Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2019 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืดืค

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Meilah 21

If a messenger only does part of what the owner says, who is responsible for meilah? If the owner realizes the money was sanctified before the messenger used the money, who is responsible? If the messenger spent less money on the item than asked and purchased something else with the rest of the money, it is considered that the messenger partly fulfilled what the owner requested? If santified money mixed with other money, at what point is one obligated for misuse?

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขืงืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Rav Sheshet adds that it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha, lest you say that the agent has uprooted the agency of the homeowner by adding to his instructions, and therefore the homeowner is not liable for the prohibition of misuse even for the first piece of meat. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that the homeowner is also liable.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืœื‘ื™ ืืœื ืžื–ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ

MISHNA: 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.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืื ืขืฉื• ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืœื ืขืฉื• ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ

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.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื•ื ื–ื›ืจ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ืืฆืœ ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ ืœื›ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื

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.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืื• ื›ืœื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื—ื•ืœืœ ืขืœ ื–ื” ืฉื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืคื“ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ื›ืกืฃ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืœื‘ ืื™ื ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the agent did as instructed by the homeowner, even if the homeowner claimed that he had another desire, it is the homeowner who is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? The Gemara answers: It is teaching that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. Therefore it is the homeowner who is liable, not the agent, despite the fact that the agent did not do what the homeowner desired.

ืฉื™ืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืื ืขืฉื• [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But they cannot be involved in agency. Since these groups of people lack halakhic competence, they cannot be agents; if so, how can the homeowner be liable for misuse?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืขืฉืื•ื ื›ืžืขื˜ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื™ืชื™ื

Rabbi Elazar says in explanation: The Sages rendered these individuals halakhically like a vat [kemaโ€™atan] of olives with regard to ritual impurity. Since it is beneficial for the homeowner when the moisture of the olives, i.e., liquid that seeps from the olives, leaks into a vat, as explained below, it is considered as though the homeowner had intent for the moisture to be there. Similarly, with regard to these categories of people, since it suits the homeowner when they do what he requested it is considered as though they acted with his intent.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžืฉื™ื–ื™ืขื• ื–ื™ืขืช ื”ืžืขื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ื–ื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืคื”

As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:1): When do the olives become susceptible to ritual impurity? From when they exude moisture. This is referring specifically to the moisture that emerges into the vat, but not the moisture that emerges into the basket. The moisture that comes into the vat softens the olives and is beneficial to the olive oil production, as it renders them easier to press. For this reason it is considered as though the homeowner has intent for the moisture to be there, and that moisture therefore renders the olives it touches susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, moisture in the basket serves no purpose, as it trickles out through holes in the basket. Consequently, it is not there with the intent of the homeowner and does not render the olives susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืื•ืชื” ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื ืชื ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื•ืฃ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืคื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื• ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืขื™ืจื•ื‘ ืืœืžื ืงื ืขื‘ื“ื ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This case of a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor, is like that which we learned in a baraita with regard to placing food for a joining of Shabbat boundaries, i.e., an eiruv: If one placed the food of the eiruv on a monkey, and the monkey brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he placed it on a trained elephant, and the elephant brought it to the proper location, and he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. Evidently, the agency is performed by the monkey or elephant, despite the fact that they are unfit to serve as agents. So too, in the case of the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, the agency is performed despite the fact that they cannot be involved in agency.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืื™ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ื ื–ื›ืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ ื ื–ื›ืจื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. This indicates that the storekeeper is liable even though the agent did not remember, but the homeowner alone remembered. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated, but the agent did not remember, the agent is liable for misuse. If they both remembered that the money is consecrated, the storekeeper is liable for misuse.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื ื–ื›ืจื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื

Rav Sheshet said in resolution of this contradiction: The mishna is also referring to a case where both the agent and the agent remembered that the money was consecrated, and for this reason the storekeeper alone is liable for misuse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื ืจื•ืช ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื ืจื•ืช ืื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื ืžืขืœื•

MISHNA: 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.

ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื ืจื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ื ืจื•ืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ

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 homeownerโ€™s instructions by the sum of an entire peruta.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืืชืจื•ื’ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืช ืืชืจื•ื’ ื•ื‘ืื—ืช ืจื™ืžื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืืชืจื•ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

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 homeownerโ€™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.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ื™ื ืจ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื—ืœื•ืง

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,

ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืœื•ืง ื•ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืœื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื—ืœื•ืง ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

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 homeownerโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ ื›ื•ืจื ื“ืืจืขื ื•ืื–ืœ ื•ื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืชื›ื ืงื ื™ ืœื•ืงื—

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: One can learn from the mishna the resolution to an unresolved dilemma in tractate Ketubot (98b), that in a case of one who said to his agent: Go and sell on my behalf a kor of land, and he went and sold for him a halfkor, the purchaser acquires the half-kor of land that he purchased. Although the agent did not fulfill his agency entirely, the part that he did perform is valid.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉืฉ ื‘ืฉืœืฉ

Some Sages say that one cannot infer this resolution from the mishna. What are the circumstances of the mishna here? It is referring a case where the agent brought him a robe worth six sela, i.e., the value of the gold dinar that the homeowner gave him, which he acquired for three sela. If so, the homeowner received exactly what he wanted and the agent did not deviate from the agency, except that he also purchased a cloak without being instructed to do so. This is dissimilar to the case of an agent who sells a half-kor of land.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื—ืœื•ืง ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ื—ืœื•ืง ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is the case of the mishna, say the latter clause: 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. It is clear from the mishna that the homeowner did not receive exactly what he wanted, but rather an inferior robe.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื™ื”ื‘ืช ื“ื™ื ืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืื™ื™ืชื™ืช ืœื™ ืฉื•ื” ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda means that the homeowner could have said to the agent: Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, if you had given the entire dinar as I requested, you could have brought me a much finer robe, worth at least two dinars.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืฉื”ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื ืจ

The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna, as it teaches in the latter clause, i.e., it is taught in the Tosefta (2:4): Rabbi Yehuda concedes in a case where the agent purchased only part of the legumes which the one who appointed him requested, that both are liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason for this ruling is that a small amount of legumes is always sold for one peruta and a larger amount of legumes is invariably sold for a dinar. One can infer from Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement that in the case of another item, e.g., a robe, purchasing a superior-quality robe for a higher price would bring additional benefit to the homeowner.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ืืชืจื ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืกืœืข ืžื•ื–ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืคื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ื“ื•ื›ืชื ื“ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื ื™ ื›ื ื™ ื›ื ื ื›ื ื ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื“ื”ืชื ืคืกื™ืง ืžื™ืœืชื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a town where they sell legumes by appraisal of an itemโ€™s value, then with regard to these legumes as well, purchasing a larger quantity should reduce the price, which would mean that if one gave a sela the price of the legumes would become cheaper. Rav Pappa said: The Tosefta is referring to a town where they sell and set the price by containers, and each container is the same price: Each and every container is sold for one peruta. The significance of this fact is that there the matter is fixed, i.e., each container of legumes is sold for the same price, regardless of the quantity of legumes purchased; there is no reduction for buying in bulk.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืงื™ื“ ืžืขื•ืช ืืฆืœ ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื™ ืื ืฆืจื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขืœ ืื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœื ืžืขืœ ืืฆืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื™

MISHNA: 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.

ื ืคืœื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื›ื™ืกื• ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื‘ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืžืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ืก

If a consecrated peruta fell into oneโ€™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.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ืก

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that 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 that he becomes liable for misuse only once he spends all the perutot in the entire purse. With regard to this case, the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: What is different in the first clause, which addresses a situation where one says: One peruta in this purse is consecrated, in which case Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the Rabbis, and what is different in the latter clause, where he agrees with them?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to Reish Lakish: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration. In other words, his desire was that he would not spend all of the perutot in the purse without consecrating one to the Temple. Consequently, he is liable for misuse only when he uses the last coin in the purse for non-sacred purposes and leaves none to be consecrated.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืจืžื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara further relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Reish Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan between the mishna here, discussing purses, and another mishna, discussing bulls. As we learned in a mishna (Menaแธฅot 108b): With regard to one who says: One of my bulls is consecrated, if he had two bulls, then the larger of them is consecrated. The reason is that there is an assumption that one consecrates generously, and therefore he would have had the larger of the two bulls in mind. If so, in the case of the purses, why does the mishna not rule that his intent was for the best, i.e., the least worn-out, of the perutot? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration. In other words, he did not have in mind the best of the perutot, but the last of the coins.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Meilah 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 21

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขืงืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Rav Sheshet adds that it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha, lest you say that the agent has uprooted the agency of the homeowner by adding to his instructions, and therefore the homeowner is not liable for the prohibition of misuse even for the first piece of meat. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that the homeowner is also liable.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืœื‘ื™ ืืœื ืžื–ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืœื•ืกืงืžื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ

MISHNA: 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.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืื ืขืฉื• ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืžืขืœ ืœื ืขืฉื• ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ

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.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื•ื ื–ื›ืจ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ืืฆืœ ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ ืœื›ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื

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.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืื• ื›ืœื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื—ื•ืœืœ ืขืœ ื–ื” ืฉื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื ืคื“ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ื›ืกืฃ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืœื‘ ืื™ื ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the agent did as instructed by the homeowner, even if the homeowner claimed that he had another desire, it is the homeowner who is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? The Gemara answers: It is teaching that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. Therefore it is the homeowner who is liable, not the agent, despite the fact that the agent did not do what the homeowner desired.

ืฉื™ืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืื ืขืฉื• [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But they cannot be involved in agency. Since these groups of people lack halakhic competence, they cannot be agents; if so, how can the homeowner be liable for misuse?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืขืฉืื•ื ื›ืžืขื˜ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื™ืชื™ื

Rabbi Elazar says in explanation: The Sages rendered these individuals halakhically like a vat [kemaโ€™atan] of olives with regard to ritual impurity. Since it is beneficial for the homeowner when the moisture of the olives, i.e., liquid that seeps from the olives, leaks into a vat, as explained below, it is considered as though the homeowner had intent for the moisture to be there. Similarly, with regard to these categories of people, since it suits the homeowner when they do what he requested it is considered as though they acted with his intent.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžืฉื™ื–ื™ืขื• ื–ื™ืขืช ื”ืžืขื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ื–ื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืคื”

As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:1): When do the olives become susceptible to ritual impurity? From when they exude moisture. This is referring specifically to the moisture that emerges into the vat, but not the moisture that emerges into the basket. The moisture that comes into the vat softens the olives and is beneficial to the olive oil production, as it renders them easier to press. For this reason it is considered as though the homeowner has intent for the moisture to be there, and that moisture therefore renders the olives it touches susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, moisture in the basket serves no purpose, as it trickles out through holes in the basket. Consequently, it is not there with the intent of the homeowner and does not render the olives susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืื•ืชื” ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื ืชื ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื•ืฃ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืคื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื• ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืขื™ืจื•ื‘ ืืœืžื ืงื ืขื‘ื“ื ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื™ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This case of a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor, is like that which we learned in a baraita with regard to placing food for a joining of Shabbat boundaries, i.e., an eiruv: If one placed the food of the eiruv on a monkey, and the monkey brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he placed it on a trained elephant, and the elephant brought it to the proper location, and he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. Evidently, the agency is performed by the monkey or elephant, despite the fact that they are unfit to serve as agents. So too, in the case of the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, the agency is performed despite the fact that they cannot be involved in agency.

ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืคืงื— ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืื™ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœื ื ื–ื›ืจ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ ื ื–ื›ืจื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ืžืขืœ

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. This indicates that the storekeeper is liable even though the agent did not remember, but the homeowner alone remembered. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated, but the agent did not remember, the agent is liable for misuse. If they both remembered that the money is consecrated, the storekeeper is liable for misuse.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉื ื–ื›ืจื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื

Rav Sheshet said in resolution of this contradiction: The mishna is also referring to a case where both the agent and the agent remembered that the money was consecrated, and for this reason the storekeeper alone is liable for misuse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื ืจื•ืช ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื ืจื•ืช ืื• ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื ืžืขืœื•

MISHNA: 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.

ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ื ืจื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื—ืฆื™ื” ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื ืจื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ื•ืคืชื™ืœื•ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ื ืจื•ืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ืžืขืœ

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 homeownerโ€™s instructions by the sum of an entire peruta.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ืืชืจื•ื’ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืช ืืชืจื•ื’ ื•ื‘ืื—ืช ืจื™ืžื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืืชืจื•ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

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 homeownerโ€™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.

ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ื™ื ืจ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื—ืœื•ืง

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,

ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืœื•ืง ื•ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืœื™ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื—ืœื•ืง ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

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 homeownerโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ ื›ื•ืจื ื“ืืจืขื ื•ืื–ืœ ื•ื–ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืชื›ื ืงื ื™ ืœื•ืงื—

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: One can learn from the mishna the resolution to an unresolved dilemma in tractate Ketubot (98b), that in a case of one who said to his agent: Go and sell on my behalf a kor of land, and he went and sold for him a halfkor, the purchaser acquires the half-kor of land that he purchased. Although the agent did not fulfill his agency entirely, the part that he did perform is valid.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉืฉ ื‘ืฉืœืฉ

Some Sages say that one cannot infer this resolution from the mishna. What are the circumstances of the mishna here? It is referring a case where the agent brought him a robe worth six sela, i.e., the value of the gold dinar that the homeowner gave him, which he acquired for three sela. If so, the homeowner received exactly what he wanted and the agent did not deviate from the agency, except that he also purchased a cloak without being instructed to do so. This is dissimilar to the case of an agent who sells a half-kor of land.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืžืขืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื—ืœื•ืง ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืœื™ ื—ืœื•ืง ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ืจืข

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is the case of the mishna, say the latter clause: 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. It is clear from the mishna that the homeowner did not receive exactly what he wanted, but rather an inferior robe.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื™ื”ื‘ืช ื“ื™ื ืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืื™ื™ืชื™ืช ืœื™ ืฉื•ื” ืฉื ื™ ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda means that the homeowner could have said to the agent: Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, if you had given the entire dinar as I requested, you could have brought me a much finer robe, worth at least two dinars.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื• ืฉื”ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื ืจ

The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna, as it teaches in the latter clause, i.e., it is taught in the Tosefta (2:4): Rabbi Yehuda concedes in a case where the agent purchased only part of the legumes which the one who appointed him requested, that both are liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason for this ruling is that a small amount of legumes is always sold for one peruta and a larger amount of legumes is invariably sold for a dinar. One can infer from Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s statement that in the case of another item, e.g., a robe, purchasing a superior-quality robe for a higher price would bring additional benefit to the homeowner.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ืืชืจื ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืกืœืข ืžื•ื–ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืคื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ื“ื•ื›ืชื ื“ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ื ื™ ื›ื ื™ ื›ื ื ื›ื ื ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื“ื”ืชื ืคืกื™ืง ืžื™ืœืชื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a town where they sell legumes by appraisal of an itemโ€™s value, then with regard to these legumes as well, purchasing a larger quantity should reduce the price, which would mean that if one gave a sela the price of the legumes would become cheaper. Rav Pappa said: The Tosefta is referring to a town where they sell and set the price by containers, and each container is the same price: Each and every container is sold for one peruta. The significance of this fact is that there the matter is fixed, i.e., each container of legumes is sold for the same price, regardless of the quantity of legumes purchased; there is no reduction for buying in bulk.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืงื™ื“ ืžืขื•ืช ืืฆืœ ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื™ ืื ืฆืจื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขืœ ืื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœื ืžืขืœ ืืฆืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื™

MISHNA: 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.

ื ืคืœื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื›ื™ืกื• ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื‘ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืžืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ืก

If a consecrated peruta fell into oneโ€™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.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ืก

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that 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 that he becomes liable for misuse only once he spends all the perutot in the entire purse. With regard to this case, the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Reish Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: What is different in the first clause, which addresses a situation where one says: One peruta in this purse is consecrated, in which case Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the Rabbis, and what is different in the latter clause, where he agrees with them?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to Reish Lakish: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration. In other words, his desire was that he would not spend all of the perutot in the purse without consecrating one to the Temple. Consequently, he is liable for misuse only when he uses the last coin in the purse for non-sacred purposes and leaves none to be consecrated.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืจืžื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara further relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Reish Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan between the mishna here, discussing purses, and another mishna, discussing bulls. As we learned in a mishna (Menaแธฅot 108b): With regard to one who says: One of my bulls is consecrated, if he had two bulls, then the larger of them is consecrated. The reason is that there is an assumption that one consecrates generously, and therefore he would have had the larger of the two bulls in mind. If so, in the case of the purses, why does the mishna not rule that his intent was for the best, i.e., the least worn-out, of the perutot? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: The latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where one said: This purse will not be exempt from consecration. In other words, he did not have in mind the best of the perutot, but the last of the coins.

Scroll To Top