Ketubot 99
הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּדְאוֹזֵיל הָוֵי, רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא אוֹזֵיל, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה, וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יָפֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים!
The Gemara asks: Since the last clause of the mishna deals with a case where she reduced the price, it stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is a case where she did not reduce the price. Why would the mishna repeat itself for no reason? As it teaches in the last clause of the mishna: 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. And as for all of the others, their sale is valid because they were sold for the correct price.
לָא, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּדְאוֹזֵיל, וְסֵיפָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּאוֹזֵיל בִּדְיַתְמֵי, אֲבָל בְּדִידַהּ — מִכְרָהּ קַיָּים.
The Gemara rejects this: No, both the first and the last clauses discuss cases where she reduced the price of the land and sold it for less than its worth. And the last clause teaches us this: The reason that the sale is void is that in that case, since she had already received full payment of her marriage contract, she reduced the price in a sale that she made with property of the orphans and at their expense. However, when she reduced the price of the land in the sale of her own property, as in the earlier clauses of the mishna, her sale is valid.
הָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם, וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם, אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה — נִתְקַבְּלָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.
The Gemara asks: How can it be that this is what the last clause of the mishna is teaching? It can already be concluded from the first clause of the mishna, which states: 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. This teaches that although she reduced the price of her own property by half, the sale is valid.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיסְתַּלַּקָא לַהּ מֵהַאי בֵּיתָא לִגְמָרֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא נִיגְזוֹר מָנֶה רִאשׁוֹן אַטּוּ מָנֶה אַחֲרוֹן — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say: There, in the first clause of the mishna, the sale is valid because through the sale she has left this house entirely, i.e., she no longer has anything to do with her husband’s estate, as her entire claim has been paid off; however, here, in the latter clause, decree that the first sale for one hundred dinars will be void due to the last one hundred dinars. If the first sale is allowed to take effect, this may lead to the error of the last sale taking effect as well. Therefore, the first sale should be void if she reduces the price. Lest you make this argument, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״זִיל זַבֵּין לִי לִיתְכָּא״ וְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ כּוֹרָא, דְּוַדַּאי מוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי.
The Gemara returns to the question asked earlier (98b): And there are those who say: Don’t raise this dilemma in a case where the employer said to his agent: Go and sell on my behalf a half-kor, and the agent sold for him a kor, as he was certainly adding to the employer’s words, and the sale of the first half-kor is valid.
כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיל זַבֵּין לִי כּוֹרָא״ וַאֲזַל וְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לִיתְכָּא, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּטָבָא לָךְ עֲבַדִי לָךְ, דְּאִי לָא מִצְטָרְכִי לָךְ זוּזֵי, לָא מָצֵית הָדְרַתְּ בֵּיהּ.
Where you should raise the dilemma is a case in which the employer said to his agent: Go sell on my behalf a kor, and he went and sold for him a half–kor. What is the halakha in that case? Do we say that the agent can say to the employer: I did what is good for you by not selling everything, because you now have the opportunity to determine if you are truly in need of more money. If you decide that you do not need the money then you will not have to sell more property, because if you will realize that you do not need the money after the sale has been completed, you will not be able to reverse the sale. I therefore did you a favor by selling as little as I could.
אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא נִיחָא לִי דְּלִיפֻּשׁוּ שְׁטָרֵי עִילָּוַאי.
Or perhaps the employer can say to the agent: I do not agree to this. I am not amenable to the fact that this will increase the number of bills of sale that I have because I will have to write a separate promissory note for each sale, and if I will have to go to court then I may earn a reputation as someone who has many mortgages.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נָתַן לוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הָבֵא לִי חָלוּק״, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ חָלוּק וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ טַלִּית — שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna for that which we learned about the halakhot of misusing consecrated property (Me’ila 21a): If one gave his agent a gold dinar, which is equal in value to twenty-five dinars or six sela, and said to him: Get me a robe. And he went and brought him a robe that cost three sela, and a cloak that also cost three sela, after which it was discovered that the original dinar was consecrated property, the halakha is that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: שְׁלִיחַ כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, וּמוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: מַעֲבִיר עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי — אַמַּאי מָעַל?
Granted, if you say that the agent in a case like this is considered to be performing his assigned agency, and he was merely adding to the words of the employer, it is due to that reason that the homeowner is guilty of misusing consecrated property. However, if you say that the agent is disregarding the words of the employer, as the employer intended for him to buy a robe with all six sela, why is the employer guilty of misusing consecrated property? In this instance, the agent did not fulfill his assignment.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ שָׁוֶה שֵׁשׁ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ.
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he brought him a robe worth six sela that he had succeeded in buying for only three sela, so that the employer received exactly what he wanted. And the agent did not deviate from his intentions, he merely added to them because he also bought him a cloak.
אִי הָכִי, שָׁלִיחַ אַמַּאי מָעַל? אַטַּלִּית.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, if the employee did exactly what the employer had asked him to do, then why is the agent guilty of misusing consecrated property? The Gemara answers: He is guilty of misusing consecrated property because he spent three sela of consecrated property to buy the cloak, which the employer never requested from him.
אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בָּזֶה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ, וְאַתָּה הֵבֵאתָ לִי חָלוּק קָטָן וָרַע.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then say the last clause of the mishna quoted by Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura (Me’ila 21b): Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in this case the homeowner is not guilty of misusing consecrated property because he is able to say: I would have requested a large robe and you brought me a robe that is small and bad. If the agent had brought him a robe worth six sela as requested, then this should not be a bad robe.
מַאי ״רַע״? רַע בְּדָמִים, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַיְיתֵית לִי בְּשֵׁית, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דַּהֲוָה שָׁוֵה תַּרְתֵּי סְרֵי.
The Gemara answers: What is meant by bad? It is bad in its monetary value because the agent spent on the robe less than what the employer instructed him. That is why the agent is considered to have violated the wishes of his employer, as the employer can say to him: Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, if you had brought me a robe for six sela as I asked you, it would all the more so have been worth twelve sela, and it would have been a much finer robe.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּקִטְנִית שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ,
The Gemara notes: The language of the mishna is also precise when understood in this way, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property in the following case: The agent purchased only part of what the employer requested in the case of legumes, which are sold for a set price under all circumstances,
שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בְּסֶלַע, וְקִטְנִית בִּפְרוּטָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
As, whether he bought legumes for a sela or whether he bought legumes for a peruta, the price would have been the same even if he bought in bulk. The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that this is the proper interpretation of the mishna.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְזַבְּנִי בְּשׁוּמָא, הֵיכָא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ סֶלַע — מוֹזְלִי גַּבֵּיהּ טְפֵי!
The Gemara asks about the sale of legumes: What are the circumstances where the price stays the same even if one bought in bulk? If we say that it occurs in a locale where they sell legumes by appraisal of an article’s value, then when he gives the merchant a sela as payment, the seller reduces the price for him more than if he had bought less. In such a place the buyer profits, and it is clear that even legumes do not have a fixed price.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּכָיְילִי בְּכַנֵּי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כַּנָּא כַּנָּא בִּפְרוּטָה״.
Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a locale where one measures with vessels and to a case where the merchant said to him: Fill each vessel for a peruta. The buyer then receives the product in accordance to how much he pays, and does not pay less if he buys in bulk.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יָפֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: 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, and all of the others, their sale is valid, as they were sold for the correct price. Here, the widow was appointed as an agent to sell property worth four hundred dinars, and she initially sold property worth only one hundred dinars, and nevertheless the sale is valid. The mishna does not say that she disregarded the orphan’s instructions and the sale is void.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, בְּקַטִּינֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקַטִּינֵי.
The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in another context: This is stated with regard to small tracts of land that are geographically separated and do not form one land mass that can be sold as a single unit. Here too, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to small tracts of land that are not part of one larger field, and so this case is not proof that an agent who sells less than he was instructed to is considered to be adding to and not disregarding his employer’s instructions.
פְּשִׁיטָא, אָמַר ״לְאֶחָד, וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם״ — הָאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְאֶחָד״ סְתָמָא, מַאי?
§ In continuation of the previous discussion, the Gemara raises another problem: It is obvious that if the employer said to his agent: Sell my property to one person, but not to two, and the agent sold the property to two people, since he said to him: To one, but not to two, it is certain that the agent has disregarded his instructions and is no longer considered an agent. However, if the employer said to the agent: Sell to one person, without specifying that he should not sell to two people, what is the halakha if the agent did sell the property to two people?
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״לְאֶחָד״, וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״לְאֶחָד״, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם. ״לְאֶחָד״, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמֵאָה.
Rav Huna said: The employer meant to sell to one person and not to two people. It is Rav Ḥisda and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, who both say: He meant to one person and even to two people. When he said to one person, he meant and even to one hundred people, as he did not mean one person specifically.
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״לְאֶחָד״ וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם, ״לְאֶחָד״ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמֵאָה.
Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: In a case like this one, which was discussed above in the Gemara, what is the halakha? He said to them: When he said to one person, he meant and even to two people. When he said to one person, he meant and even to one hundred people.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַף עַל גַּב דִּטְעָה שָׁלִיחַ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּטְעָה שָׁלִיחַ לָא קָאָמֵינָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָאָמַר מָר אֵין אוֹנָאָה לְקַרְקָעוֹת!
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Is the agent considered to be performing his assigned agency even though he erred, e.g., by selling property for less than its value? Rav Naḥman said to them: I do not say so in a case where the agent erred. They said to him: But didn’t the Master say that there is no prohibition against fraud in the sale of land, and land does not have a set value?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דִּטְעָה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל טְעָה שָׁלִיחַ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי״.
He replied to them: This applies only where the homeowner erred, e.g., where he sold land for less than its market value. In that case, he cannot claim that the sale is invalid because of fraud. However, in a case where the agent erred, the homeowner can say to the agent: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment, and his appointment as an agent is nullified.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין שָׁלִיחַ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת?
The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that there is a legal difference between an error made by an agent and an error made by a homeowner?
דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּתְרוֹם — תּוֹרֵם כְּדַעַת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — תּוֹרֵם בְּבֵינוֹנִית אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשִּׁים, פִּיחֵת עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ הוֹסִיף עֲשָׂרָה — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:4): In the case of one who says to his agent: Go out and separate the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma], the agent separates teruma in accordance with the mind-set of the homeowner. He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed fraction for the amount that one must set aside as teruma. A generous person would give as much as a fortieth of the produce as teruma, while a stingy person would give a sixtieth. And if he does not know the mind-set of the homeowner, he separates an intermediate measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce. If he subtracted ten from the denominator and separated one-fortieth, or added ten to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth of the produce, his teruma is considered teruma.
וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תַּנְיָא: תָּרַם וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
Whereas with regard to the homeowner himself it is taught in a baraita: If he separated teruma and even one-twentieth of the produce came up in his hand, his donation is effective and is considered teruma. The agent may deviate from the intention of the homeowner only within certain parameters. If he misunderstood the homeowner’s wishes and separated an unusually large percentage of the produce, his action accomplished nothing. The same action, however, when performed by the homeowner, is effective; if the homeowner himself mistakenly separated an unusually large percentage of his produce, it becomes teruma.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן שָׁוֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים.
The Gemara returns to discuss whether a person is particular about having too many documents with his name on them. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: 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, and all of the others, their sale is valid, as they were sold for the correct price. She should have sold the land to one individual and not increased the number of documents bearing guarantees for the orphans to worry about. Still, if she did sell to several people, the sales are all valid.
אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בְּקַטִּינֵי.
The Gemara answers: Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: This is stated with regard to small tracts of land that are geographically separated and do not form one land mass that can be sold as a single unit.
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוּם הַדַּיָּינִין שֶׁפִּיחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹסִיפוּ שְׁתוּת — מִכְרָן בָּטֵל.
MISHNA: The halakha with regard to the assessment of the judges of the value of a piece of property in order to sell it is as follows: Where they decreased the price by one-sixth of its market value or added one-sixth to its market value, their sale is void.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִכְרָן קַיָּים. אִם כֵּן — מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה? אֲבָל אִם עָשׂוּ אִגֶּרֶת בִּקּוֹרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, אֲפִילּוּ מָכְרוּ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה — מִכְרָן קַיָּים.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid. If it were so that the sale is void, then what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? However, if they made a document of inspection, i.e., an announcement that people should come to inspect the field and bid on the property, then even if they sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid, as the transaction was agreed upon and done publicly.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ, כְּמַאן?
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: An agent who mistakenly sold land for less than its value is like whom? Is he comparable to a judge, whose sale is effective if he did not err by more than one-sixth of the market price, or is he comparable to a widow, whose sale is void if she sold for anything less than the market price?
