Meilah 6:1-2

Meilah 6:1

If an agent fulfilled his duty, the one who appointed him is guilty of misappropriation; if the agent didn’t fulfill his duty, then the agent is guilty of misappropriation, as follows: If a man told his agent to give (consecrated) meat to guests but he gave them (consecrated) liver instead, or vice versa, then the agent is guilty of misappropriation (because he didn’t do what he was told to do, so he acted on his own). If the man told the agent to give guests one piece each, the agent told them to take two pieces each, and the guests took three pieces each, they are all guilty of misappropriation. Let’s say the man told his agent to bring the consecrated object from the window or from a sack and the agent brought it to him. Even if the man says that he really meant something else, he is guilty of misappropriation. If he told the agent to bring it from the window and he brought it from the sack, or vice versa, then the agent is guilty of misappropriation.

Meilah 6:2

If he sent consecrated funds for a purchase with an agent who had congenital deafness, who lacked mental faculties, or who was a minor (and is therefore not considered a valid agent), the one who sent them is guilty of misappropriation if they complete their assigned task. If they don’t, then the shopkeeper commits misappropriation (when he spends that money). If he sent money with a valid agent and realized that it was consecrated before it reached the shopkeeper, (then it’s not misappropriation, which is an unintentional offense and) the shopkeeper commits misappropriation when he spends the money. In such a case, the man should take a prutah or some other item and state that the consecrated prutah wherever it is should be redeemed onto it. This is because consecrated property can be redeemed with money or with something worth money.