Meilah 42
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> שמעת מינה
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>May we infer from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the last instance of the Mishnah where we read that according to the first Tanna the messenger is regarded as having acted on behalf of the employer with regard to a part of the commission.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
כגון דאייתי ליה שוה ו' בשלש
- I might retort: [Our Mishnah] refers to a case where [the messenger] bought something worth six [silver sela's] for three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is because the employer has obtained an article of the required quality that the commission is considered partly fulfilled.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
בעה"ב לא מעל שהוא יכול לומר לו חלוק גדול הייתי מבקש והבאת לי חלוק קטן ורע
FOR HE CAN ARGUE, I WISHED FOR A BIG SHIRT AND YOU BROUGHT A SMALL AND BAD ONE? - [This is to be understood in the following manner]: Because he can say to him, Had you spent the whole [golden] denar you could have bought something worth two [golden] denars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus cur. edd., a version which renders the discussion which follows incomprehensible. The Gemara in Keth reads 'at least two denars' and Tosaf. there understands this as follows: Had the messenger bought for the whole denar he would have got something worth more than two denars, because things are cheaper when bought in big quantities. The profit of the employer would then have been also relatively higher. This loss cannot be remedied, for even if the messenger bought now goods for another half denar at the same price, the extra profit over and above two denars would not materialize. Tosaf. quotes also a version which reads explicitly 'more than two denars'.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
דא"ל אי יהבת דינר כוליה אייתית לי שוה ב' דינרין
This interpretation stands to reason, for it says [in the concluding section]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be found in the Tosef. II. The bracketed words are rightly deleted by Sh. Mek.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה"נ מסתברא דקתני (סיפא)
R'Judah agrees with reference to pulse, for it makes no difference whether you buy pulse for a perutah or for a denar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no reduction when buying a large quantity. The employer had therefore no loss when the messenger spent only half a denar. The owner's order is therefore to be considered as partly fulfilled, and he is liable to the law of sacrilege.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה"ד
If it deals with a place where it is customary to sell cereals by estimate, Surely then also in the case of pulse when one buys for a whole sela' he buys much cheaper? - Said R'Papa: It refers to a place where it is customary to sell it in kannas,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A certain measure.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אם מותרין ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא לא מעל
HE MAY NOT USE IT; AND THEREFORE IF HE DID SPEND IT HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE; IF IT WAS LOOSE HE MAY USE IT AND THEREFORE IF HE SPENT IT HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi the depositor is guilty, while Maim. holds that both are exempted.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
שהוא מוציא והולך עד שיוציא את כל הכיס
he said, Resh Lakish had questioned R'Johanan: What is the difference between the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that which forms the subject of the dispute between R. Akiba and the Sages.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
רמי ליה ר"ל לר' יוחנן מ"ש רישא ומ"ש סיפא
To this he [R'Johanan] replied: In the last clause the man's declaration was, This bag should not be spared from a donation to the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the last perutah was meant.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
היו לו שנים הגדול שבהן הקדש
For we have learnt: If one said, I dedicate one of my oxen to the Temple, and he had two oxen, the larger one becomes sacred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 108b; from which it is inferred that if, however, both oxen were equal the one that is met first is considered sacred, while in the last clause of the Mishnah we learn that one can fulfil such a promise with the last perutah. Thus Rashi. Tosaf. explains the contradiction as follows: Why not say also in the last instance of our Mishnah that the biggest coin in the pocket should become sacred. Apparently Tosaf. read 'coin' instead of PERUTAH' in the last clause of the Mishnah, or PERUTAH should be understood in its general significance as money.');"><sup>23</sup></span>