ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 99
(a) The reason that we initially tried to establish our Mishnah 'Machrah
Manah ve'Dinar *be'Manah* ... ' to mean *'be'Manah ve'Dinar*, is because we
already know the Din of Manah ve'Dinar be'Manah from the Seifa: 'Haysah
K'suvasah Arba Mei'os Zuz ... u'le'Acharon Yafeh Manah ve'Dinar be'Manah,
shel Acharon Michrah Bateil'. We conclude that, even though both speak
literally, when she undercharged the purchaser, the Seifa is needed for the
inference, to teach us that it is specifically by the last Manah, where the
loss is on the Yesomim, that her sale is nullified, but not by the earlier
sales, where the loss is on her.
(b) Granted, we know that already from the Reisha 'Haysah K'suvasah Masayim,
Machrah Shaveh ... Masayim be'Manah', Niskablah Kesuvasah' - but that is
only because there, only one sale took place, and there is nothing to
decree; whereas in the Seifa, where the last sale involves the Yesomim, we
might have thought that, there where she also undercharged in the first
sales (which involved only her), they should not be valid either, on account
of the last sale (which involves the Yesomim).
(a) In the second Lashon, if the owner instructed the Sh'li'ach to sell a
field worth a Lesech and he sold one worth a Kur, everyone agrees that he
only added, in which case, the sale is valid and he returns the extra
Lesech. The She'eilah is - when the owner instructed the Sh'li'ach to sell a
field worth a Kur and he sold one worth a Lesech.
(b) The Sheli'ach claims that he did the owner a possible favor by saving
him from selling the rest of the field, in the event that he changes his
mind. On the other hand, it might be to the owner's disadvantage, to have to
sell the second half of the field independently - because it will mean that
two buyers will now possess two documents that could implicate him, rather
(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah says that if a Sheli'ach, who was given a golden
Zahav (six Sela'im) of Hekdesh money to purchase a coat, went and bought a
coat for three Sela and a cloak for three - both the Sheli'ach and the owner
(b) We try to resolve our She'eilah from there - because if we assume that
the Sheli'ach is considered a having transgressed the owner's instructions,
when he sells or buys less than he was told to buy, and that the sale is
invalidated, then why should the owner be Mo'eil?
(c) We prove our point from there, because there too, the coat that costs
three Sela'im will only be worth half of the value of a coat that costs six
Sela'im (see Tosfos DH 'Ela').
(d) To answer the question, we establish the Mishnah when the Sheli'ach
obtained a bargain, and the coat was actually worth six Sela'im (one golden
Dinar). In that case, the Sheli'ach was Mo'el - because of the cloak, which
he was not asked to buy.
(a) In the above Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah argues that the owner is not Mo'el,
because he can say that he wanted a larger (more expensive) coat. Granted,
we just established that, according to the Tana Kama, that is what he
received. Rebbi Yehudah argues however - that had the Sheli'ach spent the
entire six Sela'im, as he was instructed, he would have obtained a coat
worth twelve Sela'im, because the more one spends, the better deal one
(b) We prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes that if he
asked the Shelia'ch to buy six Sela'im-worth of legumes, and he obtained
them for only three, that both of them will have been Mo'el - because there,
had he bought more legumes for the other three, he would not have received
any better deal.
(c) This will only work in a place where they sell 'Kana Kana bi'Perutah',
as Rav Papa explains - because then, one receives exactly the number of
bundles that one pays for. But when they sell the legumes be'Shuma, this
means that they assess the goods depending on how much one pays, then Rebbi
Yehudah will again hold that the more one pays, the more excess one
(d) If in the Reisha, they had been speaking about when the Sheli'ach bought
a coat worth only three Sela'im (and the Tana Kama would consider this Mosif
and Rebbi Yehudah, Ma'avir) - then in the Seifa too, in the case of legumes,
we would have to say that he bought three Sela-worth of legumes and three
Sela-worth of other vegetables. Considering that the owner instructed the
Sheli'ach to purchase six Sela-worth, on what grounds would Rebbi Yehudah
concede that he is Mo'eil? Why should it not be a false sale?
(a) The fields that the Almanah sells are the property of her husband's
heirs - she sells them in the capacity of their Sheli'ach.
(b) Nevertheless, we cannot resolve our She'eilah (that when a Sheli'ach
sells a Lesech instead of a Kur, his sale is valid) from our Mishnah, which
validates the first sales of the Almanah, when she sold the first fields
that were worth a Manah, for a Manah. The Yesomim cannot argue that they do
not want more than one document of sale against them, because of a statement
of Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi - who says that it is speaking when the
property available for sale consists of small fields, which cannot be sold
to one person anyway.
(a) If the owner specifically instructed the Sheli'ach to sell his two
fields to one person and not to two ('le'Echad, ve'Lo li'Shenayim'), it is
clear that he does not want more than one document arraigned against him.
This presumes with regard to the previous She'eilah - that if the owner
instructed the Sheli'ach to sell a Kur and he sold a Lesech, he is only
Mosif, and the sale is valid.
(b) According to Rav Huna, if the owner said 'le'Echad', but did not add
've'Lo li'Shenayim', that is nevertheless what he means - Rav Chisda and
Rabah bar Rav Huna say 'le'Echad, va'Afilu li'Shenayim va'Afilu le'Mei'ah'.
(c) When Rav Nachman arrived in Sura, and Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna
asked him how he ruled in the current case - he replied 'le'Echad, va'Afilu
li'Shenayim va'Afilu le'Mei'ah'.
(a) With regard to a Sheli'ach selling the owner's property too cheaply -
Rav Nachman holds that the sale is invalid.
(b) The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Ein Ona'ah le'Karka'os', he explains -
pertains to the owner himself, but not to the Sheli'ach.
(a) The three possible ways of giving Terumah are - a generous person, a
fortieth, a miserly person, a sixtieth, an average person, a fiftieth.
Again, we cite our Mishnah which validates the Almanah's first sales of a
Manah's-worth for a Manah. Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi explains that the
Tana speaks when the fields that are available are in small sections. We
were trying to prove - that people are not fussy about having many documents
arraigned against them, because otherwise, Beis-Din should have protested on
behalf of the Yesomim, when the Almanah sold the fields in three sales.
(b) A Sheli'ach who gives Terumah on behalf of the owner and who does not
know what the owner normally gives - should give the a fiftieth.
(c) If he gave a sixtieth or a fortieth instead of a fiftieth (but not less
or more than that) - his Terumah is valid.
(d) If the owner himself gave as much as a twentieth (but not more) - his
Terumah is valid. So we see, there is a distinction drawn between the amount
that the owner gives and the amount that a Sheli'ach gives.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, when assessing property that needs to be
sold for the Kesuvah of an Almanah - the Beis-Din are allowed a leeway of
one sixth, beyond which their sale is nullified.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that their sale is valid, because
otherwise, what power do the Beis-Din have?
(c) The Chachamim agree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel there where they made
an Igeres Bikores - meaning that when they announce that the field is for
sale, so that people should come and inspect it then, even if the field was
subsequently sold for up to fifty percent less than its going price, the
sale is still valid.