Meilah 41
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר לו הבא לי מן החלון או מן הדלוסקמא
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SAID TO ANOTHER PERSON, 'GET ME [SUCH A THING] FROM THE WIND OW OR FROM THE CHEST',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both containing the same kind of consecrated property.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אבל אם אמר לו הבא לי מן החלון
AND HE BROUGHT IT FROM ANOTHER PLACE, THE EMPLOYER IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the rule that the uttered word and not the unexpressed thought of a man are of avail.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
שלח ביד חרש שוטה וקטן אם עשו שליחותו בעה"ב מעל לא עשו שליחותו חנווני מעל
AND THEY CARRIED OUT THEIR APPOINTED ERRAND THE EMPLOYER IS GUILTY, IF THEY DID NOT CARRY OUT THEIR APPOINTED ERRAND, THE SHOPKEEPER IS GUILTY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as he spends the money, for the shop keeper at this point transfers it from Temple property to private possession. As long as it is with the shopkeeper, the money is regarded as deposited with him.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
כיצד יעשה
[THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO TEMPLE PROPERTY] BEFORE IT HAS COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE SHOPKEEPER, THE SHOPKEEPER WILL BE GUILTY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer and the messenger are exempted because the Law of Sacrilege applies only in the case of inadvertency.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
שההקדש נפדה בכסף ובשוה כסף
WHAT SHALL HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the employer, according to Rashi and Tosaf., and according to Maim. the shopkeeper who has learned in the meantime that a coin of sacred property is among his money.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
עשאום כמעטן של זיתים
IF ONE HAS COMMISSIONED A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR, AND THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT etc. But surely these people are legally not fit to become agents! - Said R'Eleazar: They have the same status as the vat of olives of which we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. IX, 1.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
דתנן
From what tree do olives become susceptible to defilement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Food is susceptible to defilement only after it has been moistened with liquid. It is, however, essential that the circumstances are such as to enable one to assume that the owner regards the moistening as desirable.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
הזיתים מאימתי מקבלין טומאה משיזיעו זיעת המעטן ולא זיעת הקופה
When they begin to exude,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prepare the olives for the press they used to be packed in vessels until they formed a viscid mass. Previous to that they were kept in baskets. The exudation produced In the vat was preserved. It was advantageous for the owner that such exudation should take place. We, therefore, assume that the owner was satisfied with the dripping of the olives, which accordingly become fit for defilement. The juice produced in the basket, however, trickles down and its formation is against the owner's interest and wish. Thus Maim.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
רבי יוחנן אמר
the moisture being one that comes out of them when they are in the vat and not moisture that comes out of them when they are still in the store basket.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We learn from this that the vat may be considered an instrument for the realization of the owner's wish. In the same way are the deaf-mute, the imbecile and the minor to be considered a mere instrument by which the employer's wish is fulfilled. In other words: With sacrilege it is not the act of appropriation that is decisive, but the effect of possessing or deriving a benefit from consecrated things. It does not matter, therefore, whether it be achieved by legally qualified persons or not.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כאותה ששנינו נתנו ע"ג הקוף והוליכו או ע"ג הפיל והוליכו (ואמר לאחר לקבלו ממנו) הרי זה עירוב אלמא קא עבדא שליחותיה ה"נ איתעביד שליחותיה
R'Johanan said: This is to be compared to that which we have learnt: If one placed it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the 'erub, v. Glos.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
(נזכרו שניהם חנוני מעל)
Against this the following contradiction is raised: If the employer remembered and not the agent, the agent is guilty of sacrilege, [but if both remembered the shopkeeper is guilty].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 50a.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתן לו פרוטה אמר לו הבא לי בחציה נרות ובחציה פתילות והלך והביא לו בכולה פתילות או בכולה נרות
AND SAID TO HIM: GET ME FOR HALF A PERUTAH LAMPS AND FOR THE OTHER HALF WICKS', AND HE WENT AND BROUGHT FOR THE WHOLE WICKS OR FOR THE WHOLE LAMPS, OR IF HE SAID TO HIM, 'GET ME FOR THE WHOLE LAMPS OR FOR THE WHOLE WICKS', AND HE WENT AND BROUGHT FOR HALF [A PERUTAH] LAMPS AND FOR THE OTHER HALF WICKS.
או שאמר לו
THEY ARE BOTH EXEMPTED FROM THE GUILT OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer, because his order has not been carried out and the messenger. because he spent only half a perutah contrary to the commission he received.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
הבא לי בכולה נרות או בכולה פתילות
BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM, 'GET FOR HALF A PERUTAH LAMPS FROM ONE PLACE AND FOR HALF A PERUTAH WICKS FROM ANOTHER' AND HE WENT AND BROUGHT THE LAMPS FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE WICKS [WERE TO BE BROUGHT] AND THE WICKS FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE LAMPS [WERE TO BE BROUGHT].
אבל אם אמר לו
IF HE GAVE HIM TWO PERUTAH'S AND SAID, 'GET ME FOR THEM A CITRON', AND HE BROUGHT FOR ONE PERUTAH A CITRON AND FOR THE OTHER A POMEGRANATE, BOTH HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE LAW OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The employer by reason of that part of the order which was carried out according to his desire, and the messenger because of the other part.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
הבא לי בחציה נרות ממקום פלוני ובחציה פתילות ממקום פלוני
R'JUDAH HOLDS THAT THE EMPLOYER IS NOT GUILTY, FOR HE CAN ARGUE, I WISHED FOR A LARGE CITRON AND YOU BROUGHT ME A SMALL AND UGLY ONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., your purchase cannot be recognized as a part fulfillment of my order. i,b');"><sup>24</sup></span>