יב מתני׳ <big><strong>השליח</strong></big> שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו השליח מעל
12 IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE, BUT IF HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT HIS APPOINTED ERRAND, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man has charged another person to make use on his behalf of consecrated things, both of them being ignorant of the transgression that they were committing thereby, and the agent carried out his commission exactly as he was told, his employer is guilty, because the Law of Sacrilege prescribing a guilt-offering as atonement for sacrilege applies only to an act committed in error as indicated in Lev. V, 15, and it was the employer who first trespassed in error. In this respect the Law of Sacrilege is an exception, for the general rule is that one cannot appoint a deputy for an unlawful act, v. supra 18b. If, however, the agent departed substantially from the task with which he was charged, his act is considered independent of his commission, and he is himself subject to the Law of Sacrilege.');"><sup>19</sup></span> FOR INSTANCE: IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: GIVE FLESH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to Temple property.');"><sup>20</sup></span> TO THE GUESTS AND HE OFFERED THEM LIVER, LIVER AND HE OFFERED THEM FLESH, HE HIMSELF IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. IF THE EMPLOYER SAID TO HIM: 'GIVE THEM ONE PIECE EACH', AND HE SAID TO THEM: 'TAKE TWO PIECES EACH', WHILE THE GUESTS THEMSELVES TOOK THREE PIECES EACH, ALL OF THEM ARE GUILTY OF SACRllege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer, because in respect of the first piece his order has been carried out, the agent because he exceeded his power in respect of the second piece and the guests because they misappropriated the third piece on their own accord.');"><sup>21</sup></span>