Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 100 - Highlights

Mishna

The Mishna states: The property sold according to the assessment of the judges who undervalued it by one sixth or added one sixth, their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid, for otherwise, how is the power of the Court superior?

However, if they made a letter of inspection (a public announcement of the impending sale, whereupon people may inspect the property and assess its true value), even if they sold what is worth a maneh for two hundred, or what is worth two hundred for a maneh, their sale is valid. (99b)

An Undercharging Agent
The Gemora inquires: What is the halacha if an agent makes a mistake?

Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman: The agent is like the judges (the sale is valid as long as the mistake was less than a sixth). Rav Shmuel bar Bisna said in the name of Rav Nachman: An agent is like a widow (any mistake, even minimal, invalidates the sale).

The Gemora explains their respective opinions: Rava maintains that an agent is comparable to the judges because they both are not selling the property for their own sake. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna compares an agent to the widow because they are both individuals; Beis Din, on the other hand, are many people.

The Gemora rules: An agent is like a widow.

The Gemora asks: Why is this case any different than that which we learned in the following Mishna: If one tells an agent, “Separate terumah for me (without specifying an amount), he should separate according to what the agent perceives is the mindset of the owner (either one-fortieth, one-fiftieth or one-sixtieth). If he cannot ascertain what the owner would want, he should separate one-fiftieth. If the agent has separated one in forty or one in sixty as terumah, the terumah is nevertheless is valid. (It is evident that although the agent has made a mistake, his actions are nevertheless valid?)

The Gemora answers: By the terumah, the agent has a valid excuse; he can say that he figured that the owner would separate terumah in a stingy manner or generously; however, in this case (where the agent charged too little for the property), the owner may tell the agent, “You should not have made a mistake.” (99b – 100a)
Beis Din Errs
The Mishna cites the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Chachamim.

Rav Huna bar Chanina rules in the name of Rav Nachman: The halacha is in accordance with the Chachamim (if Beis Din makes a mistake of a sixth in the selling of a field, the sale is invalid).

The Gemora asks: Doesn’t Rav Nachman agree with the following logic (of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel): “How is the power of the Court superior”? But Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: If a father dies leaving over minor orphans, Beis Din sets up for each of them a guardian, and the guardians choose a positive portion for them. When they become adults, they can protest, and claim that they would like to redivide the property. Rav Nachman himself states: They cannot protest, for otherwise, it degrades the power of Beis Din. (We see that Rav Nachman does use this principle?)

The Gemora answers: The Mishna is discussing a case where the Beis Din made a mistake (in that case, Beis Din is not superior). Rav Nachman’s ruling was in a case where the Beis Din did not make any mistake.

The Gemora asks: If there was no mistake, why are the orphans protesting?

The Gemora answers: They are claiming that they desire a field in a different location (which shares the boundary of an independently owned field).

When Rav Dimi came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel, he said that there was such an incident (like in the Mishna) and Rebbe ruled in accordance with the Chachamim (and the sale was deemed invalid). Rebbe was asked, “If so, how is the power of the Court superior”? Rebbe, upon hearing the question, reversed his ruling.

Rav Safra learned the above incident differently: Rebbe wanted to rule in accordance with the Chachamim (and the sale was deemed invalid). Rebbe was asked, “If so, how is the power of the Court superior”? Rebbe, upon hearing the question, did not rule in that manner.

The Gemora comments: Let us say that Rav Dimi and Rav Safra disagree regarding the following concept: One holds that in a case where a judge makes an elementary mistake, written explicitly in a Mishna, the ruling should be retracted. The other argues that even in such a case, it should not be retracted.

The Gemora answers: No, this cannot be, as everyone agrees such a mistake must be retracted. They are arguing as to how the incident occurred. (100a)
The Orphan’s Guarantee
Rav Yosef ruled: When a widow sells property from her husband’s estate with a guarantee (that the purchaser will be compensated if the land is seized by a creditor), the obligation to pay for this guarantee rests upon the orphans (because they are responsible to pay for her support and kesuvah). The same applies if Beis Din sells the property.

The Gemora notes: The novelty of Rav Yosef’s ruling is that even when Beis Din sells the property, the orphans are obligated to honor the guarantee. We might have thought that one who buys from Beis Din understands that this was a public sale (and it should be regarded as if he purchased it without a guarantee); Rav Yosef informs us that this is not the case. (100a – 100b)
Up Until Half
The Gemora had stated: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: The property sold according to the assessment of the judges who undervalued it by one sixth or added one sixth is valid.

The Gemora states that the sale is valid as long as Beis Din did not sell the property for less than half of its true value.

The Gemora cites a braisa where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states this ruling explicitly. (100b)
Public Announcement
Ameimar said in the name of Rav Yosef: If Beis Din sold the orphan’s property without publicly announcing the sale (prior to the sale), it is as if they made a mistake regarding an explicit ruling of a Mishna, and the sale is deemed invalid.

The Gemora asks on the language, “it is as if.” Didn’t we learn a Mishna in Arachin explicitly like that?

The Gemora answers: Without this ruling, we would have thought that the Mishna is only referring to a case where an agent made a mistake; Rav Yosef informed us that this ruling is applicable even if Beis Din made the mistake.

Rav Ashi asked Ameimar from our Mishna: The property sold according to the assessment of the judges who undervalued it by one sixth or added one sixth, their sale is void. It can be inferred that if the price would have been equal to its value, the sale would be valid. This would be so even though there was no public announcement prior to the sale.

The Gemora answers: No! The sale would only be valid if there was a public announcement prior to the sale.

The Gemora counters: Since the latter ruling of the Mishna is when there was an announcement, the first part of the Mishna is referring to a case where there was no announcement, and yet the sale would be valid if it was sold for equal value!?

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna is referring to things which are not announced prior to the sale, such as slaves, movables and loan documents.

The Gemora explains the reason: We do not issue a public announcement prior to the sale of slaves, for we are afraid that they will run away. We do not announce the sale of movables or documents because we are afraid that they will get stolen when they are being shown to the public.

Alternatively, we can answer that our Mishna is referring to cases where we do not publicly announce the sale prior to the sale. For they said in Nehardea: For taxes, support and burial, we sell the property of orphans without an announcement.

Alternatively, we can answer that our Mishna is referring to places that they did not issue public announcements. For Rav Nachman said: They never issued a letter of inspection in Nehardea.

The Gemora thought that the reason for that custom was because they were experts in property assessment, but then they were told that it was because people were embarrassed to buy property that was auctioned by Beis Din. (100b)
Selling Orphan’s Possessions
Rav Yehudah ruled in the name of Shmuel: The movables of orphans must be assessed and sold immediately. Rav Chisda ruled in the name of Avimi: They are to be sold in the markets.

The Gemora explains: There is, however, no difference of opinion between them. Rav Chisda is discussing a place in the proximity of a market, whereas Rav Yehudah is dealing with a case where the time for the market is far off.

The Gemora relates an incident: Rav Kahana had in his possession some beer that belonged to the orphan Rav Mesharshiya bar Chilkai. He kept it until the festival, saying, “Though it might begin to spoil, it will bring in quick money then.”

The Gemora records another related incident: Ravina had in his possession some wine belonging to the orphan Ravina Zuti, his sister’s son. He also had some wine of his own which he was about to bring to Sichra to sell. He came to Rav Ashi and asked him: May I take the orphan’s wine with my own (or perhaps I should be concerned that the ship will sink)? Rav Ashi told him: You may take it with you, for it is not superior to your own wine. (100b)

[END]