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.


מִי שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְלָקַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּנְתָנוֹ לְשָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּתוֹרַת חֻלִּין. אִם עָשָׂה הַשָּׁלִיחַ שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ הוּא שֶׁמָּעַל. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ אֶלָּא עָשָׂה הַשָּׁלִיחַ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ הַשָּׁלִיחַ הוּא שֶׁמָּעַל. כֵּיצַד. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ תֵּן (לִי) מֵאוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר לָאוֹרְחִין הָלַךְ וְנָתַן לָהֶן כִּכָּר. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לָהֶן כִּכָּר וְנָתַן לָהֶן בָּשָׂר. אָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ הָבֵא לִי מִן הַחַלּוֹן וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מִן הַמִּגְדָּל. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא מִן הַמִּגְדָּל וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מִן הַחַלּוֹן. הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהֵבִיא מִן הַחַלּוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ לֹא הָיָה בְּלִבִּי שֶׁיָּבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַמִּגְדָּל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּת מַאֲמָרוֹ וּדְבָרִים שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָן דְּבָרִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשָּׁלִיחַ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן שְׁלִיחוּת אִם עָשָׂה כְּמַאֲמָרוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר. אָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ תֵּן לָאוֹרְחִין חֲתִיכָה חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר הָלַךְ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהֶן טלוּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה דְּבָרוֹ וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלִיחוּת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא עָקַר הַשְּׁלִיחוּת. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶם הַשָּׁלִיחַ טלוּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם מִדַּעְתִּי שְׁנֵיהֶן מָעֲלוּ. נָטְלוּ הָאוֹרְחִים שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ אַף הָאוֹרְחִין מָעֲלוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהוֹסִיף מִדַּעְתּוֹ. נִמְצָא חֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב לְפִי שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ דְּבָרָיו וְלֹא נֶעֶקְרָה הַשְּׁלִיחוּת וְהוּא חַיָּב עַל זֶה שֶׁהוֹסִיף מִדַּעְתּוֹ:


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.


בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַחֲתִיכוֹת מִקָּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ בְּשַׂר עוֹלָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ לֹא מָעַל אֶלָּא הָאוֹכֵל בִּלְבַד שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב בְּאִסּוּר אַחֵר יֶתֶר עַל הַמְּעִילָה. וּבְכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ אֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה אֶלָּא בִּמְעִילָה לְבַדָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעָרֵב עִמָּהּ אִסּוּר אַחֵר:


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.


הַנּוֹתֵן פְּרוּטַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לִשְׁלוּחוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי בְּחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת. הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְּכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי בְּכֻלָּהּ נֵרוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא בְּחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִים. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נַעֲשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּפְרוּטָה. וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ לֹא מָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָקַר שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ בִּפְרוּטָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי בְּחֶצְיָהּ נֵרוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּבְחֶצְיָהּ פְּתִילוֹת מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא נֵרוֹת מִמְּקוֹם פְּתִילוֹת וּפְתִילוֹת מִמְּקוֹם נֵרוֹת הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל:


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.


נָתַן לוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת וְאָמַר לוֹ הָבֵא לִי אֶתְרוֹג וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בִּפְרוּטָה אֶתְרוֹג וּבִפְרוּטָה רִמּוֹן. הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלָחוֹ לִקְנוֹת לוֹ אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁשָּׁוֶה שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה הָאֶתְרוֹג שֶׁהֵבִיא לוֹ בִּפְרוּטָה אַחַת שָׁוֶה שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ:


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.


הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ פְּרוּטָה בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ לִקְנוֹת לוֹ בָּהּ חֵפֶץ וְנִזְכַּר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַחֶנְוָנִי הַשָּׁלִיחַ מָעַל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹגֵג וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת כְּבָר נִזְכַּר וְאֵין הַמֵּזִיד חַיָּב בְּקָרְבַּן מְעִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. נִזְכַּר אַף הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְיָדַע שֶׁהִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לַחֶנְוָנִי שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִים מִקָּרְבַּן מְעִילָה וְהַחֶנְוָנִי חַיָּב כְּשֶׁיּוֹצִיא אוֹתָהּ פְּרוּטָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּמְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא שׁוֹגֵג. הוֹדִיעוּ לְחֶנְוָנִי שֶׁפְּרוּטָה שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן פְּטוּרִין וְנִתְפַּס הַמִּקָּח לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)

Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.


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.


וְכֵיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל הַחֶנְוָנִי מִן הַחֵטְא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל הַמָּעוֹת. נוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל חֻלִּין אוֹ כְּלִי כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְאוֹמֵר פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זֶה. וְתֵעָשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ פְּרוּטָה אוֹ הַכְּלִי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיֻתַּר הַחֶנְוָנִי לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל הַמָּעוֹת. וְכֵן פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכָל הַכִּיס אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר פְּרוּטָה בְּכִיס זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מְחַלֵּל אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּכִּיס. וְאִם הוֹצִיא וְלֹא חִלֵּל לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס:


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.


אָמַר כִּיס מִכִּיסַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְשׁוֹר מִשְּׁוָרַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכֻלָּן וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן. כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. מֵבִיא אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶם וְאוֹמֵר אִם הֶקְדֵּשׁ הוּא הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאִם לָאו הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא מְחֻלָּל עַל זֶה. וִיהַנֶּה בַּקָּטָן:


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.


הַמּוֹעֵל בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב חֹמֶשׁ וְלֹא קָרְבָּן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה אִם הָיָה מֵזִיד:


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.


הַמַּפְקִיד מָעוֹת אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְהוֹצִיא. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וּבַעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן לֹא הִרְשָׁהוּ:


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.


הִפְקִידָן אֵצֶל שֻׁלְחָנִי אוֹ חֶנְוָנִי וְלֹא הָיוּ חֲתוּמִין וְלֹא קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת מִן הַדִּין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אִם הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. בַּעַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לוֹ הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. וְהַחֶנְוָנִי פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן קְשׁוּרִין קֶשֶׁר מְשֻׁנֶּה וְלֹא חֲתוּמִין וּכְאִלּוּ הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת:


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.


הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה מָעוֹת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְבַעְלָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ מוֹרִישָׁהּ וּמֵת וְנָפְלוּ לָהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת בִּירֻשָּׁה. לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא הַבַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת בַּחֲפָצָיו יִמְעל: