Meilah 6:3-4
משנה מעילה ו:ג-ד
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 6:3
משנה ו:ג
Hebrew:
נָתַן לוֹ פְרוּטָה, אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת, הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת, הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת, שְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא מָעֲלוּ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי בְחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ נֵרוֹת מִבֵּית פְּתִילוֹת וּפְתִילוֹת מִבֵּית נֵרוֹת, הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעָל:
English:
If the homeowner gave the agent one consecrated peruta and said to him: Bring me lamps [nerot] with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, and the agent went and brought him wicks with the entire peruta, or lamps with the entire peruta; or in a case where the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me lamps with the entire peruta or wicks with the entire peruta, and the agent went and brought him lamps with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, both of them are not liable for misuse of the peruta. In both cases, the homeowner is exempt because his instructions were fulfilled only with regard to half of a peruta, and the agent is exempt as he spent only half of a peruta on his own initiative. But if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me lamps from such and such place with one-half of the peruta and wicks from such and such place with one-half of the peruta, and the agent went and brought him lamps from the place that he designated for wicks, and wicks from the place that he designated for lamps, the agent is liable for misuse, as he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by the sum of an entire peruta.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna presents a clever mathematical puzzle about how deviation and fulfillment of agency interact when the agent partially follows instructions. The core question is: when an agent changes the allocation of a consecrated peruta between two types of items, who bears the me’ilah liability?
In the first two cases, neither party reaches the full peruta threshold for me’ilah. If the sender said “half for lamps, half for wicks” and the agent bought all lamps or all wicks, then the sender’s instructions were fulfilled for only half a peruta (the half allocated to whichever item the agent did buy), and the agent deviated with only the other half peruta. Since each person’s liability portion is only half a peruta, neither reaches the minimum threshold. The same logic applies in reverse — if the sender said “all for lamps” and the agent split the purchase.
The final case, however, introduces a critical distinction: when the sender specifies not only what to buy but where to buy it. If the sender says “lamps from place A, wicks from place B” and the agent swaps the locations, the agent has deviated with respect to the entire peruta — every part of his purchase came from the wrong place. The specification of location makes the instructions more granular, so that deviation from any part constitutes deviation from the whole. This teaches that the more specific the sender’s instructions, the easier it is for the agent to be considered as having deviated from his mission.
Key Terms:
- נרות (Nerot) = Lamps — oil lamps used for lighting, purchased with the consecrated money
- פתילות (Petilot) = Wicks — used in oil lamps; the complementary purchase to the lamps
- שליחות (Shlichut) = Agency — here demonstrating how the specificity of instructions affects who bears me’ilah liability
- חצי פרוטה (Chatzi peruta) = Half a peruta — insufficient on its own to trigger me’ilah liability
Mishna 6:4
משנה ו:ד
Hebrew:
נָתַן לוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ, הָבֵא לִי אֶתְרוֹג, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִפְרוּטָה אֶתְרוֹג וּבִפְרוּטָה רִמּוֹן, שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ, אֶתְרוֹג גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי קָטָן וָרָע. נָתַן לוֹ דִינַר זָהָב, אָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי חָלוּק, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִשְׁלשָׁה חָלוּק וּבִשְׁלשָׁה טַלִּית, שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ, חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ וְהֵבֵאתָ לִי קָטָן וָרָע:
English:
If the homeowner gave the agent two consecrated perutot, and said to him: Go and bring me an etrog, and he went and brought him an etrog with one peruta and a pomegranate with one peruta, both of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the sum of one peruta, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions with one peruta. Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he can say to the agent: I was seeking a large etrog worth two perutot, and you brought me a small, inferior etrog worth one peruta. If the homeowner gave the agent a consecrated gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars, as four silver dinars constitute a sela; and said to the agent: Go and bring me a robe, and the agent went and brought him a robe with three sela and a cloak with three sela, both of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the purchase of the robe for three sela, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by purchasing the cloak. Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he can say to the agent: I was seeking a large robe worth a gold dinar and you brought me a small, inferior robe worth three sela, i.e., twelve silver dinars.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna introduces the dispute between the first Tanna and Rabbi Yehuda about what happens when an agent partially fulfills his mission but also uses some of the money for an unauthorized purchase. The two cases — etrog/pomegranate and robe/cloak — share the same structure: the sender gave money for one item, and the agent bought that item for less than the full amount and used the remainder for something else.
According to the first Tanna, both parties are liable. The sender is liable because his agency was partially fulfilled — the agent did buy an etrog (or a robe) as instructed, using at least one peruta’s worth of consecrated money. The agent is independently liable because he deviated from instructions by spending the remaining consecrated money on a pomegranate (or cloak) that was never requested. Each person’s liability is tied to the portion of the consecrated money attributable to their decision.
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees regarding the sender. He argues that the sender can claim: “I wanted a large, high-quality etrog worth the full two perutot, and you brought me a small, inferior one.” In Rabbi Yehuda’s view, since the agent did not deliver what the sender truly wanted, the sender’s agency was not fulfilled at all, and the sender is exempt. This dispute reflects a fundamental question about agency: does partial fulfillment of instructions count as fulfillment, or must the agent deliver exactly what was envisioned? The first Tanna focuses on the objective action (an etrog was purchased), while Rabbi Yehuda considers the sender’s subjective expectation (a two-peruta etrog).
Key Terms:
- אתרוג (Etrog) = Citron — a citrus fruit used on Sukkot; here simply an example of a purchased item
- רימון (Rimon) = Pomegranate — the unauthorized item the agent purchased with the remaining money
- דינר זהב (Dinar zahav) = Gold dinar — a coin worth 25 silver dinars (approximately 6.25 sela’im)
- חלוק (Chaluk) = Robe/tunic — an inner garment; the item the sender requested
- טלית (Tallit) = Cloak/mantle — an outer garment; the unauthorized purchase by the agent