שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בְּסֶלַע, וְקִטְנִית בִּפְרוּטָה, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

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.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְזַבְּנֵי בְּשׁוּמָא – הֵיכָא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ סֶלַע מוֹזְלֵי גַּבֵּיהּ טְפֵי!

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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּכָיְילֵי בְּכַנֵּי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: כַּנָּא כַּנָּא בִּפְרוּטָה.

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.

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

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.

כְּדַאֲמַר רַב שֵׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בִּקְטִינֵי, הָכָא נַמִי – בִּקְטִינֵי.

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.

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

§ 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?

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

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.

אִיקְלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לְאֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם. לְאֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמֵאָה.

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.

אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: אַף עַל גַּב דְּטָעָה שָׁלִיחַ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּטָעָה שָׁלִיחַ לָא קָאָמִינָא. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ, וְהָאָמַר מָר: אֵין אוֹנָאָה לְקַרְקָעוֹת!

Rav Ḥisda and 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?

הָנֵי מִילֵּי – הֵיכָא דְּטָעָה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל טָעָה שָׁלִיחַ –אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״לְתַקּוּנֵי שְׁדַרְתִּיךְ וְלָא לְעָווּתֵי״.

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.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין שָׁלִיחַ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת,

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?

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.

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 .

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

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 .

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

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.

אֲמַר רַב שֵׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בִּקְטִינֵי.

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.

מתני׳ שׁוּם הַדַּיָּינִין שֶׁפִּיחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹסִיפוּ שְׁתוּת – מִכְרָן בָּטֵל.

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.

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

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.

גמ׳ אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ כְּמַאן?

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?