Although in general there is no agency for transgression, in the particular case of misuse one who appoints an agent can be liable for the agent’s actions. Nevertheless, he is liable only if the agent fulfills his agency in the manner in which he was instructed. If the agent deviates from the instructions it is he who is liable for misuse. For example, if one instructs his agent to purchase meat, but the agent purchases liver instead, then even according to those who maintain that meat and liver are in the same category with regard to vows, the agent is liable for misuse, as he decided himself to purchase the liver without consulting the one who appointed him. Likewise, if the agent adds to his agency, it is the agent who is liable for the part that he added. Nevertheless, with regard to the original agency the one who appointed him is liable. For example, if a homeowner instructs an agent to feed his guests one piece of meat each, not realizing that the meat is consecrated, and the agent gives them two pieces each, and the guests help themselves to a third piece, the homeowner is liable for the first piece, the agent is liable for the second piece, and the guests are liable for the third piece. This chapter also discusses the definition of the deviation of an agent from his agency. It discusses those cases where his actions uproot the agency entirely and those instances where the deviation is not considered significant, and therefore the homeowner, who appointed him, is liable for the misuse. The chapter reiterates the principle that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters. Therefore, if the homeowner asks an agent to bring him money from the window, and he brings it from the window, then even if the homeowner intended for him to bring it from a different window or somewhere else, since his verbal instructions were fulfilled it is the homeowner who is liable for misuse. If a homeowner sends consecrated money with a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and they do as he instructed, then even though they are not halakhically competent and are therefore not fit to be agents, the homeowner is liable for misuse, as his intent was fulfilled. If these agents did not fulfill the agency but gave the money to a storekeeper, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he later spends the money. If one sends money with a halakhically competent agent to purchase an item and he remembers that the money is consecrated before the agent reaches the storekeeper, the agent is liable for misuse, because one is liable for misuse only if he utilizes the item unwittingly, not if he does so intentionally. If the agent also remembers, the storekeeper is liable for misuse when he spends that money. If the one who appointed the agent remembers that the money is consecrated, he can prevent misuse by desacralizing the money by means of other coins or vessels before the money is spent.