Rav Sheshet adds that it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha, lest you say that the agent has uprooted the agency of the homeowner by adding to his instructions, and therefore the homeowner is not liable for the prohibition of misuse even for the first piece of meat. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that the homeowner is also liable.

MISHNA: If the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the window in the wall or from the chest [hadeluskema], and the agent obeyed and brought it to him from the place that he instructed him, even though the homeowner said: In my heart, my desire was only that he should bring me the item from that other place, and as he brought it from this place he did not fulfill my instructions, nevertheless the homeowner is liable for misuse if the item or money is consecrated, as the agent did in fact fulfill his instructions. But if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the window in the wall, and the agent brought it to him from the chest; or if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me this item or this money from the chest, and the agent brought it to him from the window, the agent is liable for misuse.

In a case where the homeowner sent consecrated money in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who lack halakhic competence and cannot be commissioned as agents, in order to purchase an item from a storekeeper, if they performed his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse, as his instructions were fulfilled. If they did not perform his agency but purchased a different item from the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse.

If the homeowner sent the money in the hand of a halakhically competent person and the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated before the agent reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends the money for his personal use. The homeowner is exempt from liability for misuse, because once he remembers that the money is consecrated his misuse is no longer unwitting, and one is liable to bring an offering for misuse only for unwitting misuse of consecrated property.

What shall the homeowner do in a case where he remembers that the money is consecrated, in order to prevent the storekeeper from liability for misuse? He takes one peruta or a vessel and says: The consecrated peruta, wherever it may be, is desacralized with this peruta or vessel. The peruta is thereby desacralized, as a consecrated item is desacralized with money and with an item that has the equivalent value of money. The result is that the storekeeper spends non-sacred money.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the agent did as instructed by the homeowner, even if the homeowner claimed that he had another desire, it is the homeowner who is liable for misuse. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? The Gemara answers: It is teaching that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. Therefore it is the homeowner who is liable, not the agent, despite the fact that the agent did not do what the homeowner desired.

§ The mishna teaches: In a case where the homeowner sent consecrated money in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who lack halakhic competence and cannot be commissioned as agents, in order to purchase an item from a storekeeper, if they performed his agency, the homeowner is liable for misuse, as his instructions were fulfilled. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But they cannot be involved in agency. Since these groups of people lack halakhic competence, they cannot be agents; if so, how can the homeowner be liable for misuse?

Rabbi Elazar says in explanation: The Sages rendered these individuals halakhically like a vat [kema’atan] of olives with regard to ritual impurity. Since it is beneficial for the homeowner when the moisture of the olives, i.e., liquid that seeps from the olives, leaks into a vat, as explained below, it is considered as though the homeowner had intent for the moisture to be there. Similarly, with regard to these categories of people, since it suits the homeowner when they do what he requested it is considered as though they acted with his intent.

As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:1): When do the olives become susceptible to ritual impurity? From when they exude moisture. This is referring specifically to the moisture that emerges into the vat, but not the moisture that emerges into the basket. The moisture that comes into the vat softens the olives and is beneficial to the olive oil production, as it renders them easier to press. For this reason it is considered as though the homeowner has intent for the moisture to be there, and that moisture therefore renders the olives it touches susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, moisture in the basket serves no purpose, as it trickles out through holes in the basket. Consequently, it is not there with the intent of the homeowner and does not render the olives susceptible to ritual impurity.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This case of a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor, is like that which we learned in a baraita with regard to placing food for a joining of Shabbat boundaries, i.e., an eiruv: If one placed the food of the eiruv on a monkey, and the monkey brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he placed it on a trained elephant, and the elephant brought it to the proper location, and he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. Evidently, the agency is performed by the monkey or elephant, despite the fact that they are unfit to serve as agents. So too, in the case of the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, the agency is performed despite the fact that they cannot be involved in agency.

§ The mishna teaches: If the homeowner sent the money in the hand of a halakhically competent person and the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated before the agent reached the storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends the money for his personal use. This indicates that the storekeeper is liable even though the agent did not remember, but the homeowner alone remembered. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If the homeowner remembered that the money was consecrated, but the agent did not remember, the agent is liable for misuse. If they both remembered that the money is consecrated, the storekeeper is liable for misuse.

Rav Sheshet said in resolution of this contradiction: The mishna is also referring to a case where both the agent and the agent remembered that the money was consecrated, and for this reason the storekeeper alone is liable for misuse.

MISHNA: If the homeowner gave the agent one consecrated peruta and said to him: Bring me lamps [nerot] with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, and the agent went and brought him wicks with the entire peruta, or lamps with the entire peruta; or in a case where the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me lamps with the entire peruta or wicks with the entire peruta, and the agent went and brought him lamps with one-half of it and wicks with one-half of it, both of them are not liable for misuse of the peruta. In both cases, the homeowner is exempt because his instructions were fulfilled only with regard to half of a peruta, and the agent is exempt as he spent only half of a peruta on his own initiative.

But if the homeowner said to the agent: Bring me lamps from such and such place with one-half of the peruta and wicks from such and such place with one-half of the peruta, and the agent went and brought him lamps from the place that he designated for wicks, and wicks from the place that he designated for lamps, the agent is liable for misuse, as he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions by the sum of an entire peruta.

If the homeowner gave the agent two consecrated perutot, and said to him: Go and bring me an etrog, and he went and brought him an etrog with one peruta and a pomegranate with one peruta, both of them are liable for misuse. The homeowner is liable because his agency was performed with the sum of one peruta, and the agent is liable because he deviated from the homeowner’s instructions with one peruta. Rabbi Yehuda says: The homeowner is not liable for misuse, as he can say to the agent: I was seeking a large etrog worth two perutot, and you brought me a small, inferior etrog worth one peruta.

If the homeowner gave the agent a consecrated gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars, as four silver dinars constitute a sela; and said to the agent: Go and bring me a robe,