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.
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 thisperuta 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.
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 entireperuta, or lamps with the entireperuta; or in a case where the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me lamps with the entireperutaor wicks with the entireperuta, 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 perutaand 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.
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 oneperutaand a pomegranate with oneperuta, 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, inferioretrog 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 threeselaand a cloak with threesela, 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.
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.
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 firstperuta 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 perutotin 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 perutotin 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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.