Rav Sheshet adds that it is necessary for the Mishnah 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 Mishnah teaches us that the homeowner is also liable.
מתני׳ אמר לו: ״הבא לי מן החלון או מן הדלוסקמא״, והביא לו. אף על פי שאמר בעל הבית: ״לא היה בלבי אלא מזה״, והביא מזה – בעל הבית מעל. אבל אם אמר לו: ״הבא לי מן החלון״, והביא לו מן הדלוסקמא, או ״מן הדלוסקמא״, והביא לו מן החלון – השליח מעל.
Mishnah: 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.
שלח ביד חרש שוטה וקטן, אם עשו שליחותו – בעל הבית מעל, לא עשו שליחותו – חנווני מעל.
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.