Meilah, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4. This chapter follows the question of who carries the liability of me'ilah when hekdesh money passes through the hands of a shaliach, an agent. The rule the chapter builds on is that when the agent performs the mission he was sent to do, the liability lands on the sender, and when the agent departs from his instructions and acts on his own initiative, the liability lands on the agent. Our mishnah presents two cases that sit exactly on that dividing line: the agent carried out the assignment, but he also had money left over, and what he did with the leftover was entirely his own idea.
The Etrog Bought for One Perutah
"Natan lo shetei perutot": a person handed his agent two perutot, not realizing that this was hekdesh money. "Amar lo, Haveili etrog": he instructed him, take this money and buy me an etrog. "Vehalach veheivi lo beferutah etrog": the agent went to the market and found an etrog selling for a single perutah, yet the etrog was genuinely worth two perutot. He got a bargain. "Uveferutah rimon": with the perutah that remained in his hand, the agent bought a pomegranate.
The question is whether the agent carried out his mission or deviated from it, since whichever answer we give determines who committed the me'ilah, the sender or the agent.
The mishnah's verdict: "sheneihem ma'alu," each of the two has misused hekdesh. As for the one who sent him, his order was carried out to the letter: an etrog worth two perutot was what he asked for, and an etrog of exactly that worth arrived in his hands. That the purchase price came to only a single perutah changes nothing; the agent simply happened upon an unusually cheap seller. Yet the agent has transgressed as well, for the spare perutah, left over once the etrog was paid for, went toward a pomegranate that nobody had asked him to bring. He decided on that purchase himself, and hekdesh money spent on his own decision is me'ilah by him.
Rabbi Yehudah: The Sender Can Object
Rabbi Yehudah: The Sender Can Object
The logic is that the sender may well have known that there were bargains to be had in the etrog market. That is exactly why he handed over the full two perutot: not so that his agent would come home with merchandise valued at two perutot, but so that the entire two perutot would be laid out and the value received would be greater still. So the sender says, "Veheiveita li katan vera": you brought me a small one, a poor one. You did not spend the money the way I wanted it spent. Since his instructions were not carried out as he intended them, the sender bears no me'ilah.
The Shirt Bought for Three Sela'im
A parallel case follows. "Natan lo dinar zahav": the sender, again unaware that the coin was hekdesh, placed a gold dinar in his agent's hand. "Amar lo, Haveili chaluk": his instruction was to purchase a shirt for him. "Vehalach veheivi lo bishloshah chaluk": the agent located a shirt priced at three sela'im. Since a gold dinar equals six sela'im, only half the sum was used, and here too the price was well below the merchandise's worth, for the shirt itself was worth a whole gold dinar. "Uvishloshah talit": the remaining three sela'im the agent put toward a talit, a cloak.
The ruling repeats: "sheneihem ma'alu," both have transgressed. The householder falls under me'ilah, since what he asked for is precisely what reached him, a shirt whose value is a gold dinar. No full dinar left the agent's hand, but the garment's market worth was a dinar, and value was the substance of the request. The agent, for his part, transgressed independently with the three sela'im, half the coin's value, which he devoted to a talit on nothing but his own judgment.
Here too Rabbi Yehudah exempts the householder: "Ba'al habayit lo ma'al," notwithstanding that the shirt was indeed worth a gold dinar. The sender retains this claim against his agent, "Chaluk gadol hayiti mevakesh, veheiveita li katan vera": my request was for a large, quality shirt, and what came back to me was small and inferior. Grant that its worth is a dinar; still, the entire dinar was meant to be laid out, and had it been laid out, the market would have yielded a garment larger and finer, worth perhaps two gold dinarim. The instructions were precise for a reason, and they were not obeyed. Hence, in Rabbi Yehudah's view, no me'ilah attaches to the sender.