Mishnah Meilah 6:5-6

Sugya Map: The Mechanics of Agency and Misuse (Meilah)

• Core Issue: Does the shaliach (agent) maintain agency when deviating from instructions, and how does this affect Meilah liability?
• Nafka Mina: Liability for Meilah falls on the homeowner (principal) if instructions are followed, but shifts to the agent if the mandate is exceeded or violated.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Meilah 6:5–6; Bava Metzia 43a (parallels on shulchani liability).

Text Snapshot

• "האומר לשלוחו: תן לבניך מעות... ונתן לאחרים" (Mishnah 6:5): The distinction pivots on shlichut. If the agent deviates—even slightly—he acts for himself, severing the principal-agent link. The nuance lies in dikduk: the agent becomes a gazlan (robber) of the hekdesh because he lacks the principal's authorization to spend the specific consecrated item.

Readings

• Rambam (Hilchot Meilah 6:1): Emphasizes the shulchani (money changer) distinction. If money is tzrorin (bound/sealed), it is a pikadon (deposit); usage is a theft. If mutarin (loose), it is a loan (milveh), and the money changer has license to use it, thus exempting both from Meilah.
• Tosafot Yom Tov (on 6:5): Notes the friction between this Mishnah and Bava Metzia 43a. He highlights the structural ambiguity: is the agent’s liability a result of a legal break in agency or a factual deviation that changes the nature of the transaction?

Friction

• Kushya: If the agent deviates, why is the principal not liable for the initial intent?
• Terutz: Ein shaliach l'dvar aveirah (Kiddushin 42b) is superseded here by the logic of mishnah: agency exists only within the precise parameters defined. The moment the agent acts outside the window (e.g., swapping liver for meat), he is no longer the principal's hand; he is an independent actor misappropriating hekdesh.

Intertext

• Bava Metzia 43a: Parallels the shulchani vs. hedyot (homeowner) distinction regarding deposits.
• SA Choshen Mishpat 292: Codifies the deposit status of tzrorin vs. mutarin, mirroring the Meilah liability logic.

Psak/Practice

The heuristic is clear: Authorization is binary. In financial matters, especially involving high-stakes assets (like hekdesh or fiduciary funds), the principal is protected only by strict adherence to the mandate. A "good faith" deviation by an agent creates personal liability for the agent because the mandate is voided.

Takeaway

In agency, "close enough" is legally equivalent to "completely different." Precision in instructions is the only barrier between a principal's liability and an agent’s crime.