Meilah 42

Chapter 42

א והלך והביא לו בשלשה חלוק ובשלשה טלית שניהם מעלו ר' יהודה אומר בעה"ב לא מעל שהוא אומר לו חלוק גדול הייתי מבקש והבאת לי קטן ורע

1 AND HE BROUGHT HIM FOR THREE [SILVER SELA'S]1 A SHIRT AND FOR THE OTHER THREE A CLOTH, BOTH HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE LAW OF SACRILEGE. R'JUDAH HOLDS THE EMPLOYER IS NOT GUILTY, FOR HE CAN ARGUE, I WISHED FOR A BIG SHIRT AND YOU BROUGHT ME A SMALL AND BAD ONE.

ב <big>גמ׳</big> שמעת מינה מאן דאמר לשלוחו זיל זבן לי כורא דארעא ואזל וזבן ליה ליתכא קני לוקח

2 <big>GEMARA: </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.');">2 that if a man said to his agent. Go, buy for me a kor3

ג אמרי הכא היכי דמי כגון דאייתי ליה שוה ו' בשלש

3 of land and he bought only a lethek4 the acquisition on behalf of the buyer is valid?5 - I might retort: [Our Mishnah] refers to a case where [the messenger] bought something worth six [silver sela's] for three.6

ד אימא סיפא ר' יהודה אומר בעה"ב לא מעל שהוא יכול לומר לו חלוק גדול הייתי מבקש והבאת לי חלוק קטן ורע

4 But read then the concluding clause: R'JUDAH HOLDS THE EMPLOYER IS NOT GUILTY. 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'.');">7

ה דא"ל אי יהבת דינר כוליה אייתית לי שוה ב' דינרין

5 This interpretation stands to reason, for it says [in the concluding section]:8

ו ה"נ מסתברא דקתני (סיפא) מודה ר' יהודה בקטנית ששניהם מעלו שהקטנית בפרוטה וקטנית בדינר

6 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.');">9 But how is this?

ז ה"ד אי באתרא דזבני בשומא גבי קטנית נמי דיהב סלע מוזלי ליה טפי אמר רב פפא בדוכתא דמזבני בכני כני כנא כנא בפרוטה דהתם פסיק מילתייהו

7 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,10 each kanna for a perutah, in which case the price is absolutely fixed.11 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF ONE DEPOSITED MONEY12 WITH A MONEYCHANGER,13

ח <big>מתני׳</big> המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם צרורין לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא מעל אם מותרין ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא לא מעל אצל בעה"ב בין כך ובין כך לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם הוציא מעל החנווני כבעה"ב דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר כשולחני

8 AND IT WAS TIED UP. 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.14 IF [THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED] WITH A PRIVATE PERSON,15 HE MAY NOT USE IT IN NEITHER CASE, AND THEREFORE IF HE DID SPENT IT HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. A SHOPKEEPER HAS THE STATUS OF A PRIVATE PERSON. SAYS R'MEIR'R'JUDAH HOLDS, HE IS LIKE A MONEY-CHANGER'IF A PERUTAH BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE FELL INTO HIS BAG OR IF HE SAYS, ONE PERUTAH IN THIS BAG SHALL BE DEDICATED, HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE AS SOON AS HE SPENDS THE FIRST PERUTAH.

ט נפלה פרוטה של הקדש בתוך כיסו או שאמר פרוטה בכיס זה הקדש כיון שהוציא את הראשונה מעל דברי ר"ע וחכמים אומרים עד שיוציא את כל הכיס

9 THUS THE VIEW OF R'AKIBA. WHILE THE SAGES HOLD: NOT BEFORE HE HAS SPENT ALL THE MONEY THAT WAS IN THE BAG. R'AKIBA AGREES, HOWEVER, WITH THE SAGES THAT IF HE SAID, A PERUTAH OUT OF THIS BAG16 SHALL BE DEDICATED, HE IS PERMITTED TO KEEP ON SPENDING [AND IS LIABLE ONLY] WHEN HE HAS SPENT ALL THAT WAS IN THE BAG.

י ומודה ר"ע לחכמים באומר פרוטה מן כיס זה הקדש שהוא מוציא והולך עד שיוציא את כל הכיס

10 <big>GEMARA: </big>When R'Dimi arrived,17 he said, Resh Lakish had questioned R'Johanan: What is the difference between the first clause18

יא <big>גמ׳</big> כי אתא רב דימי אמר רמי ליה ר"ל לר' יוחנן מ"ש רישא ומ"ש סיפא

11 and the last?19 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.20

יב אמר ליה סיפא באומר לא יפטור כיס זה מן ההקדש

12 When Rabin arrived17 he said: He21

יג כי אתא רבין אמר כיסין אשוורים רמא ליה דתנן האומר אחד משווריי הקדש היו לו שנים הגדול שבהן הקדש א"ל סיפא באומר לא יפטור כיס זה מן ההקדש

13 raised before him22 a contradiction between the case of the pocket and that of the oxen. 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.');">23 To this the other24 re plied: In the last claus the man's declaration was, 'this bag shall not be spared from a donation to the Temple'.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter