Gemara Clarity

Kesubos 99a

כתובות צ״ט ע״א

Ketubot 99a

Learn Kesubos 99a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Kesubos 99a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

An אלמנה's below-value sales for her כתובה, and an agent who does less than he was told

Overview

The amud opens by comparing two parts of a משנה about an אלמנה who sells her late husband's land to collect her כתובה. The גמרא concludes that both parts involve a lowered price. A sale stands when the loss comes out of her own share. It is void only when the loss comes out of the יתומים' property, and we do not cancel the earlier sales because of the last one. Then the גמרא returns to a question about agents. If an owner says 'sell a כּוֹר' and the agent sells only a half-כּוֹר, did the agent do him a favor, or can the owner object? רבי חנינא מסורא tries to answer from a משנה in מסכת מעילה: an agent sent with a gold דינר to buy a robe bought a robe for three and a cloak for three, and both are guilty of מעילה. The גמרא pushes the proof off by saying the robe was worth six and bought for three. It defends that reading against רבי יהודה's complaint of a 'small and bad' robe by explaining that 'bad' means bad in value. Finally it begins to show support from רבי יהודה's agreement in the case of legumes, and that discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּדְאוֹזֵיל הָוֵי

But since the last clause is where she lowered the price,

רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא אוֹזֵיל

the first clause must be where she did not lower it,

דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא

as the last clause teaches:

הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז

If her כתובה was four hundred זוז,

The steps (14)

  1. ChallengeThe last clause seems to prove the first clause has no price cut
  2. ResolutionBoth clauses involve a price cut; the difference is whose money was lost
  3. ChallengeBut the first clause already teaches that lesson
  4. ResolutionWithout the last clause, we might have made a precautionary decree
  5. StatementAnother version: selling more than asked is not the real question
  6. QuestionThe real question: the agent sold less than he was told
  7. Proofרבי חנינא מסורא brings the robe case from מסכת מעילה
  8. ProofWhy the owner's מעילה proves the agent is 'adding to his words'
  9. RejectionThe robe was worth six but bought for three
  10. ChallengeThen why is the agent guilty?
  11. ResolutionThe agent is guilty because of the cloak
  12. Challengeרבי יהודה says the robe was small and bad
  13. Resolution'Bad' means bad in value, not poor quality
  14. ProofSupport from רבי יהודה's agreement about legumes