Meilah

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. GEMARA. May we infer from this2 that if a man said to his agent. Go, buy for me a kor3 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 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.7 This interpretation stands to reason, for it says [in the concluding section]:8 R. Judah agrees with reference to pulse, for it makes no difference whether you buy pulse for a perutah or for a denar!9 But how is this? 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 MISHNAH. IF ONE DEPOSITED MONEY12 WITH A MONEYCHANGER,13 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. 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. GEMARA. When R. Dimi arrived,17 he said, Resh Lakish had questioned R. Johanan: What is the difference between the first clause18 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 When Rabin arrived17 he said: He21 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.23 To this the other24 re plied: In the last clause the man's declaration was, ‘this bag shall not be spared from a donation to the Temple’. having acted on behalf of the employer with regard to a part of the commission. fulfilled. ‘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’. 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. 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.