructions; rather he has not fulfilled the instructions at all and he alone is guilty of sacrilege.

ר' יהודה אומר בעה"ב לא מעל – for he (i.e., the houseowner) said to the agent, If you would purchase an Etrog/citron for two pennies like I gave to you, you would bring me a large Etrog/citron worth four pennies, [but] now that you didn’t give other than a penny, you brought me an Etrog/citron worth two pennies which is a small and bad, it is found that you did not perform my agency. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.” The employer sends him with a golden denar to buy a shirt. A golden denar is worth 25 silver denars, or 6.5 silver selas. The agent uses half of the money to buy the cloak, and the other half to buy a shirt. As in the previous section, the first opinion considers them both to have committed sacrilege. The employer committed sacrilege with the first half of the money, and the agent by changing the instructions with the second half. Again, Rabbi Judah argues that only the agent committed sacrilege. The employer sent him to buy a golden denar shirt (Gucci?) and not a cheaper one (Target?), so the agent didn’t fulfill any of his instructions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

החנוני – who sells produce or spices in the store.

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.

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.

כיון שהוציא את הראשונה – for the needs of his use, he has committed religious sacrilege.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a situation where one dedicated coin is in a bag full of non-sacred coins, but we don’t know which coin it is. If he uses the coins in the bag, at what point is he considered to have committed sacrilege?

וחכמים אומרים – he did not commit religious sacrilege

If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. According to Rabbi Akiva, as soon as he spends a perutah from this bag of coins, he is liable for sacrilege, lest that perutah was the holy one. As a penalty he will bring an asham talui (a suspended asham) for every perutah that he spends. This matches Rabbi Akiva’s position in Keritot 5:2 one who has committed a doubtful act of sacrilege must bring an asham talui. If he spends all of the coins in the bag, he will have to bring a certain asham because at that point we know that he has committed sacrilege. The sages hold that he is not liable for sacrilege until it is certain that he has used the dedicated coin. This is consistent with their opinion in Keritot 5:2 one does not bring an asham talui for sacrilege. He is liable for sacrilege only when he spends all of the coins.

until he spent all the money that was in the purse for the needs of unconsecrated products. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.

Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag. “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated” is interpreted to mean that the owner will give a perutah from the coins in this bag to the Temple. In other words, none of the coins are holy now, but one will be holy later on. In this case, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that the he is not liable for sacrilege unless he uses all of the coins in the bag. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Meilah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. By dedicating an entire chapter to the topic of sacrilege, we learn just how serious a crime it is to use funds in an inappropriate manner. In modern Hebrew “meilah” is the word for embezzlement, a crime that unfortunately many of our leaders cannot seem to avoid. Meilah teaches us boundaries holy property, dedicated for the spiritual use of the community cannot be used for non-sacred purposes. Furthermore, when one does so, it is not enough just to pay back the embezzled funds. One must add an additional one-fifth and bring a sacrifice to atone for the crime. Although, as always, the technical aspects of this crime overwhelm the rabbinic discussion, there is a moral lesson that lies behind them as well. I hope you have enjoyed Meilah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Tamid.

פרוטה מן הכיס זה – that is to say, do not use up the penny from this purse until there will be in it something consecrated.