💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Tresp… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:12:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 [1] The following rules apply when a person inadvertently took a consecrated article or consecrated money and gave it to an agent to use as ordinary property or money. If the agent carries out the mission with which he is charged, the principal is considered to have violated the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If the agent did not execute the agency, but instead acted on his own initiative, the agent is the one who violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. What is implied? A person told his agent: "Give that meat to the guests," and instead, the agent gave them bread, or he told him to give them bread and he gave them meat.
If one told his agent, "Bring me from the window," and he brought him from the closet or he told him to bring from the closet and he brought from the window, the agent violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If the agent went and brought from the window as instructed, even though the principal told him: "In my heart, I wanted you to bring from the closet," the principal violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, for the agent carried out the mission as he charged him. We follow the principle: "Matters in one's heart are not of consequence."
Even if the agent was a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally incompetent person, or a minor to whom the laws of agency do not apply, if they carry out the principal's instructions, the principal violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If they do not carry out his instructions, the principal is exempt.
If one tells his agent: "Give each one of the guests a piece of meat" and the agent told them: "Take two at a time," the principal violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because his instructions were carried out. The agent is exempt, because he is merely adding to the principal's agency. He is not eradicating it. If, however, the agent tells the guests: "Take two at a time on my responsibility," both he and the principal violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. If the guests take three at a time, they also violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because each one of the individuals involved had performed the agency with which they were charged and added a further matter on his own initiative. Thus the other is also liable, because his instructions were carried out and the agency was not eradicated. And he is liable because of what he added on his own initiative. [2] When does the above apply? When the pieces of meat were consecrated for the improvement of the Temple. If they were meat from a burnt-offering or the like, only the person who partakes of them violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. For he is obligated in another prohibition aside from *me'ilah* and, with regard to the entire Torah, there is no concept of a prohibition violated through agency except in the case of *me'ilah* alone and there, provided there is no other prohibition involved with it. [3] When a person gives a *p'rutah* of consecrated funds to an agent and tells him: "With half, purchase lamps for me and with half, wicks," and the agent used the entire amount for lamps or for wicks, they are both exempt. This law also applies when he told him to use the entire amount for lamps or for wicks and he used half to purchase lamps and half to purchase wicks.
The rationale is that the principal does not violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because his agency was not completed with regard to a *p'rutah's* worth of value. The agent does not violate that prohibition, because he did not eradicate his agency for a *p'rutah's* worth.
If, however, one told an agent: "For half a *p'rutah*, bring me lamps from this-and-this place and for the other half, bring me wicks from that-and-that place," and the agent brought the lamps from the place mentioned for the wicks and the wicks from the place mentioned for the lamps, the agent violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. [4] If a principal gave his agent two consecrated *p'rutot* and told him: "Bring me an *esrog*" and the agent went and brought him an *esrog* for a *p'rutah* and a pomegranate for a *p'rutah*, the agent violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, but the principal is exempt. The rationale is that the principal sent the agent to purchase an *esrog* worth two *p'rutot* for him. Therefore if the *esrog* which the agent brought the principal that cost one *p'rutah* is worth two *p'rutot*, they both violate the prohibition against *me'ilah*. [5] When a person sent a *p'rutah* via an agent to purchase a particular article and then, before it reached the domain of the storekeeper, the principal remembered that the *p'rutah* is consecrated, the agent violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*, because he is acting unknowingly, while the principal has already remembered. As we explained, a person who acts knowingly is not liable for a sacrifice to atone for *me'ilah*.
If the agent also remembered and was conscious that the money was consecrated before it reached the storekeeper, they are both exempt from a sacrifice to atone for *me'ilah* and the storekeeper is liable when he uses that *p'rutah* which became mixed with his money, for he is acting unknowingly.
If the storekeeper was informed that the *p'rutah* he was given was consecrated, they are all exempt and the purchase is completed, with the article becoming consecrated. [6] What should be done in order to preclude the storekeeper from sinning so he will be permitted to use all the money he received? One should take a non-consecrated *p'rutah* or any non-consecrated utensil and say: "Wherever the consecrated *p'rutah* is its holiness should be transferred to this." The *p'rutah* or the utensil become consecrated and the storekeeper is permitted to use all the money he received.
Similarly, if a consecrated *p'rutah* becomes intermingled with all the money in a purse or one said: "A *p'rutah* in this purse is consecrated," he should transfer its holiness and afterwards, he may use all the coins in the purse. If he used coins from the purse without transferring the holiness of the consecrated coin, he does not definitely violate the prohibition against *me'ilah* until he used all the coins in the purse. [7] If a person said: "One of my purses is consecrated" or "One of my oxen is consecrated," the prohibition against *me'ilah* applies to all of them and to some of them. What should he do? He should bring the largest of the purses or the oxen and say: "If this is consecrated, it should remain consecrated. If not, wherever the consecrated one is, its holiness should be transferred to this one." He may then use the smaller ones. [8] When a person misappropriates less than a *p'rutah's* worth of consecrated property, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he must make restitution for the principal, but he need not pay an additional fifth or bring a sacrifice. It appears to me that he is not liable for lashes for misappropriating less than a *p'rutah's* worth if he acted intentionally. [9] When a person entrusts consecrated money to a homeowner and the homeowner uses them and spends them, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*. The rationale is that he does not have permission to use these funds and the owner did not grant him license to. [10] Different rules apply if he entrusted them to a money-changer or a storekeeper and they were not sealed or tied close with an unusual knot. In these situations, since he is permitted to use them according to law, if he spent them, they are both exempt. The owner of the entrusted article is exempt because he did not tell the storekeeper or the money-changer to use them. And the store-keeper is exempt, because it is as if he used them with permission since they were not tied closed with an unusual knot or sealed. [11] When a woman brought consecrated money to her husband's domain or her testator consecrated property and then died and the consecrated property fell to her as an inheritance, when her husband spends the money on his personal needs, he violates the prohibition against *me'ilah*.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC