Ketubot 99b — the Talmud in English

Since

the legumes for a sela

are

legumes for a peruta

according to the number of perutot in the sela.

That is to say: There is no difference in price for each measure of legumes between a small quantity of legumes and a large quantity of legumes; and if a certain measure of legumes is sold for a peruta, even if you purchase with a sela, they will give you only that same measure multiplied by the number of perutot in the sela.

And with legumes, the owner cannot say to the agent: Why did you not purchase legumes with all the money that I gave you, so that their price would be reduced further?

And we conclude:

Derive from it!

And we object:

What are the circumstances

in which you say that the legumes for a sela are legumes for a peruta?

If you say that it is in a place where they sell by estimation [if it is in a place where they sell according to estimation] — if so, the matter is not as you said, but

rather

where he gives him

the buyer gives the seller

a sela [if the buyer gives a sela for a large quantity of legumes],

if the buyer gives a sela for a large quantity of legumes,

they reduce the price for him more [they reduce it for him proportionately more]!?

they reduce it proportionally more!?

Said

Rabbi Pappa:

Rav Pappa:

What we said, that the legumes for a sela are the legumes for a peruta, is

in a place where they measure with containers [in a place where they sell in containers that contain a certain measure],

a place where they sell in containers, each holding a fixed measure,

for he says to him

the seller says to the buyer:

One container for one peruta

each container for one peruta, and if you wish to purchase with a sela, send additional containers according to that price and take them; I will not reduce anything for you for the large purchase.

Come and hear

from our Mishna, that a seller is not particular that one plot of land be sold in two sales, even though many documents thereby emerge against him:

Her marriage contract was

that of the widow

four hundred zuz,

and she divided land equal in value to her entire marriage contract among several buyers, and

she sold to this one for a maneh and to that one for a maneh, and to the last one land worth a maneh and a dinar for a maneh;

the sale

of

the

last one

through which she caused a loss to the orphans

is void, whereas

but

the sale of all of them is valid.

It follows that even though she was sent to sell all the land together, and she divided the land among several buyers, her sale is not void.

And we answer:

As Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said. -

At the end of the discussion — that our Mishna deals

with small plots [small parcels of land that are not adjacent to one another and are not fit to be sold to one person].

small parcels of land that are not adjacent to one another and are not suitable for sale to a single person.

Here too,

that is to say: We too shall say, to resolve the difficulty that we raised, that our Mishna deals

with small plots,

which necessarily are sold to four people.

It is obvious,

this law is obvious, even if you should conclude that when one says, “Buy a kor for me and buy a half-kor for me,” the sale is valid:

Nevertheless, if

he said

the sender said to the agent, “Go and sell a field measuring a kor from my fields

to

one person

and not to two,” and the agent acted contrary to the owner’s instructions and sold it to two —

be

hold,

he said to him

explicitly:

“To one and not to two,”

and his sale is void, for the sender revealed through his words that he is particular that many documents not emerge against him.

But what is subject to discussion is this: even if you should conclude that if he said to the agent, “Buy a kor for me,” and he sold him only a half-kor, the sale is valid, in the case where

he

said to him,

the sender said to the agent: Go and sell the field measuring a kor

“to one”! And

he said this

without qualification,

and did not explain to him, “and not to two,” and the agent went and sold it to two —

what?

Does what he said, “to one,” reveal that he is particular about a sale to two, and if so the sale is void, or not?

Rav Huna said:

Since he said

“to one,”

the meaning of the words is

“and not to two,”

and if the agent sold it to two, the sale is void.

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both said:

“To one”

means:

even to two; “to one”

means:

even to one hundred,

for people are not accustomed to be particular about the multiplication of documents, and this one too is not particular about it, because if he were particular he would have said explicitly, “and not to two”; rather, this is simply the manner of expression: “Go and sell to one.”

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura,

Rav Naḥman happened to arrive in the city of Sura,

they entered before him [they entered to him]

they came in to him—

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna,

and

said to him,

to Rav Naḥman:

In a case such as this —

where the sender said “to one” without qualification —

what?

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman:

“To one,” even to two; “to one,” even to one hundred.

They said to him,

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman:

Does

even though the agent erred

and sold the land that he was sent to sell cheaply, his sale remain valid?

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman said:

“I did not speak of an agent who erred” [I did not say this regarding a case in which the agent erred],

and his sale is void.

They said to him,

to Rav Naḥman:

But the master said

in the Mishna in the chapter “The Golden One”:

There is no overreaching with regard to land,

so why should the sale be void when the sender was subject to overreaching because his agent sold cheaply!?

Rav Naḥman said to them:

These words apply where the owner erred

himself and was subject to overreaching,

but

if

the agent

erred and

the agent

caused the owner to be subject to overreaching through him, in this case the sale is void even with regard to land.

And because

he said to him,

the sender said to the agent:

“I sent you to improve matters for me, and not to distort them” [I sent you to improve matters for me, and not to distort matters for me and cause me loss].

I sent you to act for my benefit, not to act improperly and cause me a loss.

And the Gemara proves this reasoning:

And from where do you say that there is a difference between an agent and the owner,

and from where do we know to say that indeed a distinction should be made between an agent and the owner?

For we learned

in tractate Terumot:

“One who says to his agent: ‘Go and separate teruma

for me from my produce,’ the agent

separates according to the owner’s intention,

as he knows him: if he has an ungenerous eye, the agent separates one sixtieth, and if he has a generous eye, the agent separates one fortieth.

And

if he does not know

the agent

the owner’s intention,

he

separates with

an

average

eye, which is

one fiftieth.

And if the owner’s intention was to separate one fiftieth, and the agent erred in estimating the owner’s intention

and

decreased by ten

—that he separated one fortieth —

or

erred in his estimation and

increased by ten

—that he separated one sixtieth — then

his teruma is teruma.

And it is proven that if the agent erred and caused a loss to the owner, his actions do not stand, except when he erred in a measure in which a person is liable to err

—namely, up to ten; but if the agent erred by more than ten, for example, he separated one twentieth, since this is something in which an agent is not liable to err, therefore, since this one erred, his teruma is not teruma.

But regarding the owner, it was taught,

that his actions stand even if he erred by more than this measure:

For it was taught:

He separated teruma,

the owner, and erred,

and even one twentieth resulted for him,

then

his teruma is teruma.

And it is proven that there is a difference between an agent and the owner: if the agent erred and caused a loss to the owner, the agent’s actions are not effective, whereas if the owner himself erred and suffered a loss, his actions are not void.

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

“Her marriage contract was four hundred zuz,

and she was fit to sell it to one person, and the widow went and

sold to this one for a maneh and to that one for a maneh, and to the last one something worth a maneh and a dinar for a maneh;

the sale

of the last one

is

void, but the sale of all of them is valid.”

And if you should conclude that the multiplication of documents is something about which people are accustomed to be particular, then when the sale is of the orphans’ land, since we are the orphans’ hand, we should say that the sale is void; and why did we learn that the sale to all of them is valid!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi:

Our Mishna deals

with small plots [with small parcels of land], which are customarily sold to four people, because they are not fit for one person.

small parcels of land that are customarily sold to four people, because they are not suitable for one person.

Mishna:

The valuation

of the judges,

judges who valued the borrower’s property for the creditor without the borrower’s presence or without his knowledge, because he would not heed the court’s voice —

when they decreased by one-sixth

from the true value of the property and caused a loss to the borrower,

or increased by one-sixth

above its true value and caused a loss to the creditor, then

their sale —

that of the judges [who sold the borrower’s property to the creditor] —

is void.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid,

and the Gemara will explain how great the error may be while the sale remains valid.

Because of the reason that

“if

[not]

so, what force does the court’s authority have”!?

But if they made an announcement

among themselves,

that is to say: If the court made an announcement before the sale, that people should come to inspect the properties and offer a price.

Even if they sold

the court

property worth a maneh for two hundred, or property worth two hundred for a maneh,

then

their sale is valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The valuation of the judges, when they decreased by one-sixth or increased by one-sixth, their sale is valid;

They posed a dilemma before them,

the members of the academy:

An agent

who sold the sender’s property and erred regarding the price and caused a loss to his sender — his law is

like whom [like which one]?

like which of the cases?

Is his law like that of judges whose sale is valid up to one-sixth, or like that of a widow whose sale is void even with any amount of error, as we learned above [98a]: If her ketubah was one maneh, and she sold property worth one maneh and one dinar for one maneh, her sale is void?