1)

(a)We just explained that in the Seifa of our Mishnah, it is specifically by the last Maneh, where the loss is on the Yesomim, that the Almanah's sale is invalid, but not by the earlier sales, where the loss is on her. We query this however, in that - we already know that from the Reisha (the first case in our Mishnah) however, where she sold Masayim for a Maneh, and where the sale is nevertheless valid.

(b)We refute this Kashya - by differentiating between the Reisha, where only one sale took place, and from the Seifa, where a number of sales took place, and we might have thought that even if she undercharged in the first sales, the sale should be invalid (on account of where she erred in the last one). Therefore the Mishnah teaches us that it is only if she undercharged in the last sale that the sale is invalid, but not where she did so in the first one.

2)

(a)In the second Lashon, if the owner instructed the Shali'ach to sell a Lesech and he sold a Kur, everyone agrees that he only added, in which case, the sale is valid and he returns the extra Lesech. The She'eilah is - when the owner instructed the Shali'ach to sell a Kur and he sold a Lesech.

(b)The Shali'ach claims that, assuming that the owner changes his mind, he did him a favor by saving him from selling the rest of the field. On the other hand, it might be to the owner's disadvantage, to have to sell the second half of the field independently - because it will mean that two buyers will now possess two documents that could implicate him, rather than one.

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Me'ilah says that if a Shali'ach, who was given a golden Zahav (six Sela'im) of Hekdesh money to purchase a coat, went and bought a coat for three Sela and a cloak for three - both the Shali'ach and the owner transgressed Me'ilah.

(b)We try to resolve our She'eilah from there - because if we assume that the Shali'ach is considered as having transgressed the owner's instructions, when he sells or buys less than he was told to buy, and that the sale is invalid, then why should the owner transgress Me'ilah?

(c)We prove our point from there (in spite of the fact that there does seem to be anything detrimental that the owner might not like about the purchase - because the truth is that there too, the coat that costs three Sela'im will most likely only be worth half of the value of a coat that costs six (see Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(d)To answer the question, we establish the Mishnah when the Shali'ach obtained a bargain, and the coat was actually worth six Sela'im (one golden Dinar). In that case, the Shali'ach transgressed Me'ilah - because of the cloak, which he was not asked to buy.

4)

(a)In the above Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah argues that the owner does not transgress Me'ilah, because he can say that he wanted a larger (more expensive) coat. Granted, we just established that, according to the Tana Kama, that is what he received. Rebbi Yehudah will argue however - that had the Shali'ach spent the entire six Sela'im, as he was instructed, he would have obtained a coat worth twelve Sela'im, because the more one spends, the better deal one makes.

(b)We prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes that if he asked the Shalia'ch to buy six Sela'im-worth of legumes, and he obtained them for only three, that both of them have transgressed Me'ilah - because there, had he bought more legumes for the other three, he would not have received a better deal.

(c)This will only work in a place where they sell 'Kana Kana bi'Perutah', as Rav Papa explains - because then, one receives exactly the number of bundles that one pays for. But when they sell the legumes b'Shuma, this means that they assess the goods according to how much one pays, then Rebbi Yehudah will again hold that the more one pays, the more excess one receives.

(d)If in the Reisha, they had been speaking about when the Shali'ach purchased a coat worth only three Sela'im (and the Tana Kama would consider this Mosif and Rebbi Yehudah, Ma'avir) - then in the Seifa too, in the case of legumes, we would have to say that he bought three Sela-worth of legumes and three Sela-worth of other vegetables. Considering that the owner instructed the Shali'ach to purchase six Sela-worth, on what grounds would Rebbi Yehudah concede that he transgresses Me'ilah? Why should it not be a false sale?

5)

(a)The fields that the Almanah sells are the property of her husband's heirs - she sells them in the capacity of their Shali'ach.

(b)Nevertheless, we cannot resolve our She'eilah (that when a Shali'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 Maneh, for a Maneh. The Yesomim cannot argue that they do not want more than one document of sale against them, because of a statement of Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi - who says that it is speaking when the property available for sale consists of small fields which are not close to each other, and which cannot be sold to one person anyway.

6)

(a)If the owner specifically instructed the Shali'ach to sell his two fields to one person and not to two ('l'Echad, v'Lo li'Shenayim'), it is clear that he does not want more than one document arraigned against him. This presumes with regard to the previous She'eilah - that if the owner instructed the Shali'ach to sell a Kur and he sold a Lesech, he is only Mosif, and the sale is valid.

(b)According to Rav Huna, if the owner said 'l'Echad', but did not add 'v'Lo li'Shenayim', that is nevertheless what he meant - Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna however, maintain that Stam 'l'Echad', does not preclude two, or even a hundred.

(c)When Rav Nachman arrived in Sura, and Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna asked him how he ruled in the current case - he replied 'l'Echad, va'Afilu li'Shenayim va'Afilu l'Me'ah'.

7)

(a)With regard to a Shali'ach selling the owner's property too cheaply - Rav Nachman holds that the sale is invalid.

(b)The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Ein Ona'ah l'Karka'os', he explains - pertains to the owner himself, but not to the Shali'ach ...

(c)... to whom the owner can say 'I appointed you as a Shali'ach for my good, not to cause me harm'.

8)

(a)And we prove this from a Mishnah in Terumos, which discusses a Shali'ach giving Terumah on behalf of the owner. The three possible ways of giving Terumah are - a generous person, a fortieth, a miserly person, a sixtieth, and an average person, a fiftieth.

(b)A Shali'ach who gives Terumah on behalf of the owner and who does not know what the owner normally gives - should give a fiftieth.

(c)If he gave a sixtieth or a fortieth instead of a fiftieth (but not less or more than that) - his Terumah is valid.

(d)If the owner himself gave as much as a tenth of his crops (but not more) - his Terumah is valid.

(e)We have now proved that there is a distinction drawn between the amount that the owner gives and the amount that a Shali'ach gives.

9)

(a)Again, we cite our Mishnah, which validates the Almanah's first sales of a Maneh's-worth for a Maneh, but invalidates the last sale worth a Maneh and a Dinar for a Maneh. Now if people are fussy about having more than one Shtar arraigned against them, why do we not protect the Yesomim by invalidating the entire sale (seeing as the Almanah sold the fields in three sales)?

(b)To refute the proof however, Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi establishes the Mishnah - where the fields were available in small sections, and not fit to one person anyway (as we explained earlier).

10)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, when assessing property that needs to be sold for the Kesubah of an Almanah - the Beis Din are allowed a leeway of one sixth, beyond which their sale is invalid.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that their sale is valid, because otherwise, what power do the Beis Din have?

(c)The Chachamim agree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel there where they made an Igeres Bikores - meaning that they announce that the field is for sale, so that people should come and inspect it then, even if the field was subsequently sold for up to fifty percent less than its going price, the sale is still valid.