Meilah 6:5-6
משנה מעילה ו:ה-ו
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Meilah | Chapter: 6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 6:5
משנה ו:ה
Hebrew:
הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי, אִם צְרוּרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, מָעַל. אִם מֻתָּרִים, יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, לֹא מָעַל. אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הוֹצִיא, מָעַל. הַחֶנְוָנִי כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כְּשֻׁלְחָנִי:
English:
With regard to one who deposits consecrated money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if the money changer spent the money, he is liable for its misuse. If the money was unbound he may use it, and therefore if the money changer spent the money, he is not liable for its misuse. By contrast, if one deposited money with a homeowner, whether it is bound or whether it is unbound, the one with whom it was deposited may not use it, and therefore if he spent the money, he is liable for misuse. In this regard, the halakhic status of a storekeeper is like that of a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of a storekeeper is like that of a money changer.
קלאוד על המשנה:
This mishna shifts from agency to the laws of deposits (pikadon) and how the depositary’s right to use deposited funds affects me’ilah liability. The key distinction is between a money changer (shulchani) and a homeowner (ba’al ha-bayit), based on the presumed terms of the deposit.
When money is deposited with a money changer, the nature of the deposit depends on how the money is presented. If the coins are bound together (tzerurin), this signals that the depositor wants these specific coins returned — the money changer has no right to use them. Therefore, if the money changer spends them, he has committed me’ilah (assuming the money was consecrated). If the coins are loose (mutarin), the presumption is that the depositor expects the money changer to use them in his business and return an equivalent sum later. Since the money changer has the right to use the funds, spending them is not unauthorized — and me’ilah requires unauthorized use. By contrast, a homeowner has no professional reason to use deposited funds, so whether bound or loose, the depositary may not use them, and spending them constitutes me’ilah.
The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerns the storekeeper. Rabbi Meir classifies a storekeeper like a homeowner — since storekeepers deal in goods rather than money, they have no presumed right to use deposited coins. Rabbi Yehuda classifies a storekeeper like a money changer, presumably because storekeepers also handle significant cash flow and may be assumed to have the right to use loose deposited funds. This dispute has implications for determining when “unauthorized” use — and therefore me’ilah — has occurred.
Key Terms:
- שולחני (Shulchani) = Money changer — a professional currency dealer who regularly handles and circulates money
- צרורין (Tzerurin) = Bound/wrapped — coins tied together, signaling the depositor wants the same coins returned
- מותרין (Mutarin) = Loose/unbound — coins deposited loosely, implying the depositary may use and replace them
- פקדון (Pikadon) = Deposit — property entrusted to another for safekeeping
- חנווני (Chenvani) = Storekeeper — the subject of the Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Yehuda dispute regarding his status
Mishna 6:6
משנה ו:ו
Hebrew:
פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכִּיס, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר, פְּרוּטָה בְכִיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, מָעַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס. מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּאוֹמֵר פְּרוּטָה מִן הַכִּיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ, שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס:
English:
If a consecrated peruta fell into one’s purse, in which there were non-sacred perutot, or in a case where one said: One peruta in this purse is consecrated, once he spent the first peruta from the purse for non-sacred purposes, he is liable for its misuse. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: He is not liable for misuse until he spends all the perutot in the entire purse, as only then is it certain that he spent the consecrated peruta. And Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Rabbis in a case where one says: One peruta from the coins in this purse is consecrated, that he may continue spending the perutot in the purse for non-sacred purposes and becomes liable for misuse only once he spends all the perutot in the entire purse. His formulation indicates that his desire was that the final remaining peruta in the purse would be consecrated, and therefore one is liable for misuse only when he spends that peruta.
קלאוד על המשנה:
The final mishna of Masechet Meilah addresses the fascinating problem of a consecrated peruta mixed among non-sacred coins in a purse. Since the coins are indistinguishable, when does me’ilah liability attach — when the first coin is spent or only when the entire purse is emptied?
Rabbi Akiva takes the stringent position: once the first peruta is spent, the person is liable for me’ilah. His reasoning is that from a probabilistic standpoint, the consecrated peruta might have been the first one removed. Since each coin drawn could be the sacred one, Rabbi Akiva holds that liability attaches at the earliest possible moment. The Sages disagree, ruling that me’ilah occurs only when the entire purse is spent, because only then is it certain that the consecrated peruta was used. Until the last coin is spent, the person can always claim that the sacred peruta is still in the purse.
The mishna then records a crucial concession by Rabbi Akiva. When the person says “a peruta from this purse is hekdesh” (using the word “from” — min), Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that liability arises only when the whole purse is emptied. The linguistic difference is significant: “a peruta in this purse” (be-khis zeh) suggests one specific existing coin is sacred, so each coin drawn might be it. But “a peruta from this purse” (min ha-kis) indicates the person’s intent that the last remaining peruta should become sacred — effectively designating which peruta is consecrated by the process of elimination. This distinction between “in” (be-) and “from” (min) reflects the Talmud’s careful attention to the precise formulation of declarations of consecration.
Key Terms:
- כיס (Kis) = Purse/pouch — a container holding multiple coins, one of which is consecrated
- רבי עקיבא (Rabbi Akiva) = One of the greatest Tannaim; takes the stringent position that me’ilah attaches when the first coin is spent
- חכמים (Chakhamim) = The Sages — the majority view that me’ilah occurs only when the entire purse is spent
- פרוטה בכיס (Peruta ba-kis) = “A peruta in this purse” — wording that designates an existing specific coin as sacred
- פרוטה מן הכיס (Peruta min ha-kis) = “A peruta from this purse” — wording that designates the final remaining coin as sacred