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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 13, 2022 | 讬状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 99

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father Moshe Fox, Moshe Yehuda ben Harav Binyamin and Chaya Tzipora, on his 5th yahrzeit, which was yesterday. “I sorely miss his humor and warmth and the special relationship he had with his grandchildren.”

The Gemara asks various questions regarding the laws of messengers who don’t do exactly what they are asked to do, and tries to answer from our Mishna and other sources. But all attempts to answer are rejected. First question: If you ask a messenger to sell your land the size of a letech and instead the messenger sold a kor, double the area, is the sale of the land the size of the letech valid or void? Some explained that the question was the other way around – if they asked to sell a kor and instead the messenger sold a letech, is the sale void because maybe it hurts the owner that there will be two deeds on the land and not one. If someone sends a messenger to sell to one person (or they weren’t specific at all as to how many people to sell to), can the messenger sell to more than one person?

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讜讝讬诇 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇 讜砖诇 讻讜诇谉 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

诇讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇 讜住讬驻讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讜讝讬诇 讘讚讬转诪讬 讗讘诇 讘讚讬讚讛 诪讻专讛 拽讬讬诐

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.

讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 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

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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬住转诇拽讗 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谉 讗讟讜 诪谞讛 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 诇讬转讻讗 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 讚讜讚讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬

The Gemara returns to the question asked earlier (98b): And there are those who say: Don鈥檛 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鈥檚 words, and the sale of the first half-kor is valid.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 讻讜专讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讬转讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讟讘讗 诇讱 注讘讚讬 诇讱 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专讻讬 诇讱 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讬讛

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 halfkor. 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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚诇讬驻砖讜 砖讟专讬 注讬诇讜讗讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 诇讬 讞诇讜拽 讜讛诇讱 讜讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讘砖诇砖 讞诇讜拽 讜讘砖诇砖 讟诇讬转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪注诇讜

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna for that which we learned about the halakhot of misusing consecrated property (Me鈥檌la 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 conse-crated property, the halakha is that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讜诪讜住讬祝 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 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 砖讜讛 砖砖 讘砖诇砖

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讬讞 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讗讟诇讬转

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讗 诪注诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讞诇讜拽 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讘拽砖 讜讗转讛 讛讘讗转 诇讬 讞诇讜拽 拽讟谉 讜专注

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then say the last clause of the mishna quoted by Rabbi 岣nina of Sura (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗讬 专注 专注 讘讚诪讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬讬转讬转 诇讬 讘砖讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讛 砖讜讛 转专转讬 住专讬

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.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讟谞讬转 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪注诇讜

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,

砖讛拽讟谞讬转 讘住诇注 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讘砖讜诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 住诇注 诪讜讝诇讬 讙讘讬讛 讟驻讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讻讬讬诇讬 讘讻谞讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻谞讗 讻谞讗 讘驻专讜讟讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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

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鈥檚 instructions and the sale is void.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬

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鈥檚 instructions.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讞讚 住转诪讗 诪讗讬

搂 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?

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛

Rav Huna said: The employer meant to sell to one person and not to two people. It is Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛

Rav Na岣an happened to come to Sura. Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇拽专拽注讜转

Rav 岣sda and 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 Na岣an said to them: I do not say so in a case where the agent erred. They said to him: But didn鈥檛 the Master say that there is no prohibition against fraud in the sale of land, and land does not have a set value?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讟注讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

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.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 砖诇讬讞 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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?

讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞讬讗 转专诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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 砖讜讛 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

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖驻讬讞转讜 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 砖转讜转 诪讻专谉 讘讟诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻专讜 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 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讻诪讗谉

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?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 99-106 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens when a court makes a mistake on the valuation of property. We will...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 99: The Responsibility of Representation

Making sense of yesterday's impossible mishnah. Specifically, what it means that she's sold property for less than it's worth, and...

Ketubot 99

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 99

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讜讝讬诇 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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 诪讻专讛 讘讟诇 讜砖诇 讻讜诇谉 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

诇讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘讚讗讜讝讬诇 讜住讬驻讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讜讝讬诇 讘讚讬转诪讬 讗讘诇 讘讚讬讚讛 诪讻专讛 拽讬讬诐

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.

讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 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

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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬住转诇拽讗 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谉 讗讟讜 诪谞讛 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 诇讬转讻讗 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 讚讜讚讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜 讛讜讬

The Gemara returns to the question asked earlier (98b): And there are those who say: Don鈥檛 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鈥檚 words, and the sale of the first half-kor is valid.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 讻讜专讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讬转讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讟讘讗 诇讱 注讘讚讬 诇讱 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专讻讬 诇讱 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讬讛

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 halfkor. 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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚诇讬驻砖讜 砖讟专讬 注讬诇讜讗讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 诇讬 讞诇讜拽 讜讛诇讱 讜讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讘砖诇砖 讞诇讜拽 讜讘砖诇砖 讟诇讬转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪注诇讜

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna for that which we learned about the halakhot of misusing consecrated property (Me鈥檌la 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 conse-crated property, the halakha is that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讜诪讜住讬祝 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 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 砖讜讛 砖砖 讘砖诇砖

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讬讞 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讗讟诇讬转

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讗 诪注诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讞诇讜拽 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讘拽砖 讜讗转讛 讛讘讗转 诇讬 讞诇讜拽 拽讟谉 讜专注

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then say the last clause of the mishna quoted by Rabbi 岣nina of Sura (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗讬 专注 专注 讘讚诪讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬讬转讬转 诇讬 讘砖讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讛 砖讜讛 转专转讬 住专讬

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.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讟谞讬转 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪注诇讜

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,

砖讛拽讟谞讬转 讘住诇注 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讘砖讜诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 住诇注 诪讜讝诇讬 讙讘讬讛 讟驻讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讻讬讬诇讬 讘讻谞讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻谞讗 讻谞讗 讘驻专讜讟讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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

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鈥檚 instructions and the sale is void.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬

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鈥檚 instructions.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讞讚 住转诪讗 诪讗讬

搂 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?

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛

Rav Huna said: The employer meant to sell to one person and not to two people. It is Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诇讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛

Rav Na岣an happened to come to Sura. Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇拽专拽注讜转

Rav 岣sda and 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 Na岣an said to them: I do not say so in a case where the agent erred. They said to him: But didn鈥檛 the Master say that there is no prohibition against fraud in the sale of land, and land does not have a set value?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讟注讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讟注讛 砖诇讬讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬

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.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 砖诇讬讞 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

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?

讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜 爪讗 讜转专讜诐 转讜专诐 讻讚注转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转讜专诐 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讬诐 驻讬讞转 注砖专讛 讗讜 讛讜住讬祝 注砖专讛 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞讬讗 转专诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 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 砖讜讛 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

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘拽讟讬谞讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖驻讬讞转讜 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 砖转讜转 诪讻专谉 讘讟诇

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 注砖讜 讗讙专转 讘拽讜专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻专讜 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 诪讻专谉 拽讬讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讻诪讗谉

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?

Scroll To Top