Ketubot 98

בבתוליה שיהו כל בתוליה קיימין בין בכדרכה בין שלא כדרכה

When the verse states “in her virginity,” the intent is that her sign of virginity should be fully intact, with her not having engaged in sexual intercourse of any kind, whether in the typical manner or through atypical sexual intercourse. Therefore, this dispute is not relevant to the dispute with regard to whether part of the money can be considered akin to all of the money.

ההיא איתתא דתפסה כסא דכספא בכתובתה קתבעה מזוני אתאי לקמיה דרבא אמר להו ליתמי זילו הבו לה מזונות לית דחש להא דרבי שמעון דאמר לא אמרינן מקצת כסף ככל כסף

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who seized a silver cup as partial payment of her marriage contract and who also demanded sustenance. She came before Rava for judgment. He said to the orphans: Go and give her sustenance, as there are none who are concerned about the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, who said that we do not say that part of the money has a status like the entire sum of money.

שלח ליה רבה בריה דרבא לרב יוסף מוכרת שלא בבית דין צריכה שבועה או אין צריכה שבועה ותבעי לך הכרזה

§ Rabba, son of Rava, sent this question to Rav Yosef: Does a woman who sells her late husband’s property when not in court need to take an oath that she has not taken more than she deserves, or does she not need to take an oath? Rav Yosef replied to him: But you should have raised the dilemma if prior to the sale she needs to make a public announcement in order to properly assess the value of the property.

אמר ליה הכרזה לא קמיבעיא לי דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב נחמן אלמנה ששמה לעצמה לא עשתה ולא כלום

He said to him in response: I am not raising the dilemma as to whether there needs to be a public announcement, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Naḥman said: A widow who assessed the property for herself and took from the property according to her own calculation has accomplished nothing.

היכי דמי אי דאכרוז אמאי לא עשתה ולא כלום אלא לאו דלא אכרוז ולעצמה הוא דלא עשתה ולא כלום הא לאחר מה שעשתה עשתה

Now what are the circumstances here? If they publicly announced that this property was for sale and arrived at an agreed upon assessment of its value, why is it that she has accomplished nothing? The same halakha that applies to any purchaser should apply to her. Rather, is it not that no public announcement was made; and doesn’t this teach that if she took it for herself, she has accomplished nothing, but if she sold it to someone else, then her action is effective, despite there not being any public announcement?

לעולם דאכרוז ודאמרי לה מאן שם ליך

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, this is a case where they made a public announcement and where they said to her: Who assessed this for you? Although the sale was conducted publicly, there was still no assessment of the property value.

כי האי דההוא גברא דאפקידו גביה כיסתא דיתמי אזל שמה לנפשיה בארבע מאה זוזי אייקר קם בשית מאה

That case is similar to this incident of a certain man with whom someone had deposited coral belonging to orphans. He went and assessed the value of the coral for himself at four hundred dinars and then took it for himself. The coral appreciated in value and its value now stood at six hundred dinars.

אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה מאן שם לך

He came before Rabbi Ammi to determine whether the profit belonged to the orphans or to him. Rabbi Ammi said to him: Who assessed this for you? Since you never had it assessed, neither the court nor the orphans sold it to you. Therefore, you never acquired the coral, and it remained in the possession of the orphans and the profit is theirs.

והלכתא צריכה שבועה ואינה צריכה הכרזה

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that she is required to take an oath, but she is not required to make a public announcement.

מתני׳ אלמנה שהיתה כתובתה מאתים ומכרה שוה מנה במאתים או שוה מאתים במנה נתקבלה כתובתה

MISHNA: In the case of a widow whose marriage contract was worth two hundred dinars and she sold property that was worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or if she sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, she has received payment of her marriage contract and can demand nothing more.

היתה כתובתה מנה ומכרה שוה מנה ודינר במנה מכרה בטל אפילו היא אומרת אחזיר דינר ליורשין מכרה בטל

If her marriage contract was worth one hundred dinars and she sold property worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for one hundred dinars, the sale is void because she sold property that did not belong to her. Even if she says: I will return the additional dinar to the heirs, the sale is nevertheless void.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לעולם מכרה קיים עד שתהא שם כדי שתשייר בשדה בת תשעה קבין ובגנה בת חצי קב וכדברי רבי עקיבא בית רובע

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Actually, the sale is valid. It is not considered an invalid sale until there is an error so extreme that had there been no mistake, there would have remained in the field an area required for sowing nine kav of seed, the smallest area of land worth working. In that case, the orphans can reasonably claim that they are unwilling to give up on the land that belongs to them. However, if the error is less than this, it is enough if she returns the remainder to the orphans. And in the case of a garden, the sale is void if, had there been no error, there would have remained an area required for sowing a half-kav of seed, as this is the smallest size of garden worth working. Or, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, an area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed.

היתה כתובתה ארבע מאות זוז ומכרה לזה במנה ולזה במנה ולאחרון יפה מנה ודינר במנה של אחרון בטל ושל כולן מכרן קיים

If her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars, and she sold property to this one for one hundred dinars, and she sold property to that one for one hundred dinars, and again to a third one, and she sold property to the last one worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for only one hundred dinars, the sale of the last property is void, as the price she charged was below the market value. And all of the others, their sale is valid, as they were sold for the correct price.

גמ׳ מאי שנא שוה מאתים במנה דאמרי לה את אפסדת שוה מנה במאתים נמי תימא אנא ארווחנא

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the first halakha mentioned in the mishna, which teaches that if the widow sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, or if she sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, in either case she can no longer demand any payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is different about the case where she sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, where the halakha is that she has received her entire marriage contract, as the heirs can say to her: You caused yourself to lose out since you received from the estate the value of your entire marriage contract, but because you sold it improperly, you did not receive its full value. Why then, in the case where she sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, can she not also say to the heirs: I profited from the sale, but I received only the value of one hundred dinars from the estate, and I am entitled to another one hundred dinars?

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

כאן שנה רבי הכל לבעל המעות כדתניא הוסיפו לו אחת יתירה הכל לשליח דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר חולקין

Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught, i.e., it can be learned from this mishna that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion that everything belongs to the owner of the money. If one earned a profit through the actions of his agent, the profit belongs to him and not to the agent, as it is taught in a baraita where the Sages debate this matter: In a case where one sent an agent to the marketplace to purchase merchandise at a certain price, if in addition to items that the agent purchased they added for him one extra item, the entire profit belongs to the agent; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: The owner of the money and the agent split the profit.

והתניא רבי יוסי אומר הכל לבעל המעות אמר רמי בר חמא לא קשיא כאן בדבר שיש לו קצבה כאן בדבר שאין לו קצבה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Everything belongs to the owner of the money? Rami bar Ḥama said: This is not difficult. Here the baraita is referring to an item that has a fixed price. If the seller added something, it is clear that the additional item is a gift, but it is unclear if the gift is meant for the agent or for the owner of the money, so it is split between the two. Whereas there, the baraita is referring to an item that does not have a fixed price, and one can say that any additional items that were given were not intended for the agent, but were part of the overall deal and belong to the owner of the money.

אמר רב פפא הלכתא דבר שיש לו קצבה חולקין דבר שאין לו קצבה הכל לבעל המעות מאי קא משמע לן שינויא דשנינן שינויא הוא

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that an item that has a fixed price is split, and with regard to an item that does not have a fixed price, the entire profit belongs to the owner of the money. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us with that statement? That is exactly what Rami bar Ḥama said. The Gemara explains: He wanted to say that the answer that we taught is the correct answer, and one can issue practical halakhic rulings based on it.

איבעיא להו אמר ליה זבין לי ליתכא ואזל וזבין ליה כורא מאי מוסיף על דבריו הוא וליתכא מיהא קני או דלמא מעביר על דבריו הוא וליתכא נמי לא קני

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said to his agent: Sell on my behalf a half-kor, and the agent went and sold for him a kor, what is the halakha? Is he considered to be adding to the words of his employer? In that case, though he also performed an action that he was not assigned to do, part of his action was performing his assigned agency, and the buyer at least acquired a half-kor. Or perhaps he is considered to be disregarding his employer’s words, since he did not perform exactly what he was told to do, in which case the entire transaction was performed by his own volition, without the authorization of his employer, and even the half-kor is not acquired by the buyer.

אמר רב יעקב מנהר פקוד משמיה דרבינא תא שמע אמר בעל הבית לשלוחו תן להן חתיכה לאורחין והוא אומר טלו שתים והן נטלו שלש כולן מעלו

Rav Ya’akov of Pekod River said in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Me’ila 20a): The mishna teaches with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property: If the host said to his agent: Give the guests a piece of meat, and the agent went and said to the guests: Take two pieces, and they went and took three, and in the end it was ascertained that the meat was consecrated, they are all guilty of misusing consecrated property.

אי אמרת בשלמא מוסיף על דבריו הוי משום הכי בעל הבית מעל אלא אי אמרת מעביר על דבריו הוי בעל הבית אמאי מעל והתנן השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל

Granted, if you say that the agent is adding to the words of the host, this halakha is understandable, because then, when the agent said to the guests: Take two pieces, he presented one of the pieces as the agent of the host. It is due to that reason that the host is guilty of misusing consecrated property. However, if you say that the agent is disregarding the words of the host, why is the host guilty of misusing consecrated property? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 20a): If an agent who performed his assigned agency caused consecrated property to be misused, it is the host who appointed him who is guilty of misusing consecrated property; however, if the agent did not perform his assigned agency, and did not act in accordance with his instructions, it is the agent who is guilty of the misuse and not the employer?

הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר להו טלו אחת מדעתו של בעל הבית ואחת מדעתי ושקלו אינהו תלת

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent said explicitly to the guests: Take one piece with the consent of the host, and one piece with my consent, and they took three pieces. Since every piece of meat was taken with the consent of someone else, they are all guilty of the misuse of consecrated property.

תא שמע היתה כתובתה מנה ומכרה שוה מנה ודינר במנה מכרה בטל

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an understanding of the mishna: If her marriage contract was worth one hundred dinars, and she sold property worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for one hundred dinars, the sale is void.

מאי לאו דזבין שוה מנה ודינר במנה ודינר ומאי במנה מנה שלה ומאי אפילו אפילו היא אומרת אחזיר את הדינר ליורשים בדינר מקרקעי וקתני מכרה בטל

The Gemara interprets the case of the mishna: What, is it not that she sold property worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for one hundred dinars and a dinar, and there was no error in the sale? And what does it mean when the mishna says that she sold the property for one hundred dinars? It means that she sold it in order to receive the one hundred dinars owed to her because of her marriage contract. And what does it mean when it says in the mishna: Even if she says: I will return the one extra dinar to the heirs, nevertheless the sale is voided? It means that even if she says: I will return the dinar to the heirs by giving them a dinar’s worth from my land, the heirs will not be losing anything at all. The Gemara concludes the proof: And the mishna teaches that even so the sale is void, implying that not just what she added is void, but the entire sale is voided.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לא בדאוזיל

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No, the correct understanding of the mishna is not that she sold the land for its proper price. Rather, the mishna is referring to a situation where she reduced its price and sold the property for less than its worth, and there was an error in the sale itself.