Ketubot 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

Here

in our Mishna

Rabbi taught

us

Rabbi [that is, Rabbi taught us]:

One who gives money to his agent to go to the market to purchase merchandise for him

and the purchaser went and bought it at a low price,

all [that is, all the money that remained ]

all the money that remained ]

belongs to the

sender,

the owner of the money,

and the agent cannot say, “I profited.”

Likewise, in our Mishna the woman is like the orphans’ agent to sell the land. Since she sold the land at a high price, the law is that the entire profit belongs to the orphans who sent her, and the woman cannot say, “I profited.”

As it was taught

in a beraita, in which tanna’im disagree about this matter, and the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is that “all belongs to the owner of the money” in the case of an item whose price is not fixed; and Rabbi formulated our Mishna anonymously with regard to land, which likewise is an item whose price is not fixed, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei:

For this is what we learned in a beraita:

One who gives money to his agent to purchase with his money a quantity corresponding to what is customarily sold for that amount, and

the sellers added for him

to the agent

one extra measure,

that is, they gave him a larger quantity,

all

that is, all the addition that they gave him—

belongs to the agent

—this is

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: They divide it

the sender and the agent divide that profit, because Rabbi Yosei was uncertain whether the seller intended to give it as a gift to the agent or to the sender, the owner of the money; therefore, they divide it.

And

we raised an objection to this from that which

was taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: All belongs to the owner of the money,

and they do not divide it!? And

he said

that is, he answered:

Rami bar Hama said: It is not difficult!

Here—

where Rabbi Yosei says that they divide it—

it is an item whose price is fixed,

such as legumes, which are sold by the measure, a full vessel for a peruta. In that case, if the seller added extra legumes for him, he certainly intended it as a gift; and since we are uncertain to whom he intended to give the gift, they divide it.

Here—

where Rabbi Yosei said that all belongs to the owner of the money—

it is an item whose price is not fixed,

such as a cloak, a garment, or vegetables, which are sold by estimation: sometimes the seller gives more and sometimes less. This is not a gift but a sale, and therefore all belongs to the owner of the money; whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, even in this case all belongs to the agent.

It follows that our Mishna, which deals with land, an item whose price is not fixed and which is sometimes sold at a high price and sometimes at a low price, follows the view of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that in such a case all belongs to the owner of the money and not to the agent.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: With regard to an item whose price is fixed, they divide it; with regard to an item whose price is not fixed, all belongs to the owner of the money

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

The Gemara asks

: What does this teach us?

That is, he should have said, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei”?

And we explain: This teaches us that

the resolution that we gave

that is, the answer we gave to the contradiction in Rabbi Yosei’s statements—

is a genuine resolution

that is, a true answer; indeed, according to Rabbi Yosei there is a distinction between an item whose price is fixed and one whose price is not fixed.

Therefore, he could not have said, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,” since he came to teach us that this is indeed Rabbi Yosei’s view.

A dilemma was raised before them:

If

he said to him

the sender said to the agent:

Buy for me

a house

of a lethekh [a lethekh, which is half a kor], go and sell on my behalf a house containing half a kor of my land

.

And he went

the agent

and sold him a kor,

the agent went and sold an entire kor of the sender’s land.

What

that is, it is obvious that the sale of the entire kor is invalid, since he was not authorized to sell so much; rather, the members of the academy were uncertain whether the sale of the house containing a lethekh is valid, as will be explained.

Does this mean that

“he adds”

the agent

to his words

of the sender,

and

if so,

at least the lethekh is acquired

by the purchaser [the sale of the lethekh is valid].

Or perhaps: “He transgresses”

the agent

against his words

of the sender,

and even the lethekh is not acquired

by the purchaser [even the lethekh is not sold to the purchaser], and if the owner wishes to retract, he may not retract?

Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod said in the name of Ravina: Come and hear

a proof that he is one who “adds,” and not one who “transgresses”:

The owner said to his agent

with regard to pieces of consecrated property designated for the repair of the Temple that were in his possession, and he thought they were non-sacred but they were found to be consecrated:

Give them one piece each

that is, give each of them a piece of the meat that I have in the vessel

to the guests.

And he

the agent

says

to the guests:

Take two each

each of you, and he added to the owner’s instruction, which had said only one piece for each person.

And they

the guests

took three each

pieces, each of them.

All of them—

the sender, the agent, and the guests—

committed misuse,

because one piece that the agent gave to each of the guests as the sender’s agent renders the sender liable, since there is agency for misuse.

The second piece that he gave to each of them without the owner’s authorization renders the agent liable for misuse.

The third piece that the guests took on their own renders them liable for misuse.

Granted, if you say

that in a case such as this

“he adds”

the agent

to his words

of the sender

is the case—

That is why the owner committed misuse

with regard to the piece that he had indeed instructed the agent to give, because although the agent added through his actions, nevertheless the one piece that he gave is considered to have been given as the sender’s agent.

But if you say

that in a case such as this

“he transgresses against his words”,

and even the one piece that the agent gave is not considered to have been given as the owner’s agent, then

why did the owner commit misuse —

And

indeed

we learned: If the agent fulfilled his agency, the owner committed misuse.

But if he

did not fulfill his agency,

for example, if the sender instructed him to purchase a cloak with the money, but he purchased a tallit with it, then the

agent committed misuse

and not the sender, because in this matter he is not the sender’s agent.

Here too, the agent did not fulfill the owner’s agency; rather, he transgressed against his words, and it should have been the agent who committed misuse, not the owner!?

And we reject this:

With what are we dealing here:

He said to them

the agent said explicitly to the guests:

Take one

of the pieces

with the owner’s authorization,

and by doing so he fulfilled the owner’s agency, rendering the sender liable;

and one

of the pieces, take

with my authorization, and they took three

[the guests took three pieces].

Come and hear

from our Mishna that he does transgress against his words:

If her marriage contract was one hundred dinars, and she sold property worth one hundred dinars and one dinar for one hundred dinars,

then

her sale is void.

Is it not

the case that our Mishna is dealing with one in which

she sold

the widow sold

property worth one hundred dinars and one dinar for one hundred dinars and one dinar,

at the land’s proper value—

And if you say: If so, if this is the case with which the Mishna is dealing, why did we learn, “She sold property worth one hundred dinars and one dinar ‘for one hundred dinars,’” implying that she reduced the price—

It is not difficult, because

and what does “for one hundred dinars” mean?

She sold property worth one hundred dinars and one dinar in order to collect her

one hundred dinars

from the sale proceeds.

And if you say further: If so, why did we learn, “Even if she says, I will return the dinar to the heirs”? If she did not reduce the price, it is obvious that she returns the dinar to the heirs, since she came only to collect one hundred dinars?

This too is not difficult, because

what does “even” mean?

Even

if she says, “I will return the extra dinar to the orphans in the form of a dinar of land,”

that is, “I will not return the extra dinar that I received from the purchasers; rather, I will restore the original situation and return to the orphans that extra parcel of land worth a dinar that I sold to the purchaser unlawfully.”

And it teaches: Her sale is void,

and necessarily the reason is that she transgressed against the orphans’ instruction, for they authorized her to sell only for the value of her marriage contract.

If so, we have learned that he transgresses against his words.

He said

that is, he rejected

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan,

the proof from our Mishna:

No,

not as you explained our Mishna, that she sold beyond the amount of her marriage contract at the property’s proper price, but

when she reduced the price,

that is, she sold property worth one hundred dinars and one dinar for one hundred dinars; and since she erred, her sale is void.