Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 99a

But since the final clause¹ [deals with a case] where [she sold] at a lower price, [would not] the earlier clause² [naturally³ refer to one] where [she did] not [sell] at a lower price; for has [it not] been stated in the final clause, IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS⁴ TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH, AND TO A FOURTH⁴ [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANE HAND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH, [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID?⁵ — No, both the earlier and the final clause [refer to a sale] at a lower price, but⁶ it is this that we were informed in the final clause: The reason [why her sale is void is] because [she sold]⁷ at a lower price [the property] that belonged to the orphans,⁸ but [if that⁹ had been done] with her own,¹⁰ her sale is valid.¹¹ But is not this already inferred from the first clause: WHOSE KETHUBAH WAS FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ SOLD [A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ OR ONE THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ FOR ONE MANEH, HER KETHUBAH IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN THEREBY SETTLED?¹² — It might have been assumed [that the ruling¹³ was applicable] there Only because [by her one act] she completely severed her connection with that house,¹⁴ but that here¹⁵ [the sale for] the first maneh [should be deemed invalid] as a preventive measure against [the assumption of the validity of the sale for the] last maneh,' hence we were informed [that the law was not so].

Some there are who say: You have no need to ask [for a ruling] where [a man said to his agent,] 'Go and sell for me a lethek'¹⁶ and [the latter] sold for him a kor, since [in this case the agent] was undoubtedly adding to his instructions.¹⁷ The question, however, arises as to what is the ruling where the man said to the agent, 'Go and sell for me a kor' and he sold for him only one lethek.¹⁶ Do we [in such a case] lay down that [the agent] might tell the man, 'I have done for you that which is more advantageous to you, for [had I sold the full kor, and] you were no longer in need of money you could not have retracted',¹⁸ or is it rather [held that the owner] might retort to him, 'It is no satisfaction to me that many deeds [should be held] against me'? — R. Hanina of Sura¹⁹ replied, Come and hear: If one man gave to another a gold denar²⁰ and told him, 'Bring me a shirt', and the other brought him a shirt for three sela's and a cloak for three sela's, both are guilty of trespass.²¹ Now if you admit that an agent in similar circumstances²² has performed his mission and was only adding to his instructions, one can well see why the owner²³ is guilty of trespass.²⁴ If, however, you should maintain that [the agent in such circumstances] was transgressing his instructions, why should [the owner] be guilty of trespass?²⁵ — Here we are dealing with a case where [the agent] brought him [a shirt that was] worth six sela's for three.²⁶ If so²⁷ why should the agent be guilty of trespass? — On account of the cloak.²⁸ But if that were so,²⁹ read the final clause: R. Judah ruled, Even in this case²⁹ the owner is not guilty of trespass because he might say [to the agent,] 'I wanted a big shirt and you brought me one that is small and bad'!³⁰ — 'Bad' means³¹ 'bad in respect of the price', for³² [the owner can] tell him, 'Had you brought me one for six sela's [my gain would have been] even greater since it would have been worth twelve sela's.'³³ This³⁴ may also be proved by an inference. For it was stated:³⁵ R. Judah admits [that if the transaction was] in pulse both³⁶ are guilty of trespass

1. Of our Mishnah.
2. The clause just cited.
3. Since two clauses are not necessary to lay down the same principle.
4. V. our Mishnah for notes.
5. An objection against R. Huna the son of R. Nathan (cf. supra n' 9).
6. As to the objection (v. supra n. 9).
7. To the fourth person.
8. Sc. land that exceeded the amount that was due to her.
9. The sale of land of the value of a maneh and a denar for one maneh only.
10. I.e., when she was selling to the first three persons. and when the extra land for the denar was still hers.
11. Because the law of overreaching is inapplicable to landed property even where the error amounted to as much as a sixth of the value; much less when it is no more than one hundredth.
12. Which shews that where the additional land sold constituted a part of the woman's due, her sale is valid. Cf. supra p. 627, n. 11.
13. That the sale is valid when the land belongs to the woman,
14. In such a case naturally no preventive measures are called for.
15. The case in the final clause.
16. V. supra p. 626, n. 2.
17. And the buyer is consequently entitled to the possession at least of the lethek (cf. supra 98b).
18. The sale consequently should be valid.
19. Cf. supra p. 383, n. 7.
20. Rashi: The gold denar twenty-five silver denarii, or six sela's (cf. B.M. 44b). [Rashi probably means approximately six sela's, since one sela' four denarii, or the extra denar may be surcharge as agio. v, Strashun].
21. If the denar was found to have belonged to the sanctuary. Me'il. 21a.
22. Selling one lethek where the instruction was to sell two (a kor) is similar to spending on an object three sela's where the instruction was to spend on it six (a gold denar).
23. Lit., 'master of the house', sc. the man who gave the denar to the agent.
24. He is responsible for the offence since his wish had been carried out.
25. Consequently it must be inferred that the agent spoken of 10 the enquiry has performed his mission (cf. supra p. 628, n. 6).
26. Cf. supra note 4.
27. That the agent carried out the sender's instructions.
28. Which he bought entirely on his own responsibility.
29. That the agent bought for three sela's an article that was actually worth six,
30. Me'il, loc. cit. If the reply given (cf. supra n. 9) is to be accepted R. Judah's statement is apparently meaningless.
31. Lit., 'what'.
32. Despite the fact that the shirt bought was actually worth six sela's.
33. The higher the price the higher in proportion is the profit. Aliter: One who pays a higher price is allowed a greater discount (cf. Rashi s.v. [H], and Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.).
34. That by 'bad' R. Judah meant 'bad in respect of the price', that the shirt bought for three sela's was actually worth six, and that the reason why the owner is not guilty of trespass is because his wish to have the advantage of the bigger purchase had not been carried out.
35. Tosef. Me'il, II.
36. The owner and the agent.

because [the quantity of] pulse for a sela' [is in exactly the same proportion as] that for one perutah.¹ This is conclusive. How is this² to be understood? If it be suggested [that it refers] to a place where [pulse] is sold by conjectural estimate, does not one [it may be objected] who pays a sela' obtain the commodity at a much cheaper rate?³ — R. Papa replied: [It refers] to a place where each kanna⁴ is sold⁵ for one perutah.⁶

Come and hear: IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS⁷ TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH, AND TO A FOURTH⁷ [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID!⁸ — [This⁹ is no proof, for] as R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied¹⁰ [that the final clause of our Mishnah deals] with small plots of land,¹¹ [so it may] in this discussion¹² also [be argued that the clause cited deals] with small plots of land.¹³

It is obvious [that if a man] instructed [his agent to sell a plot of land] to one person but not to two persons [and he sold it to two' the sale is invalid¹⁴ for] he distinctly told him, 'To one person but not to two persons'.¹⁵ What, [however, is the ruling where] he gave instructions [that the sale shall be made] to one person without mentioning any further limitation?¹⁶ R. Huna ruled: 'To one person' implies 'but not to two'.¹⁷ Both R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna, however, ruled: 'To one person'¹⁸ may mean even to two;¹⁹ 'to one', may mean¹⁶ even to a hundred.¹⁹ R. Nahman once happened to be at Sura²⁰ when R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna came to visit him. 'What [is the ruling], they asked him, in such a case?'²¹ — To one', he replied, [may mean] even to two, 'to one' may mean even to a hundred. '[Are the sales valid,]' they asked him, 'even where the agent made an error?'²² — 'I do not speak', he replied, 'of a case where the agent had made an error'. 'But did not a Master', they asked again, 'say [that the law of] overreaching does not apply to landed property'?²³ This²⁴ applies only where the owner made the error; but where the agent has made the error [the owner] might tell him, 'I sent you to improve my position but not to impair it'.²⁵ Whence, however, is it inferred that a distinction may be drawn between the agent and the owner? — [From] what we have learned, 'If a man tells his agent, "Go and give terumah", the latter must give the terumah in accordance with the disposition of the owner,²⁶ and if he does not know the owner's disposition, he should give the terumah in a moderate manner, viz., one fiftieth.²⁷ If he reduced [the denominator by] ten²⁸ or added ten to it²⁹ his terumah is nevertheless valid',³⁰ while in respect of an owner²⁶ it was taught: If, when setting apart terumah, there came up in his hand even so much as one twentieth²⁷ his terumah is valid.³¹

Come and hear: IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND] TO [THREE] PERSONS³² TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH, AND TO A FOURTH³² [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH, [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL OTHERS ARE VALID.³³ R. Shisha the son of R. Ishi replied: [This clause deals] with small plots of land.³⁴

MISHNAH. IF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE JUDGES³⁵ WAS BY ONE SIXTH LESS, OR BY ONE SIXTH MORE [THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY]. THEIR SALE IS VOID. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: THEIR SALE IS VALID FOR, OTHERWISE,³⁶ OF WHAT ADVANTAGE WOULD THE POWER OF A COURT BE? IF A BILL FOR INSPECTION,³⁷ HOWEVER, HAS BEEN DRAWN UP, THEIR SALE IS VALID EVEN IF THEY SOLD FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ³⁸ WHAT WAS WORTH ONE MANEH,³⁸ OR FOR ONE MANEH WHAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ.

GEMARA. The question was asked: What is the legal status of³⁹ an agent?⁴⁰ —

1. The smallest coin. No advantage is gained in making a bigger purchase. The owner's wish in this case, unlike that of the shirt (cf. supra p. 629, n. 13) may consequently be regarded as having been carried out. Thus it has been shewn that the reason why R. Judah exempts the owner in the case of the shirt is the one indicated. (Cf. p. 629. n. 14).
2. The transaction in pulse.
3. Than one who buys for a perutah only. The more the amount spent by the buyer the more generous the conjectural estimate of the seller How then could it be said (cf. supra n. 1) that no advantage is gained from the purchase of a larger quantity?
4. [H] (cf. [G]) a small measure of capacity.
5. Lit., 'measured'.
6. V. Glos.; no advantage, therefore, is gained from the purchase of larger quantities. Read with MS.M. [H] Cur edd., 'where they measure with kannai (pl. of kanna) so that he tells him. Each kanna for a perutah'.
7. V. our Mishnah for notes.
8. Though at the time she sold to each of the first three persons she was in fact authorized (or entitled) to sell much more. As these sales of the woman (which are analogous to an agent's sale of a lethek when his instructions were to sell as much as a kor) are valid, so one would expect the sale of the agent to be valid, and a reply is thus obtained to the enquiry supra 995.
9. Cf. supra note 8.
10. Infra.
11. Detached from one another.
12. Lit., 'here'.
13. Cf. supra n. 11. In such circumstances the woman was never expected (entitled or authorized) to sell for all the four hundred zuz to one person at one and the same time. By selling the small plots each for a price not higher than one maneh she is in a different legal position from that of the agent who, in fact, was expected to sell a full kor while he actually sold no more than a lethek. The validity of the sales of the former is consequently no criterion for the validity of the sales of the agent in question.
14. Even if the sale of a lethek, where the instructions were to sell a kor, were to be ruled as being valid.
15. Thus clearly expressing his objection to be responsible for more than one deed of sale.
16. Are the agent's sales to two persons. in such circumstances, valid or not?
17. The sales, therefore, are invalid.
18. Unless some definite form of restriction has been expressed.
19. The sales to them are consequently valid. The mention of one person only is regarded as the usual manner of speech, which is not intended to exclude any larger number of persons.
20. V. supra p. 383, n. 7'
21. As the one just discussed.
22. By accepting a lower price.
23. V. Mishnah B.M. 56a, why then should the agent's error cause the invalidity of the sale? [Var. lec., 'But did the Master not say etc.', the reference being to R. Nahman's ruling reported B.M. 108a, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H].
24. The law just quoted.
25. Hence the invalidity of the sale.
26. Lit., 'master of the house'.
27. Of the produce.
28. Sc. one fortieth of the whole, which is the quantity of terumah given by men of a liberal disposition (v. Ter. IV, 3).
29. A sixtieth, which is the measure given by one who is of a mean disposition (v. loc, cit.).
30. Ter. IV 4; but if his error was greater his terumah is invalid.
31. Which proves conclusively that a distinction is made between an error made by an owner and one made by his agent.
32. V. our Mishnah for notes.
33. Though the multiplicity of sales and inevitable deeds might be objected to' if not by the orphans themselves, by Beth din. Since, however, no such objection is admitted in this case, the same ruling should apply to the case discussed in the enquiry supra 99a.
34. That were detached from one another, so that it was impracticable to sell them all to one person. Hence the validity of the sales. Where one plot of land, however, is concerned, the owner might well object to have the responsibility of a multiplicity of deeds.
35. Of a deceased husband's estate which was sold to pay the kethubah of his widow.
36. Lit., 'if so'.
37. [H], ([H] = letter', 'bill'; [H] from rt. [H], 'to examine' 'inspect'), a legal document, issued by a court, inviting the public to inspect property put up by an order of the court for sale.
38. V. Glos.
39. Lit. 'like whom'.
40. Who made a mistake in the sale he was instructed to effect.