Meilah 21b — the Talmud in English

And he went and brought him for three

sela, which are half a dinar,

a cloak; and with three, a cloak; both committed meila,

as above.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner did not commit meila.

Because

he says to him: “

I had asked for a large cloak, and you brought me a small and inferior one.”

And it will be explained in the Gemara.

The Gemara explains the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara in tractate Ketubot [99a] discusses a case in which he said to his agent: “Go and sell me a kor of land from my fields.” And the agent went and sold half a kor of land: whether the agent’s sale is a sale or not. The sides of the uncertainty are these: The agent says to the buyer: “This partial sale is for your benefit, for perhaps you will not need the money and will regret the sale, but you would not have been able to retract from it; and it is worthwhile for you to sell it part by part.” On the other hand, the seller claims: “I am not pleased that deeds of sale should increase upon me.”

From our Mishna it is possible to resolve this question [the same sugya also appears there, with slight changes, and it is explained here according to Rashi there].

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses: Is it possible to

learn from this

and resolve the question, according to this

one who says,

the one who said

to his agent: “

Go, buy

go and sell

for me a kor of land

a kor of land from my fields,”

and he went,

and the agent went,

and bought for him a half-kor,

and sold on his behalf half a kor of land. Shall we resolve that

the buyer acquires?

Just as in our Mishna, he instructed him to spend the entire dinar on a cloak, but he spent on his behalf only half a dinar, and the Mishna said [according to the Sages, whose opinion is the halakha] that the sale is valid, and the homeowner committed meila.

For if the sale is not valid for the homeowner, only the agent should have committed meila, but not the homeowner.

And we reject this:

They said,

there is no proof from our Mishna to resolve the uncertainty, for

here, what are the circumstances,

what case does our Mishna address?

For example, he brought him,

that he brought him a cloak that was

worth six

sela

for three

sela, and indeed fulfilled his agency and bought him a cloak worth six. Therefore, the homeowner committed meila,

unlike when he sold him only a half-kor for the price of a half-kor: he deviated from his instructions, and the sale is void. [

The wording of the Gemara there is: And we ask:

If so, why did the agent commit meila?

Was he not an agent who fulfilled his agency? And we answer: He committed meila

with regard to the cloak,

for the additional three sela that he spent on his own initiative and not with the homeowner’s authorization.]

And we ask:

If so,

if the case concerns bringing him an item worth six for three,

say the latter clause,

how will you explain the continuation of the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner did not commit meila,

because

he can say to him: “I had asked for a large cloak, and you brought me a small and inferior one.”

And why is it small and inferior? He brought him a large and good cloak worth six sela!

And we answer: Indeed, our Mishna, also in its latter clause, speaks of bringing him an item worth six for three.

And what

means

inferior? Inferior in price,

for he bought it for a small sum, while the homeowner had told him to spend six. And if you say, what does he care? Because

the homeowner said to him

the following:

If you had given him the entire dinar,

if you had bought a cloak with this entire gold dinar,

you would have brought me

you would have brought

an item worth two dinars,

and all the more so I would have profited more, for one who buys a large quantity together is given it at a reduced price. And we conclude: This explanation of the Mishna is not merely a rejection, but

it is also logically indicated

that the meaning is “inferior in price,”

For it is taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to legumes,

if they sent him to buy legumes for a dinar, and he bought a dinar’s worth for half a dinar, and with the other half he bought another type,

both committed meila,

because

legumes are sold by the sela, and legumes are sold by a peruta,

that is, they are sold for a sela in the same proportion in which they are sold for a peruta, and the seller does not reduce the price because of a large purchase by the sela, as will be explained.

It is evident that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason with regard to a cloak is: because the homeowner says, “If you had bought with all six sela, you would have bought more than double.” For if not, what is the difference between a cloak and legumes, and why does Rabbi Yehuda concede ?

And the Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances,

in what kind of sale of legumes is this speaking?

If,

if it is speaking

in a place where they sell by estimation,

in a place where they sell by assessment, then

with regard to legumes also, one who gives a sela,

one who buys a large quantity worth a sela,

they reduce the price for him more,

they reduce the price for him more than the ratio of a sela to a peruta, for this is the practice of sellers who sell by estimation. Why, then, does Rabbi Yehuda concede that the homeowner also committed meila? Cannot he claim: “When you found legumes worth a dinar for half a dinar, you should have bought with the entire dinar, and then you would have bought more than double”?

And we conclude:

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita concerning legumes speaks

in a place where they sell by measures,

in a place where they sell according to measure or weight.

Measure by measure ,

measure by measure,

for a peruta; for there their matter is fixed,

the prices are fixed, and the sellers do not reduce the price for a large purchase. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the homeowner committed meila, since he did not lose the profit of purchasing more than double for the entire dinar, for they do not give more for a large purchase.

Mishna:

The first clause of the Mishna is explained according to Rashi in tractate Bava Metzia [43a] and Kiddushin [53b]:

A treasurer who deposits money

of consecrated property unintentionally [thinking that it is his]

with a money changer,

who is a person who exchanges and makes change for money, and always needs money,

if

the money was

bundled,

tied in a pouch,

he may not use it

the money changer may not use it, because the knot reveals the depositor’s intention: he did not give it to him so that he should use it, but gave it only as a deposit.

Therefore, if he spent

it for ordinary use,

he committed meila,

the money changer, and not the treasurer.

If it is loose,

if the pouch of money was not tied,

he may use it,

it is permitted for the money changer to use

it. [

That is, according to the laws of custodians, he is permitted to use it.]

Therefore, if he spent it, he did not commit meila

the money changer did not commit meila, but the treasurer did, since the money changer used the money with the treasurer’s authorization, for the treasurer knew that the money changer would use it.

But one who deposits money

with a homeowner,

who is not a money changer,

in either case,

whether bundled or loose,

may not use it,

for a homeowner’s occupation is not exchanging and making change for money, and certainly he gave it to him only as a deposit.

Therefore, if he spent

it, the homeowner,

he committed meila,

the homeowner who received the deposit, and not the treasurer who deposited it .

A treasurer who deposits with a

shopkeeper,

who does not constantly need money, since people give him produce and other things on credit, and the small amount of money in his possession suffices for him—his law is

like that of a homeowner.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The shopkeeper’s law is

like that of a money changer ,

and when it is loose, he may use it.

A peruta of consecrated property fell into his pouch,

and became mixed with others.

Or, he said

the one who consecrated it: “

A peruta in this pouch is consecrated,”

and he did not specify which peruta. Now every single peruta is in doubt perhaps it belongs to consecrated property,

Once he spent the first one

for ordinary use,

he committed meila,

these are

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Although it is uncertain whether he benefited from consecrated property, nevertheless Rabbi Akiva follows his own position [Keritot 22b], that for uncertain meila one brings a provisional guilt-offering .

And the Sages say: He did not commit meila

for spending the first one, nor for the others, since each one is possibly consecrated property, and there is no meila on account of uncertainty [ and likewise he brings a provisional guilt-offering only for something for which, if he did it certainly, he would bring a sin-offering, and not for meila, for which, if certain, he brings a guilt-offering],

until he spends the entire pouch,

until the final peruta; then it is certain that one of them belongs to consecrated property, and he committed meila.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes to the Sages, when the one who consecrated it says

the one who consecrated it

“A peruta from this pouch is consecrated,” that he takes them out one after another,

it is permitted for him to take out one peruta at a time,

until he spends the entire pouch.

That is, until the last one; and the last one is consecrated property, and he commits meila when he spends it.

And in the Gemara it will be explained why Rabbi Akiva concedes, and how this differs from the previous law.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

And Rabbi Akiva concedes, when one says, “A peruta from this pouch is consecrated,” that he takes them out one after another until he spends the entire pouch.

And the Gemara relates:

When Rav Dimi came,

when he arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said: He raised an objection to him,

he challenged

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan: What is different in the first clause, what

differs in the first clause, where Rabbi Akiva disagrees,

and what is different in the latter clause,

and what differs in the latter clause, where he concedes to the Sages?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

The latter clause

speaks

of one who says

“This pouch will not be released from consecrated property,”

that is, “I will not finish using its money without one peruta being consecrated property.” And this wording certainly means the final peruta.

These are the words of Rav Dimi concerning the give-and-take between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.

When Ravin came, he said: He raised the matter of pouches against oxen.

Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan with a contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna concerning “oxen.”

For we learned,

for we learned [Menahot 108b]:

one who says, “One of my oxen

is consecrated

to the sacred funds”,

and he did not say which of them,

and he had two, the larger of them is consecrated.

Because “one who consecrates, consecrates with a generous eye”.

And it is difficult: why should it not likewise be said in the seifa of the Mishna that he did not intend the latter, but rather the choicest?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

the seifa,

it is speaking

of one who says, “This purse will not be exempt from the sacred funds”,

as stated above, and the meaning of this expression is only regarding the latter.