Meilah 6:1-2
משנה מעילה ו:א-ב
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 6:1
משנה ו:א
Hebrew:
הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַ��. 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:
English:
With regard to an agent who performed his agency properly, if he was tasked to make use of a particular item, and the one who appointed him forgot that it was a consecrated item, the homeowner, who appointed him, is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as the agent acted on his behalf. Contrary to other cases of agency, where the guiding principle is that there is no agency in the performance of a transgression, and the agent is liable, in this case there is agency, and the homeowner is liable for the action of the agent. But if he did not perform his agency properly, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as once the agent deviates from his agency, he ceases to be an agent, and his actions are attributable to him. How so? If the homeowner said to the agent: Give meat to the guests, and he gave them liver; or if he said: Give them liver, and he gave them meat, the agent is liable for misuse of the consecrated item, as he deviated from his agency. If the homeowner said to the agent: Give them meat, a piece for this guest and a piece for that guest, and the agent says: Each of you take two pieces, and each of the guests took three pieces, all of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable for their consumption of the first piece of meat, as with regard to that piece his instructions were fulfilled. The agent is liable for the second piece, which he added to the instructions of the homeowner. Finally, the guests are liable for the third piece, which they took at their own initiative beyond the instructions of the agent. If the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the window in the wall or from the chest [hadeluskema], and the agent obeyed and brought it to him from the place that he instructed him, even though the homeowner said: In my heart, my desire was only that he should bring me the item from that other place, and as he brought it from this place he did not fulfill my instructions, nevertheless the homeowner is liable for misuse if the item or money is consecrated, as the agent did in fact fulfill his instructions. But if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the window in the wall, and the agent brought it to him from the chest; or if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the chest, and the agent brought it to him from the window, the agent is liable for misuse.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This is one of the most important mishnayot in the tractate, establishing the foundational rule of agency (shlichut) in the context of me’ilah. The general principle in Torah law is “ein shaliach li-dvar aveirah” — there is no agency for a transgression, meaning that when an agent commits a sin on behalf of a sender, the agent bears personal responsibility. Me’ilah, however, is a notable exception: when the agent faithfully fulfills his mission, the sender is liable, not the agent.
The reason for this exception is that me’ilah is an inadvertent transgression (shogeg). The sender forgot that the item was consecrated and instructed the agent innocently. The agent, who also did not know, simply followed instructions. Since the agent did nothing wrong from his own perspective — he carried out exactly what he was told — the liability falls on the sender whose forgetfulness set the chain in motion. However, the moment the agent deviates from his instructions, the agency relationship is severed, and the agent becomes an independent actor liable for his own me’ilah.
The mishna then works through several nuanced cases. The meat/liver scenario shows clear deviation. The “piece by piece” scenario demonstrates how liability can be split three ways — sender, agent, and guests each bear responsibility for the portion attributable to their independent decision-making. The window/chest cases illustrate the distinction between subjective intent and objective instruction: the sender’s inner thoughts do not matter if his spoken words were fulfilled. Only when the agent objectively deviates from the stated instruction does liability shift to the agent.
Key Terms:
- שליח (Shaliach) = Agent — one appointed to act on behalf of another; in me’ilah, the agent’s proper execution of his mission attributes the act to the sender
- בעל הבית (Ba’al ha-bayit) = Homeowner/sender — the person who commissions the agent and bears liability when the agency is fulfilled
- שליחות (Shlichut) = Agency — the legal relationship whereby one person acts on behalf of another
- גלוסקמא (Geluskema) = Chest or box — a storage container, from the Greek glossokomon
- לא היה בלבי (Lo hayah be-libi) = “It was not in my heart” — a claim of unexpressed inner intent, which the mishna rules is irrelevant when the verbal instruction was fulfilled
Mishna 6:2
משנה ו:ב
Hebrew:
שָׁלַח בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, אִם עָשׂוּ שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. לֹא עָשׂוּ שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הַחֶנְוָנִי מָעַל. שָׁלַח בְּיַד פִּקֵּחַ, וְנִזְכַּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל הַחֶנְוָנִי, הַחֶנְוָנִי מָעַל כְּשֶׁיּוֹצִיא. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. נוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה אוֹ כְלִי וְיֹאמַר, פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא, מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זֶה, שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ נִפְדֶּה בְכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כָסֶף:
English:
In a case where the homeowner sent consecrated money in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who lack halakhic competence and cannot be commissioned as agents, in order to purchase an item from a storekeeper, if they performed his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse, as his instructions were fulfilled. If they did not perform his agency but purchased a different item from the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse. If the homeowner sent the money in the hand of a halakhically competent person and the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated before the agent reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends the money for his personal use. The homeowner is exempt from liability for misuse, because once he remembers that the money is consecrated his misuse is no longer unwitting, and one is liable to bring an offering for misuse only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property. What shall the homeowner do in a case where he remembers that the money is consecrated, in order to prevent the storekeeper from liability for misuse? He takes one peruta or a vessel and says: The consecrated peruta, wherever it may be, is desacralized with this peruta or vessel. The peruta is thereby desacralized, as a consecrated item is desacralized with money and with an item that has the equivalent value of money. The result is that the storekeeper spends non-sacred money.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna explores what happens when the “agent” lacks legal capacity — a deaf-mute (cheresh), an imbecile (shoteh), or a minor (katan). These individuals cannot serve as formal halachic agents because they lack da’at (legal competence). Yet the mishna still assigns liability based on whether the sender’s instructions were carried out.
If the incompetent person happens to fulfill the sender’s instructions, the sender is liable for me’ilah. This is not because of a formal agency relationship — which cannot exist here — but because the sender set the process in motion and his intent was realized. The Talmud treats this as the sender’s direct act, accomplished through an intermediary. If the incompetent person deviates, however, the liability shifts — but not to the incompetent person (who lacks legal culpability). Instead, the storekeeper who accepts the consecrated money and spends it becomes liable, since he is the first competent person to derive personal benefit from the hekdesh.
The second half of the mishna addresses a case where the sender remembers that the money is consecrated after dispatching the agent but before the agent reaches the storekeeper. Since the sender now acts knowingly (meizid), he cannot be liable for me’ilah (which requires inadvertence). The storekeeper will be liable when he spends the money. To prevent this, the mishna provides a practical remedy: the sender can take a peruta or object and declare that the consecrated peruta, wherever it is, is hereby desacralized onto this replacement item. This transfer of holiness (chilul) works because consecrated property can be redeemed with money or items of equivalent value.
Key Terms:
- חרש, שוטה, וקטן (Cheresh, shoteh, ve-katan) = Deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor — the three categories of persons lacking halachic competence who cannot serve as agents
- שולחני (Shulchani) = Money changer — a professional who deals in currency exchange
- חנווני (Chenvani) = Storekeeper — a retail merchant who sells goods
- חילול (Chilul) = Desacralization/redemption — the process of transferring sacred status from one item to another of equal value
- מזיד (Meizid) = Intentional — acting with knowledge, which disqualifies one from the me’ilah offering (which requires inadvertence)