Previous daf

1) In the case of a woman who seized a silver cup as part of her Kesuvah and then claimed Mezonos - Rava obligated the Yesomim to pay her Mezonos, seeing as nobody rules like Rebbi Shimon (who, as we learned, above, holds 'Miktzas Kesef ke'Chol Kesef').

2)

(a) Rabah b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Yosef whether or not, an Almanah who sells outside Beis-Din requires a Shevu'ah - that she has not claimed more than she admits to having received.

(b) Rabah b'rei de'Rava did not ask him whether, if she sold fields without first announcing them (for sale), her sale would be valid - because, he believed (mistakenly, as we shall see), that Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman considers such a sale to be definitely valid.

(c) When Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman ruled that an Almanah's assessment of the Yesomim's property for her Kesuvah is invalid, Rabah b'rei de'Rava assumed that he could not have been referring to when she first announced them - because, if he was, why should her assessment be invalid?

(d) Consequently, in order to justify himself - Rabah b'rei de'Rava deduced from there, that it is only when it is for her personal needs that assessing the property without having first announced it is invalid, but when she does so in order to sell, it will be valid (the source of his ruling that when an Almanah sells her property without first announcing it, her sale is valid).

(a) Rava disagrees with Rabah b'rei de'Rava however. He establishes Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman when she did announce the property. The reason that the assessment is ...

1. ... not valid when it is for herself (for her Kesuvah) is - because the property is still in the possession of the Yesomim, who can issue her with the challenge 'Who assessed the field for you?'
2. ... valid when it is to sell for Mezonos - because Chazal gave her permission to sell, and what she has sold is no longer in the possession of the Yesomim.

(b) There was a case of a man whom they gave animal fodder belonging to orphans, and who assessed it to the value of four hundred Zuz and then took it for himself in payment for his debt. The value of the fodder subsequently rose to six hundred - making him particularly keen to have acquired it.

(c) 'Kista de'Yasmi' might also mean - coral.

(d) Rebbi Ami ruled there - that the man had not acquired the fodder, because of the argument 'Who assessed it for you?'

1. ... does require a Shevu'ah.
2. ... does not require announcing.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that a woman whose Kesuvah was Masayim, and who sold property worth ...

1. ... a Manah for two hundred Zuz - has received her Kesuvah.
2. ... two hundred Zuz for a Manah - has received her Kesuvah, too.

(b) He also says that, if a woman whose Kesuvah was one Manah sold property worth a Manah and a Dinar for a Manah - her sale is a false sale, and is Bateil.

(c) Nor will it make any difference if she agrees to repay the extra Dinar.

(d) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, her sale is valid (and she remains obligated to return the extra Dinar) - unless the excess property that she sold comprised an area of nine Kabin (or if the Yesomim were left with a field of that area, with which the extra piece that she sold would have combined to make up nine Kabin).

(a) The Shiur Ona'ah of a garden that would render her sale invalid according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, is half a Kav according to the opinion of the Tana Kama - and a quarter of a Kav, according to Rebbi Akiva.

(b) If a woman whose Kesuvah is four hundred Zuz, sold a Manah's-worth to one buyer, a Manah's-worth to another, and to a third buyer, a Manah and a Dinar's-worth for a Manah - the first two sales are valid, but the third one is not.

(c) Even though a woman who sells a field worth Masayim for a Manah, loses the second Manah, when she sells a field worth a Manah for Masayim, she does not, by the same token, gain a Manah because as Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah said - in this Mishnah, Rebbi teaches us that whenever a Sh'li'ach comes back with a bargain, it is the owner, and not the Sh'liach, who benefits.

7)

(a) Tana'im argue over the above point. According to Rebbi Yehudah, if the seller adds one item to the sale, it is the Sheli'ach who benefits. Rebbi Yossi says (initially) - that the sender and the Sheli'ach divide the extra item.

(b) Rami bar Chama reconciles this ruling with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi holds that it is exclusively the owner who benefits - by establishing that Beraisa by an article that does not have a fixed price (such as articles of clothing or vegetables), whose price tends to fluctuate, to which we ascribe the fact that the seller gave more than the Sheli'ach thought he paid for; whereas Rebbi Yossi here is speaking about an article whose price is fixed (such as legumes sold in a store), in which case Rebbi Yossi assumes the extra item to be a gift, and, and since we do not know to whom the seller meant to give it, they divide it.

(c) Despite Rami bar Chama's answer to reconcile Rebbi Yossi, Rav Papa nevertheless found it necessary to issue the same two rulings (differentiating between something which has a fixed price and something which has not) - to teach us that Rami' bar Chama's answer is a reliable one.

(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether - if a Sh'liach who was instructed to sell a Lesech (half a Kur), went and sold a Kur, his transaction is valid, and the purchaser only needs to return the excess, or whether the entire transaction is nullified (since the Sheli'ach did not follow his instructions), and the sender may demand his field back.

(b) The Mishnah discusses someone who mistakenly asks a Sheli'ach to spend Hekdesh-money. If ...

1. ... the Sh'liach performs his Sh'lichus as he was told - the sender is Mo'el.
2. ... he does not - the Sheli'ach is Mo'el.

(c) The Tana there cites a case where he tells his Sheli'ach to give the guests one piece of meat, the Sheli'ach then invites them to take two, and they take three. In fact - all three of them are Mo'el.

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud tries to resolve the B'nei Yeshivah's She'eilah from the Mishnah in Me'ilah - because, if, whenever a Sheli'ach adds to his Shelichus, the Shelichus is nullified, the Ba'al ha'Bayis ought not to be Mo'el (as the Reisha of the Mishnah explicitly states).

(b) In order to reject Rebbi Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud's proof from there - we establish the Mishnah when the She'li'ach told the guests to take two, one from the sender and one from himself, in which case, the Sheli'ach has definitly performed his Sh'lichus and merely added.

(a) We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the case in our Mishnah 'Haysah K'suvasah Manah, u'Machrah Shaveh Manah ve'Dinar be'Manah, Michrah Bateil'. In order to prove that when one adds, the sale becomes invalid - we try and interpret 'Shaveh Manah ve'Dinar be'Manah' to mean 'Shaveh Manah ve'Dinar be'Shaveh Manah ve'Dinar' (and the sale is invalid because she sold a field to the value of Manah and a Dinar, albeit for the correct price, instead of one for a Manah, which is what she was entitled to sell).

(b) When the Tana then says 'Shaveh Manah ve'Dinar *be'Shaveh Manah* ... ' - he means for the Manah that she is entitled to.

(c) And when the Almanah volunteers to return the Dinar to the heirs - she means to buy back the extra Dinar's-worth of land that she sold.

(d) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua repudiates the proof from there - by establishing our Mishnah quite literally when the Almanah sold land to the value of a Manah and a Dinar for a Manah (and that is why the sale is invalid).