## Ketubot Daf 99a

###### Ketubot 99a:1
[Ketubot 99a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:1)

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּדְאוֹזֵיל הָוֵי, רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא אוֹזֵיל, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה, וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יָפֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Since the last clause** of the mishna deals with a case **where she reduced** the price, it stands to reason that **the first clause** of the mishna **is** a case **where she did not reduce** the price. Why would the mishna repeat itself for no reason? **As it teaches** in **the last clause** of the mishna: If **her marriage contract was** worth **four hundred dinars** and **she sold** property **to this** one **for one hundred dinars, and** she sold property **to that** one **for one hundred dinars,** and again to a third one, **and** she sold property **to the last one worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for** only **one hundred dinars, the** sale **of the last** property **is void. And** as for **all of the others, their sale is valid** because they were sold for the correct price.


###### Ketubot 99a:2
[Ketubot 99a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:2)

לָא, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּדְאוֹזֵיל, וְסֵיפָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּאוֹזֵיל בִּדְיַתְמֵי, אֲבָל בְּדִידַהּ — מִכְרָהּ קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** both the **first and the last clauses** discuss cases **where she reduced** the price of the land and sold it for less than its worth. **And the last clause teaches us this: The reason** that the sale is void is that in that case, since she had already received full payment of her marriage contract, **she reduced** the price in a sale that she made **with** property **of the orphans** and at their expense. However, when she reduced the price of the land **in** the sale of **her own** property, as in the earlier clauses of the mishna, **her sale is valid.**


###### Ketubot 99a:3
[Ketubot 99a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:3)

הָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם, וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם, אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה — נִתְקַבְּלָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can it be that this is what the last clause of the mishna is teaching? It can already be **concluded from the first clause** of the mishna, which states: In the case of **a widow whose marriage contract was** worth **two hundred** dinars **and she sold** property that was **worth one hundred dinars for two hundred** dinars, **or** if she sold property **worth two hundred** dinars **for one hundred dinars, she has received** payment of **her marriage contract** and can demand nothing more. This teaches that although she reduced the price of her own property by half, the sale is valid.


###### Ketubot 99a:4
[Ketubot 99a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:4)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיסְתַּלַּקָא לַהּ מֵהַאי בֵּיתָא לִגְמָרֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא נִיגְזוֹר מָנֶה רִאשׁוֹן אַטּוּ מָנֶה אַחֲרוֹן — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: There,** in the first clause of the mishna, the sale is valid because through the sale **she has left this house entirely,** i.e., she no longer has anything to do with her husband’s estate, as her entire claim has been paid off; **however, here,** in the latter clause, **decree** that the **first** sale for **one hundred dinars** will be void **due to the last one hundred dinars.** If the first sale is allowed to take effect, this may lead to the error of the last sale taking effect as well. Therefore, the first sale should be void if she reduces the price. Lest you make this argument, the mishna **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Ketubot 99a:5
[Ketubot 99a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״זִיל זַבֵּין לִי לִיתְכָּא״ וְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ כּוֹרָא, דְּוַדַּאי מוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the question asked earlier (98b): **And there are** those **who say: Don’t raise this dilemma** in a case **where** the employer **said to** his agent: **Go** and **sell** on **my** behalf **a half-*kor*, and** the agent **sold for him a *kor*, as he was certainly adding to the** employer’s **words,** and the sale of the first half-*kor* is valid.


###### Ketubot 99a:6
[Ketubot 99a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:6)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיל זַבֵּין לִי כּוֹרָא״ וַאֲזַל וְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לִיתְכָּא, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּטָבָא לָךְ עֲבַדִי לָךְ, דְּאִי לָא מִצְטָרְכִי לָךְ זוּזֵי, לָא מָצֵית הָדְרַתְּ בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Where you** should **raise the dilemma** is a case in **which** the employer **said to** his agent: **Go sell** on **my** behalf **a *kor*, and he went and sold for him a half**-***kor*. What** is the *halakha* in that case? **Do we say** that the agent can **say to** the employer: **I did what is good for you** by not selling everything, because you now have the opportunity to determine if you are truly in need of more money. If you decide that you do not need the money then you will not have to sell more property, **because if** you will realize that **you do not need the money** after the sale has been completed, **you will not be able to reverse** the sale. I therefore did you a favor by selling as little as I could.


###### Ketubot 99a:7
[Ketubot 99a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:7)

אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא נִיחָא לִי דְּלִיפֻּשׁוּ שְׁטָרֵי עִילָּוַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the employer can **say to** the agent: I do not agree to this. **I am not amenable** to the fact **that** this **will increase the** number of **bills** of sale that **I** have because I will have to write a separate promissory note for each sale, and if I will have to go to court then I may earn a reputation as someone who has many mortgages.


###### Ketubot 99a:8
[Ketubot 99a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נָתַן לוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הָבֵא לִי חָלוּק״, וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ חָלוּק וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ טַלִּית — שְׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna for that which we learned about the *halakhot* of misusing consecrated property (*Me’ila* 21a): If **one gave** his agent **a gold dinar,** which is equal in value to twenty-five dinars or six *sela*, **and said to him: Get me a robe. And he went and brought him a robe that** cost **three** *sela*, **and a cloak that** also cost **three** *sela*, after which it was discovered that the original dinar was consecrated property, the *halakha* is that **both are guilty of misusing consecrated property.**


###### Ketubot 99a:9
[Ketubot 99a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: שְׁלִיחַ כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, וּמוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: מַעֲבִיר עַל דְּבָרָיו הָוֵי — אַמַּאי מָעַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that the **agent in a case like this** is considered to be **performing his** assigned **agency, and he was** merely **adding to the words** of the employer, it is **due to that** reason that **the homeowner is guilty of misusing consecrated property. However, if you say** that the agent is **disregarding the words** of the employer, as the employer intended for him to buy a robe with all six *sela*, **why** is the employer **guilty of misusing consecrated property?** In this instance, the agent did not fulfill his assignment.


###### Ketubot 99a:10
[Ketubot 99a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:10)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ שָׁוֶה שֵׁשׁ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where he brought him** a robe **worth six** *sela* that he had succeeded in buying **for** only **three** *sela*, so that the employer received exactly what he wanted. And the agent did not deviate from his intentions, he merely added to them because he also bought him a cloak.


###### Ketubot 99a:11
[Ketubot 99a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:11)

אִי הָכִי, שָׁלִיחַ אַמַּאי מָעַל? אַטַּלִּית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** if the employee did exactly what the employer had asked him to do, then **why** is the **agent guilty of misusing consecrated property?** The Gemara answers: He is guilty of misusing consecrated property because he spent three *sela* of consecrated property to buy **the cloak,** which the employer never requested from him.


###### Ketubot 99a:12
[Ketubot 99a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:12)

אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בָּזֶה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לֹא מָעַל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: חָלוּק גָּדוֹל הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ, וְאַתָּה הֵבֵאתָ לִי חָלוּק קָטָן וָרַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then **say the last clause** of the mishna quoted by Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura (*Me’ila* 21b): **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in this** case **the homeowner is not guilty of misusing consecrated property because he is able to say: I would have requested a large robe and you brought me a robe** that is **small and bad.** If the agent had brought him a robe worth six *sela* as requested, then this should not be a bad robe.


###### Ketubot 99a:13
[Ketubot 99a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:13)

מַאי ״רַע״? רַע בְּדָמִים, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַיְיתֵית לִי בְּשֵׁית, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דַּהֲוָה שָׁוֵה תַּרְתֵּי סְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What** is meant by **bad? It is bad** in its **monetary** value because the agent spent on the robe less than what the employer instructed him. That is why the agent is considered to have violated the wishes of his employer, as the employer can **say to him:** Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, **if you had brought me** a robe **for six** *sela* as I asked you, it would **all the more so** have **been worth twelve** *sela*, and it would have been a much finer robe.


###### Ketubot 99a:14
[Ketubot 99a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99a:14)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּקִטְנִית שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מָעֲלוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The language of the mishna **is also precise** when understood in this way, **as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda concedes** that **both are guilty of misusing consecrated property** in the following case: The agent purchased only part of what the employer requested **in** the case of **legumes,** which are sold for a set price under all circumstances,