Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 11, 2015 | 讻状讘 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 98

讘讘转讜诇讬讛 砖讬讛讜 讻诇 讘转讜诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讻讚专讻讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

When the verse states 鈥渋n her virginity,鈥 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.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚转驻住讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 拽转讘注讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讝讬诇讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝

搂 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.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜转讘注讬 诇讱 讛讻专讝讛

Rabba, son of Rava, sent this question to Rav Yosef: Does a woman who sells her late husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻专讝讛 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇诪谞讛 砖砖诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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 Na岣an said: A widow who assessed the property for herself and took from the property according to her own calculation has accomplished nothing.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讻专讜讝 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讜诇注爪诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 诇讗讞专 诪讛 砖注砖转讛 注砖转讛

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鈥檛 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?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讻专讜讝 讜讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讗谉 砖诐 诇讬讱

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.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚讜 讙讘讬讛 讻讬住转讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗讝诇 砖诪讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬拽专 拽诐 讘砖讬转 诪讗讛

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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 砖诐 诇讱

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.

讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻专讝讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 砖讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 谞转拽讘诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛

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.

讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讞讝讬专 讚讬谞专 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诪讻专讛 拽讬讬诐 注讚 砖转讛讗 砖诐 讻讚讬 砖转砖讬讬专 讘砖讚讛 讘转 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讙谞讛 讘转 讞爪讬 拽讘 讜讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬转 专讜讘注

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.

讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诪讻专讛 诇讝讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗讞专讜谉 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 砖诇 讗讞专讜谉 讘讟诇 讜砖诇 讻讜诇谉 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗转 讗驻住讚转 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 谞诪讬 转讬诪讗 讗谞讗 讗专讜讜讞谞讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 诇讜 讗讞转 讬转讬专讛 讛讻诇 诇砖诇讬讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉

Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught, i.e., it can be learned from this mishna that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Everything belongs to the owner of the money? Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讬谞讜讬讗 讚砖谞讬谞谉 砖讬谞讜讬讗 讛讜讗

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 岣ma 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 诇讬转讻讗 讜讗讝诇 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转讻讗 诪讬讛讗 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诇讜讞讜 转谉 诇讛谉 讞转讬讻讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖 讻讜诇谉 诪注诇讜

Rav Ya鈥檃kov of Pekod River said in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讘讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟诇讜 讗讞转 诪讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞转 诪讚注转讬 讜砖拽诇讜 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讜诪讗讬 讘诪谞讛 诪谞讛 砖诇讛 讜诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 诪拽专拽注讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 98

讘讘转讜诇讬讛 砖讬讛讜 讻诇 讘转讜诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讻讚专讻讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

When the verse states 鈥渋n her virginity,鈥 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.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚转驻住讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 拽转讘注讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讝讬诇讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讻住祝 讻讻诇 讻住祝

搂 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.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讜讻专转 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜转讘注讬 诇讱 讛讻专讝讛

Rabba, son of Rava, sent this question to Rav Yosef: Does a woman who sells her late husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻专讝讛 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇诪谞讛 砖砖诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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 Na岣an said: A widow who assessed the property for herself and took from the property according to her own calculation has accomplished nothing.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讻专讜讝 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗讻专讜讝 讜诇注爪诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注砖转讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 诇讗讞专 诪讛 砖注砖转讛 注砖转讛

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鈥檛 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?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讻专讜讝 讜讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讗谉 砖诐 诇讬讱

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.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗驻拽讬讚讜 讙讘讬讛 讻讬住转讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗讝诇 砖诪讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬拽专 拽诐 讘砖讬转 诪讗讛

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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 砖诐 诇讱

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.

讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讻讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻专讝讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 砖讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 谞转拽讘诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛

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.

讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讞讝讬专 讚讬谞专 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诪讻专讛 拽讬讬诐 注讚 砖转讛讗 砖诐 讻讚讬 砖转砖讬讬专 讘砖讚讛 讘转 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讙谞讛 讘转 讞爪讬 拽讘 讜讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬转 专讜讘注

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.

讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诪讻专讛 诇讝讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗讞专讜谉 讬驻讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 砖诇 讗讞专讜谉 讘讟诇 讜砖诇 讻讜诇谉 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗转 讗驻住讚转 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讗转讬诐 谞诪讬 转讬诪讗 讗谞讗 讗专讜讜讞谞讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 诇讜 讗讞转 讬转讬专讛 讛讻诇 诇砖诇讬讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇拽讬谉

Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught, i.e., it can be learned from this mishna that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讻讗谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Everything belongs to the owner of the money? Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛诪注讜转 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讬谞讜讬讗 讚砖谞讬谞谉 砖讬谞讜讬讗 讛讜讗

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 岣ma 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 诇讬转讻讗 讜讗讝诇 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转讻讗 诪讬讛讗 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诇讜讞讜 转谉 诇讛谉 讞转讬讻讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讟诇讜 砖转讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖 讻讜诇谉 诪注诇讜

Rav Ya鈥檃kov of Pekod River said in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讘讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟诇讜 讗讞转 诪讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞转 诪讚注转讬 讜砖拽诇讜 讗讬谞讛讜 转诇转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讘诪谞讛 讜讚讬谞专 讜诪讗讬 讘诪谞讛 诪谞讛 砖诇讛 讜诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 诇讬讜专砖讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 诪拽专拽注讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇

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.

Scroll To Top