Ketubot 99b (צט:) — the Talmud in English

Since

the legume sold for a sela

is

the legume sold for one peruta

according to the number of perutot in a sela.

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

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

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

And we challenge this:

What are the circumstances

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

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

if the place sells according to an estimate, then this is not as you said. 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 even more [they reduce it proportionately more]!?

they reduce it proportionally more!?

Rav Pappa said

explaining

Rav Pappa:

What we said, that the legumes sold for a sela are the legumes sold for one peruta, means

in a place where they measure with kana [in a place where they sell using vessels containing a fixed measure].

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

For the seller says to him

the buyer:

One kana for one peruta

each kana for one peruta, and if you wish to purchase legumes for a sela, send additional vessels at the same price and take them; I will not reduce the price for the larger purchase at all.

Come and hear

from our Mishna that a seller does not object to having one tract of land sold in two sales, even though this results in multiple documents being issued against him:

If her marriage contract was worth

the widow’s

four hundred zuz,

and she divided land worth the full value of her 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,

then the sale

of

the

the last

through which she caused a loss to the orphans

is void,

whereas

the sale to all the others is valid.

Thus, even though she was sent to sell all the land together, and instead 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 sugya—the case in our Mishna concerns

small plots [small parcels of land that are not adjacent to one another and are not suitable for sale 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, we can likewise resolve the challenge we raised: Our Mishna concerns

small plots,

which necessarily are sold to four people.

It is obvious

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

Nevertheless, if

the principal said

to the agent, “Go and sell a bet kor from my fields

to

one

person and not to two,” and the agent disregarded the principal’s instructions and sold it to two people—

then

must say that

he explicitly said to him

in so many words:

“To one and not to two,”

and the sale is void, since the principal made clear that he objected to having multiple documents issued against him.

The only matter requiring discussion is the following: Even if you say that when one tells his agent, “Buy me a kor,” and he purchases only a half-kor, the sale is valid, what is the law in the case where—

the sender

he said to him,

the principal said to the agent: Go and sell the bet kor

“to one”!

And he said this

without qualification,

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

what

is the law? Does his statement “to one” indicate that he objects to selling to two, in which case the sale is void, or not?

Rav Huna said:

Since he said

“to one,”

the implication is

“and not to two,”

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

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say:

“To one”

means

even to two; “to one”

means

even to one hundred,

because people do not generally object to the multiplication of documents. This principal, too, does not object to it, because had he objected, he would have explicitly said, “and not to two”; rather, it is customary to phrase the instruction, “Go and sell to one.”

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura,

Rav Naḥman happened to be in the city of Sura, and

they entered to him [they entered to see him],

they came in to him—

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, and

and

they said to him,

to Rav Naḥman:

What is the law in a case such as this—

where the principal said “to one” without qualification—

what is the law?

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman said:

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

They said to him,

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

Does

even if the agent erred

and sold the land he had been sent to sell at an undervalue, the sale remain valid?

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman said:

I was not speaking of an agent who erred [I did not say this with regard to a case where the agent erred],

and the 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 exploitation with regard to land,

so why should the sale be void when the principal was exploited because his agent sold at an undervalue!?

Rav Naḥman said to them:

This applies only where the homeowner himself erred

and was exploited,

but if

if

the agent

erred and

agent made a mistake

erred and the homeowner was exploited through him, in this case the sale is void even with regard to land.

And this is because

he said to him,

the principal said to the agent:

“I sent you to improve matters for me, not to harm me” [I sent you to improve matters for me, not to distort matters for me and cause me a 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 a homeowner,

and from where do we know that we should indeed distinguish between an agent and a homeowner?

As we learned

in tractate Terumot:

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

for me from my produce,’ the agent

separates teruma according to the homeowner’s disposition,

as he knows it. If he has a stingy disposition, the agent separates one-sixtieth; and if he has a generous disposition, the agent separates one-fortieth.”

And

if he does not know

the agent

the homeowner’s disposition,

he

separates according to

an average

disposition,

which is

one-fiftieth.

And if the homeowner intended to separate one-fiftieth, but the agent erred in assessing the homeowner’s disposition,

and

and reduced ten

—separating one-fortieth—

or erred in his assessment and

misjudged and

added ten

—separating one-sixtieth—then

his teruma is valid.

It is thus evident that if the agent erred and caused a loss to the homeowner, his actions are not effective, unless he erred by an amount within the range in which a person might err—

namely, up to ten. But if the agent erred by more than ten, for example, by separating one-twentieth, since this is not an error that an agent is likely to make, once he has erred, his teruma is not valid.

But with regard to the homeowner, it was taught,

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

As it was taught:

If he separated teruma,

the homeowner, and erred,

and it resulted in even one-twentieth,

then

his teruma is valid.

This proves that there is a difference between an agent and a homeowner: If the agent erred and caused a loss to the homeowner, the agent’s actions are ineffective, whereas if the homeowner himself erred and suffered a loss, his actions are not void.

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

If her marriage contract was worth four hundred zuz

and the land was suitable for sale 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 land worth a maneh and a dinar for a maneh,

the sale to

the last

is

void, whereas the sale to all the others is valid.

And if you say that the multiplication of documents is something about which people generally object, then when the sale concerns the orphans’ land—since we are acting as the orphans’ representatives—we should say that the sale is void. Why, then, did we learn that the sale to all of them is valid!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi:

Our Mishna concerns

small plots [small parcels of land], which are customarily sold to four people, because they are not suitable 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 assessed the debtor’s assets for the creditor without the debtor’s presence or consent, because he would not heed the court’s instructions —

when they reduced by one-sixth

of the true value of the assets and caused a loss to the debtor,

or increased by one-sixth

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

their sale

of the judges [who sold the debtor’s assets 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.

For the reason that

“if

not

then what force would the court’s authority have?”!?

But if they made a public proclamation

among them,

that is, if the court made an announcement before the sale, inviting people to inspect the property and offer a price.

Even if they sold

the court

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

then

their sale is valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The valuation of the judges—if they reduced by one-sixth or increased by one-sixth, their sale is valid.

The members of the academy raised a dilemma

the students of the academy:

An agent

who sold the principal’s assets and erred in the price, causing a loss to the principal—his status is

like whom [like which of the cases]?

like which of the cases?

Is his status like that of judges, whose sale remains valid up to one-sixth, or like that of a widow, whose sale is void even for the slightest error, as we learned above [98a]: If her ketuba was one hundred, and she sold property worth one hundred and one for one hundred, her sale is void?