Meilah

You might have thought that the agent had thereby canceled his employer's order and that [the employer] should therefore be exempted from sacrilege. therefore [the Mishnah] lets us know [that this is not the case]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID TO ANOTHER PERSON, ‘GET ME [SUCH A THING] FROM THE WIND OW OR FROM THE CHEST’,1 AND THE LATTER BROUGHT IT TO HIM [FROM ONE OF THESE PLACES]. EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYER SAYS, ‘I MEANT ONLY FROM THIS PLACE’. AND HE BROUGHT IT FROM ANOTHER PLACE, THE EMPLOYER IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.2 BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM, ‘GET IT FOR ME FROM THE WINDOW, AND HE BROUGHT IT FROM THE CHEST, OR ‘FROM THE CHEST AND HE BROUGHT IT TO HIM FROM THE WINDOW, THE AGENT IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE. IF ONE HAS COMMISSIONED A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR,3 AND THEY CARRIED OUT THEIR APPOINTED ERRAND THE EMPLOYER IS GUILTY, IF THEY DID NOT CARRY OUT THEIR APPOINTED ERRAND, THE SHOPKEEPER IS GUILTY.4 IF ONE HAS COMMISSIONED ONE OF SOUND SENSES AND REMEMBERS5 [THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO TEMPLE PROPERTY] BEFORE IT HAS COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE SHOPKEEPER, THE SHOPKEEPER WILL BE GUILTY6 WHEN HE SPENDS IT. WHAT SHALL HE7 DO?8 HE SHALL TAKE A PERUTAH OF ANY OBJECT AND DECLARE THAT THE MONEY9 BELONGING TO TEMPLE PROPERTY, WHERESOEVER IT MAY BE AT THAT TIME, SHALL BE REDEEMED WITH THIS; FOR CONSECRATED THINGS CAN BE REDEEMED BOTH WITH MONEY AND WITH MONEY'S WORTH. GEMARA. What does he teach us thereby?10 — That unexpressed words are of no avail. 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:11 From what tree do olives become susceptible to defilement?12 When they begin to exude,13 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.14 R. Johanan said: This is to be compared to that which we have learnt: If one placed it15 upon an ape or upon an elephant, which carried it to the right quarter (and another person was charged to receive it], the ‘erub is valid.16 Does this not prove that the fact of the execution of the appointed errand alone matters?17 So in our case: The appointed errand has at any rate been carried out. IF HE HAS COMMISSIONED A SANE PERSON etc. [Does this apply] even though the agent has not remembered? 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].18 — Said R. Shesheth: Also our Mishnah has to be understood that both remembered.19 MISHNAH. IF HE GAVE HIM A PERUTAH20 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. THEY ARE BOTH EXEMPTED FROM THE GUILT OF SACRILEGE.21 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]. THE AGENT IS GUILTY.22 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.23 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.24 IF HE GAVE HIM A GOLDEN DENAR25 AND SAID TO HIM, ‘GET ME A SHIRT possession. As long as it is with the shopkeeper, the money is regarded as deposited with him. meantime that a coin of sacred property is among his money. commit sacrilege himself. circumstances are such as to enable one to assume that the owner regards the moistening as desirable. 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. 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. contrary to the commission he received. because of the other part.