(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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'.
How do we resolve this problem?

(b) But surely, we know that already from the Reisha 'Haysah K'suvasah Masayim, Machrah Shaveh ... Masayim be'Manah', Niskablah K'suvasah'? So why do we need to learn it again from the inference of the Seifa?

(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.
What then, is the She'eilah?

(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 changed his mind.
Why, on the other hand, might it be to the owner's disadvantage, to have to sell the second half of the field independently?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Me'ilah say about a Sheli'ach who was given a golden Zahav (six Sela'im) of Hekdesh money to purchase a coat, and he went and bought a coat for three Sela and a cloak for three? Who is Mo'el?

(b) How do we try to resolve our She'eilah from there?

(c) But how can we prove anything from there at all, seeing as there is nothing detrimental that the owner might not like about the purchase (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, on what grounds is the Sheli'ach Mo'el?

(a) In the above Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah argues that the owner is Mo'el, because he can say that he wanted a larger (more expensive) coat.
But did we not just establish that, according to the Tana Kama, that is what he received?

(b) How do we prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes that if the owner asked the Shelia'ch to buy six Sela'im-worth of legumes, and he obtained them for only three, that both will have been Mo'el?

(c) This will only work in a place where they sell 'Kana Kana bi'Perutah', as Rav Papa explains, but not where they sell them 'be'Shuma'.
What does that mean?

(d) Why would Rebbi Yehudah not concede to the Tana Kama in the case of legumes, 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)?

Answers to questions



(a) When the Almanah sells the fields for her Kesuvah or for Mezonos, in what capacity does she sell them? To whom do the fields belong?

(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 want more than one document of sale against them, because of a statement of Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi.
How did Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi establish this case?

(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. What does this presume with regard to the previous She'eilah?

(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.
What do Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna say?

(c) What did Rav Nachman reply when he arrived in Sura, and Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna asked him how he ruled in the current case?

(a) What does Rav Nachman rule with regard to a Sheli'ach selling the owner's property too cheaply?

(b) How did he reconcile this with the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a: 'Ein Ona'ah le'Karka'os'?

(a) How are the three possible ways of giving Terumah scaled?

(b) Assuming that a Sheli'ach who is giving Terumah on behalf of the owner does not know what the owner normally gives, what should he do?

(c) What will be the Din if he gave a sixtieth or a fortieth instead of a fiftieth?

(d) How does this differ from the owner himself? What does this prove?

9) 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.
What were we trying to prove this time?


(a) How much leeway of error are the Beis-Din allowed when assessing property that needs to be sold for the Kesuvah of an Almanah, according to the Tana Kama?

(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(c) The Chachamim agree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel there where they made an Igeres Bikores.
What is an Igeres Bikores?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,