Mishnah Meilah 6:1-2

Sugya Map: The Paradox of Agency in Me’ilah

• Core Issue: Does the principle Ein Shaliach L’davar Aveirah (no agency for transgression) apply to Me’ilah (misuse of Temple property)?
• Primary Source: Mishnah Me’ilah 6:1–2.
• Nafka Mina: Liability for Me’ilah when an agent deviates from or fulfills the principal’s instructions regarding consecrated items.

Text Snapshot

• "השליח שעשה שליחותו... בעל הבית מעל" (6:1): If the agent acts as instructed, the principal (who shagag—erred in thinking the item was chullin) is liable.
• "לא עשה שליחותו... השליח מעל": Any deviation (e.g., meat vs. liver) severs the agency, shifting liability entirely to the agent.

Readings

• Rambam (Comm. ad loc.): Argues Me’ilah is unique because of the verse "ואשמה הנפש ההיא" (Num 5:6), which implies that the one who erred initially—the principal—is the primary transgressor.
• Tosafot Yom Tov: Challenges Rambam’s citation, noting that the verse cited actually refers to Gezel HaGer. He points instead to Kiddushin 42b, where Me’ilah is compared to Terumah (just as one can appoint an agent for Terumah, so too for Me’ilah).

Friction

• Kushya (Rashash): The Rambam/Ramban/Rav base the liability on "ואשמה הנפש ההיא." But as Rashash notes, that verse is entirely unrelated to Me’ilah. How can the foundation of this halacha rest on an erroneous source-text?
• Terutz: The Mishnah is not creating a new rule via exegesis, but defining the nature of the shaliach. The agent acts as the principal’s "hand." If the principal is shogeg (unwitting), he is the one creating the me'ilah event. The verse is merely an asmachta for a logical necessity: me'ilah requires intent (or lack thereof) that can only be attributed to the person who initiated the instruction.

Intertext

• Kiddushin 42b: The Gemara establishes that Me’ilah is the exception to Ein Shaliach L’davar Aveirah because the principal’s initial error (shiggan) dictates the outcome.
• SA Choshen Mishpat 182:1: Reinforces that for standard prohibitions, an agent’s crime is their own; only where the principal’s command is the act of me’ilah does liability accrue to the one who "sent."

Psak/Practice

The halacha maintains a strict binary: strictly follow instructions, or become liable. Meta-psak heuristic: Agency in issurei kodesh is an extension of the principal’s own personhood. If you empower an agent, your "error" travels with them. Takeaway: In sensitive legal/halachic matters, your instruction is your liability; delegation does not insulate you from the consequences of your original, mistaken directive.