## Ketubot Daf 99b

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

שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בְּסֶלַע, וְקִטְנִית בִּפְרוּטָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As,** whether he bought **legumes for a *sela* or** whether he bought **legumes for a *peruta*,** the price would have been the same even if he bought in bulk. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from here** that this is the proper interpretation of the mishna.


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

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְזַבְּנִי בְּשׁוּמָא, הֵיכָא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ סֶלַע — מוֹזְלִי גַּבֵּיהּ טְפֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about the sale of legumes: **What are the circumstances** where the price stays the same even if one bought in bulk? **If we say** that it occurs **in a locale where they sell** legumes **by appraisal** of an article’s value, **then when he gives the merchant a *sela*** as payment, the seller **reduces the price for him more** than if he had bought less. In such a place the buyer profits, and it is clear that even legumes do not have a fixed price.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּכָיְילִי בְּכַנֵּי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כַּנָּא כַּנָּא בִּפְרוּטָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** It is referring to **a locale where one measures with vessels** and to a case where the merchant **said to him:** Fill each **vessel for a *peruta*.** The buyer then receives the product in accordance to how much he pays, and does not pay less if he buys in bulk.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יָפֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from 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 all of the others, their sale is valid,** as they were sold for the correct price. Here, the widow was appointed as an agent to sell property worth four hundred dinars, and she initially sold property worth only one hundred dinars, and nevertheless the sale is valid. The mishna does not say that she disregarded the orphan’s instructions and the sale is void.


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

כִּדְאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, בְּקַטִּינֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקַטִּינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is as Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said** in another context: This is stated **with regard to small** tracts of land that are geographically separated and do not form one land mass that can be sold as a single unit. **Here too,** the ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to small** tracts of land that are not part of one larger field, and so this case is not proof that an agent who sells less than he was instructed to is considered to be adding to and not disregarding his employer’s instructions.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא, אָמַר ״לְאֶחָד, וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם״ — הָאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְאֶחָד״ סְתָמָא, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In continuation of the previous discussion, the Gemara raises another problem: **It is obvious** that if the employer **said to** his agent: Sell my property **to one** person, **but not to two,** and the agent sold the property to two people, since **he said to him: To one, but not to two,** it is certain that the agent has disregarded his instructions and is no longer considered an agent. However, if the employer **said to** the agent: Sell **to one** person, **without specifying** that he should not sell to two people, **what** is the *halakha* if the agent did sell the property to two people?


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

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: ״לְאֶחָד״, וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״לְאֶחָד״, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם. ״לְאֶחָד״, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** The employer meant to sell **to one** person and **not to two** people. It is **Rav Ḥisda and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, who both say:** He meant **to one** person **and even to two** people. When he said **to one** person, he meant **and even to one hundred** people, as he did not mean one person specifically.


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

אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״לְאֶחָד״ וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם, ״לְאֶחָד״ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman happened** to come **to Sura. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: In a case like this** one, which was discussed above in the Gemara, **what** is the *halakha*? **He said to them:** When he said **to one** person, he meant **and even to two** people. When he said **to one** person, he meant **and even to one hundred** people.


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

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַף עַל גַּב דִּטְעָה שָׁלִיחַ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּטְעָה שָׁלִיחַ לָא קָאָמֵינָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָאָמַר מָר אֵין אוֹנָאָה לְקַרְקָעוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna **said to him:** Is **the agent** considered to be performing his assigned agency **even though he erred,** e.g., by selling property for less than its value? Rav Naḥman **said to them: I do not say** so in a case **where the agent erred. They said to him: But didn’t the Master say** that **there is no** prohibition against **fraud** in the sale **of land,** and land does not have a set value?


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

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דִּטְעָה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל טְעָה שָׁלִיחַ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He replied to them: **This applies only where the homeowner erred,** e.g., where he sold land for less than its market value. In that case, he cannot claim that the sale is invalid because of fraud. **However,** in a case where **the agent erred,** the homeowner can **say to** the agent: **I sent you to** act for **my benefit and not to my detriment,** and his appointment as an agent is nullified.


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

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין שָׁלִיחַ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And from where do you say that** there is **a** legal **difference between** an error made by **an agent and** an error made by **a homeowner?**


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

דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּתְרוֹם — תּוֹרֵם כְּדַעַת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — תּוֹרֵם בְּבֵינוֹנִית אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשִּׁים, פִּיחֵת עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ הוֹסִיף עֲשָׂרָה — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 4:4): In the case of **one who says to his agent: Go out and separate** the portion of the produce designated for the priest [*teruma*], the agent **separates** *teruma* **in accordance with the mind-set of the homeowner.** He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed fraction for the amount that one must set aside as *teruma*. A generous person would give as much as a fortieth of the produce as *teruma*, while a stingy person would give a sixtieth. **And if he does not know the mind-set of** the **homeowner, he separates an intermediate** measure, i.e., **one-fiftieth** of the produce. If **he subtracted ten** from the denominator and separated one-fortieth, **or added ten** to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth of the produce, **his *teruma*** is considered ***teruma*.**


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

וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תַּנְיָא: תָּרַם וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Whereas with regard to the homeowner** himself **it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **he separated** *teruma* **and even one-twentieth** of the produce **came up in his hand, his donation** is effective and is considered ***teruma*.** The agent may deviate from the intention of the homeowner only within certain parameters. If he misunderstood the homeowner’s wishes and separated an unusually large percentage of the produce, his action accomplished nothing. The same action, however, when performed by the homeowner, is effective; if the homeowner himself mistakenly separated an unusually large percentage of his produce, it becomes *teruma*.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, מָכְרָה לָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְּמָנֶה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן שָׁוֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה — שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל, וְשֶׁל כּוּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss whether a person is particular about having too many documents with his name on them. The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from 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 all of the others, their sale is valid,** as they were sold for the correct price. She should have sold the land to one individual and not increased the number of documents bearing guarantees for the orphans to worry about. Still, if she did sell to several people, the sales are all valid.


###### Ketubot 99b:15
[Ketubot 99b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99b:15)

אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בְּקַטִּינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** This is stated **with regard to small** tracts of land that are geographically separated and do not form one land mass that can be sold as a single unit.


###### Ketubot 99b:16
[Ketubot 99b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99b:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** שׁוּם הַדַּיָּינִין שֶׁפִּיחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹסִיפוּ שְׁתוּת — מִכְרָן בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The *halakha* with regard to **the assessment of the judges** of the value of a piece of property in order to sell it is as follows: **Where they decreased** the price by **one-sixth** of its market value **or added one-sixth** to its market value, **their sale is void.**


###### Ketubot 99b:17
[Ketubot 99b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99b:17)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִכְרָן קַיָּים. אִם כֵּן — מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה? אֲבָל אִם עָשׂוּ אִגֶּרֶת בִּקּוֹרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, אֲפִילּוּ מָכְרוּ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה — מִכְרָן קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid. If** it were **so** that the sale is void, then **what advantage** is there to **the power of the court** over an ordinary person? **However, if they made a document of inspection,** i.e., an announcement that people should come to inspect the field and bid on the property, then **even if they sold** property **worth one hundred dinars for two hundred** dinars, **or** sold property **worth two hundred** dinars **for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid,** as the transaction was agreed upon and done publicly.


###### Ketubot 99b:18
[Ketubot 99b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/99b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ, כְּמַאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **An agent** who mistakenly sold land for less than its value is **like whom?** Is he comparable to a judge, whose sale is effective if he did not err by more than one-sixth of the market price, or is he comparable to a widow, whose sale is void if she sold for anything less than the market price?