Meilah 21a — the Talmud in English

You might say: Is it not obvious that if he says this to them, the owner has committed meila? And what is the novelty in the Mishna? Your answer is:

What might you have said

even when the agent says to them, “Take one according to the owner’s intention and one according to my intention,”

the agent has uprooted the agency of the owner,

since he revealed to them that he is not acting according to the owner’s command,

and

therefore

, he should not commit meila

the owner. Therefore,

it teaches us

, the Mishna teaches us that the owner has committed meila, since the agent said to them that the first one was according to the owner’s intention, and they indeed took it according to his intention.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues defining an agent who carried out his agency, and concerning an agent who is deaf-mute, mentally incompetent, or a minor.

He said to him

the owner to the agent:

Bring me

money

from the window

a square opening in a wall, not open through to the outside, made for placing objects in it ].

Or

he said to him: Bring me

from the deluska

a sack]. And he did not tell him from which window or from which deluska, and there were many of them,

and

the agent

brought it to him,

and both the agent and the owner mistakenly did not know that the money was consecrated,

even though the owner said, “It was not in my mind”

from this window

but from this one! And

the agent

brought it from this one,

which had not been in his mind, and he had not carried out his agency, nevertheless,

the owner committed meila.

For one does not take into consideration what was in his heart, since “matters in the heart are not matters”; rather, one takes into consideration only his speech.

But if he said to him “

Bring me

money

from the window”

and he brought him from the deluska, or

he said to him, “Bring me

from the deluska,”

and he brought it to him from the window, the agent has committed meila .

Because he did not carry out his agency as he had been instructed .

The owner sent

consecrated money

by the hand of a deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor

to purchase from the shopkeeper,

if they carried out his agency, the owner committed meila, as is the law of an agent who carried out his agency. And the Gemara asks: Are a deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor not legally capable of agency?

, as is the law regarding an agent who carried out his agency. The Gemara asks: But a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, and a minor are not legally capable of acting as agents.

And if

they did not carry out his agency, the shopkeeper committed meila.

Because the owner did not commit meila, since his agency was not carried out, and the deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor did not commit meila, since they are not legally liable for meila . Therefore, the consecrated money had still not become unconsecrated until it came into the hands of the shopkeeper; it follows that the shopkeeper committed meila .

He sent it by the hand of a competent person

[that is, one legally capable of agency]

and remembered

the owner that the money was consecrated

before it reached

the

shopkeeper,

and the Gemara will explain that this means that the agent also remembered; it follows that neither of them committed meila, since they were willful, and there is no meila except unintentionally, as Rabbi Judah says [Kiddushin 54b]. Therefore:

the shopkeeper committed meila,

since the error was his, for he did not know that the money was consecrated; therefore, he is the one who committed meila,

and when he spends it ,

he commits meila.

The owner who remembered that the money was consecrated can save the shopkeeper from the prohibition of meila before the shopkeeper spends it .

And the Mishna explains:

How should he act?

He takes a peruta or an object,

of non-sacred property,

and says: “

The peruta of consecrated property

that I gave to the agent

wherever it is, is redeemed onto

an object

this,”

or, “this peruta,” and the money in the shopkeeper’s possession becomes non-sacred, because

consecrated property is redeemed with money or something of monetary value.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

He said to him, “Bring me from the window,” and he brought it to him.

Even though the owner said, “It was not this one that was in my mind, but that one,” and he brought it from this one, the owner committed meila.

And the Gemara explains:

What does it teach us,

what does the Mishna teach us? “

Matters in the heart are not matters.”

As explained in the Mishna.

We learned in our Mishna:

He sent it by the hand of a deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor; if they carried out his agency, the owner committed meila.

And we raise an objection: Why did the owner commit meila because of their actions,

for they are not legally capable of agency,

are a deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor not legally capable of agency, since they lack understanding?

The Gemara answers that although they are not legally capable of agency, nevertheless, since the meila was performed and their actions were pleasing to the owner, therefore the owner committed meila. [

In greater explanation: There is no need for “agency” here, meaning that the agent’s action should be attributed to the sender; it is sufficient that the sender acted, for through his actions his will in the meila was fulfilled .]

And the Gemara brings two statements of amoraim explaining this. Rabbi Elazar compares the act of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor to the law of preparation of foodstuffs.

Every food fit for human consumption does not become susceptible to impurity unless it was first “prepared” to receive impurity, through water or one of the other six liquids coming upon it, as it is stated [Leviticus 11]: “Of all food that may be eaten, upon which water comes, it shall become impure.”

The liquids prepare the food to receive impurity only if they were placed upon it with the consent of the owners, as it is stated [there]: “And when water is placed upon seed.” And the Sages expounded: It is written yiten, “he shall place,” that is, with his consent, but it is read yutan, “it shall be placed,” that is, water was placed upon it by itself—“yutan is similar to yiten: just as yiten is with his consent, so too, when it was placed by itself, it is prepared”—provided that it was placed with his consent, and that he is pleased with this water. Therefore, if dew fell upon the food and he is pleased with this, it is prepared to receive impurity. [As explained in Bava Metzia 22a.]

Now, in this manner of dew falling, at the very least an act was performed by Heaven. Indeed, even when it was prepared without any act, as will be explained, if the master of the house is pleased with it, it too is prepared to receive impurity.

And Rabbi Elazar learned from this that the same is true with regard to meila: an act of “agency” is not necessary, just as with preparation of foodstuffs the liquids are not the agent of the owner of the produce—and it is sufficient that the act be done with the owner’s consent.

Rabbi Elazar said: They made them

the Sages [defined the law of] a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor—

like an olive vat.

As we learned

[Toharot, chapter 9, Mishna 1]:

The olives

that he gathered from the field and brought into a vessel—

from when

were they prepared, and through this preparation

become susceptible to impurity,

when one of the impure persons touches them?

F

rom the time

that they exude the exudate of the olive vat.

That is, when they are inside a vessel in which olives are placed, and liquid begins to emerge from them, they are prepared by means of the liquid. For the owner of the olives is pleased with the liquid emerging from them .

And not the exudate of the basket

[a perforated wicker basket], since it does not retain the liquid, which is lost; therefore, the owner of the olives does not take the liquid into consideration.

And likewise, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the minor are like an olive vat that has no intelligence. That is, an act of “agency” is not necessary; rather, it is necessary only that the act be performed with the owner’s consent.

Rabbi Yohanan compares the law of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor to the law stated concerning an eruv .

One who wishes to walk on Shabbat more than two thousand cubits places bread at the end of two thousand cubits and acquires a place of residence there—and he is permitted to walk from the place of his eruv another two thousand cubits. This is called an “eruv of boundaries.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The act of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor is

like that

beraita

that we learned:

They gave it,

the eruv,

upon the monkey, and it carried it

the monkey, to the place where he wishes to acquire a place of residence,

or upon the elephant, and it carried it,

and he stands at a distance and watches it place the bread there, and says, “Let a place of residence be acquired for me in that place”—

it is an eruv .

Evidently,

even though the elephant is not fit for agency, nevertheless,

it performs his agency;

his agency was performed.

So too,

and the same applies with regard to meila: even though it is a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor—

his agency was performed,

his agency was performed. Therefore, the sender committed meila .

We learned in our Mishna:

He sent it by the hand of an intelligent person, and remembered before it reached the shopkeeper

the shopkeeper committed meila when it leaves.

The Gemara thought that only the master of the house remembered, while the agent did not remember and was performing his agency unknowingly—

and therefore we ask:

And even though he did not remember,

[remember],

did the agent?!

And he raises a contradiction:

But does not the following beraita contradict this? We learned

The master of the house remembered, but the agent did not remember—the agent committed meila.

The master of the house is exempt, as explained in the Mishna, since he is intentional, and there is no meila when one acts intentionally. The agent is liable, because he unknowingly removed consecrated money into the non-sacred domain. [ [A0130]Indeed, when both are unknowing, the sender is liable, because with meila “there is agency for a transgression.” But when the sender is exempt because he remembered, the meila falls upon the agent, as in all the laws of the Torah: “There is no agency for a transgression,” and the one who performs the act is liable . ]

[Indeed, when both act unknowingly, the sender is liable, because in misappropriation “there is agency for a transgression.” But when the sender is exempt because he remembered, the misappropriation falls upon the agent, as in all areas of Torah law: “there is no agency for a transgression,” and the person who performs the act is liable.]

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Our Mishna

our Mishna indeed speaks

when both remembered,

the sender and the agent; and since neither of them committed meila, the shopkeeper committed meila, as explained in the Mishna.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with the laws of meila through an agent.

He gave him

the master of the house gave the agent,

a peruta, and said

to him,

“Bring me with half of it candles

[earthenware vessels in which one lights]

and with half of it wicks.”

And he went

the agent,

and brought him with all of it,

with the entire peruta,

candles, or with all of it, wicks ,

Neither committed meila. The master of the house did not commit meila, since an act of meila worth a peruta was not performed through his agency ,

and likewise the agent did not deviate from the master of the house’s instructions by a peruta’s worth .

Or, if

he gave him a peruta and

said to him, “

Bring me all of it in candles,”

or

he said to him, “Bring me

all of it in wicks,”

and he went and brought half of it in candles and half of it in wicks, neither committed meila,

as explained.

But if

he gave him a peruta and

said to him, “

Bring me half of it in candles from a certain place, and half of it in wicks from a certain place,”

and he went and brought him candles from a place

of wicks, and wicks from a place of candles, the agent committed meila,

for he altered the householder’s intention with regard to the value of a peruta, and took from another place where he had not been commanded.

He gave him two perutot and said to him, “

Go and bring me an etrog

with two perutot,”

and he went and brought him with

one peruta

an etrog, and with the other a pomegranate; both committed meila.

The householder, since with one peruta his agency was carried out; and the agent, because he spent the second peruta according to his own intention and altered his agency.

Rabbi Judah says: The householder did not commit meila,

because

he says to him, “

I was seeking a large etrog

and therefore I gave you two perutot,

and you brought me

an etrog

that is small and bad.”

And the Gemara will explain in what the Sages dispute with Rabbi Judah.

And likewise,

he gave him a gold dinar,

which is worth twenty-five silver dinars, which are six sela,

and said to him, “

Go and bring me

from it

a cloak.”