Implied Question: It is impossible to explain that when the Mishnah states "to the last one (she sold a field) worth a manah and a dinar for a manah" it means that she sold it for a manah and a dinar. Why would it say "for a manah?" It means she sold it at its real value in order to receive the manah she was owed for her Kesuvah.

Answer: This answer cannot work here, as her Kesuvah was for four hundred zuz originally (and it is difficult to say that it is referring to the last manah she was owed).

Question: This is difficult. If the case is where she sold the field for more when it had lost some of its value, why say that this specifically must be the case? One could also say the case is where she simply made a mistake how much it was worth and her sale is still invalid!

First Answer: We can say that the Tana said a case like this in the second half of the Mishnah to tell us that the first half of the Mishnah is indeed discussing a case where the value did not fluctuate (and she simply made a mistake).

Second Answer: We can additionally say that one might think that it is worse to make a blatant mistake of selling (a field worth) a manah and a dinar for a manah (Tosfos Ha'Rosh does not have the word "v'Dinar") than to make a mistake because she charged too little due to the changing property prices.

First Question: This is difficult. According to the Gemara in Bava Metzia (44b) that a silver dinar is worth one twenty fifth of a golden dinar, how can the Gemara here say that he brought with three a shirt and three a cloak? It should say with three (Sela, see Maharam) and a half dinar a shirt and with three (Sela) and a half dinar a cloak!

Second Question: Additionally, we do not find that the earlier manah was much more than ours in a way that made gold so much more expensive and silver much cheaper.

Nowadays, we do not find that a golden dinar is heavier than a silver dinar by more than twelve Shekalim.

Third Question: Another difficulty is apparent from a Gemara in Bechoros (50a) regarding the redemption of a firstborn son. The Gemara there states that a person can give a golden dinar with the picture of a Roman Caesar and the name of King Sheifa, and expect one sixth of the value plus another zuz in change from a Kohen (for Pidyon ha'Ben).

The Gemara there asks that if this is so, the person would get back twenty zuz less one sixth! The Gemara answers that it must be that he receives a zuz (off of the twenty five as change) plus one sixth of what is left (four zuz).

According to our calculation, it is difficult to understand the Gemara's terminology of "one zuz and a sixth." It should have merely said he gets back one fifth (five out of twenty five), as it is the same amount!

Answer: This is the main explanation. A golden dinar is worth twice a silver dinar, being that it is heavier and thicker than a silver dinar, as stated in Chulin (55b) and Chagigah (27a) the measurement "like the thickness of a golden dinar" (implying a unique thickness).

It is also heavier than silver, and weighs twice as much as a silver dinar. Therefore, a golden dinar is sold for twenty four zuz of silver, but its weight is only equivalent to twelve zuz of silver.

This is also indicated from the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 36) where it says "six hundred golden Shekalim" and it says "silver fifty Shekalim." [This text is not in our version of Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer.]

This teaches us that fifty Shekalim of golden Shekel are worth six hundred silver Shekalim. [Tosfos seems to be explaining that "six hundred golden shekalim" does not literally mean he paid this amount, but rather he paid silver corresponding to the amount of six hundred shekalim of gold. It is apparent that the "silver fifty Shekalim" doesn't mean its literal translation, but rather silver corresponding to fifty golden Shekalim. Using these definitions Tosfos' proof is accurate (see Yefei Einayim).]

Accordingly, this teaches us that one golden coin is worth twelve silver coins. This is according to our weight, when the metal has been totally purified.

Even though the Gemara in Zevachim (116b) asks that these Pesukim seems to contradict each other, and seems to answer the contradiction differently (this explanation is still correct).

However, according to the simple explanation of the Pesukim they imply the meaning explained by the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer. This is in accordance with the principle that no Pasuk can be completely removed from its simple meaning.

Now we can understand the Gemara in Bechoros (50a). This is why the Kohen (receiving a golden dinar for Pidyon ha'Ben) returns a Zuz before the amount is divided into one sixth (instead of just taking off one fifth, see above(c 2.). This is because a Kolbon (small amount) is given for every dinar (Maharsha inserts every "two" dinar) of silver.

This is because one golden dinar is sold for twenty four silver dinar. For every two silver dinar, which equals half of a Sela, a person gives a "Hachra'ah" - "an equaling out amount." This is as it says in Shekalim (2a) that if someone gives a Sela and takes back a Shekel (for the Terumas ha'Lishkah), he gives two Kolbons.

The Gemara explains that this is because both someone who gives and takes a Shekel (of change from the Terumas Ha'Lishkah) has to give a Kolbon. A Sela contains two Rabbinic Shekalim.

The Gemara there is clearly talking about Rabbinic Shekalim. This is apparent from the Mishnah in Chulin (25b), Shekalim (2a), and that is quoted in Beitzah (39b). It states that the brothers or partners who are obligated in a Kolbon are exempt from Ma'aser Beheimah (tithe of animals).

Rashi explains that brothers who divide their inherited estate and they then became partners are obligated to pay a Kolbon like all Jews who must give a half Shekel on Rosh Chodesh Adar for the public's Korbanos brought during the year. The Chachamim made each of them add a Kolbon for every half Shekel that he will bring.

This (half Shekel mandated by the Torah) refers to a Rabbinic Shekel, as a Sela (two Rabbinic Shekalim) is a Torah Shekel.

Being that these are two half-Shekalim which are small coins, and they are sometimes switched with larger coins, and the person giving the smaller coins gives a Kolbon.

This is the custom when selling coins to a moneychanger. The custom is to weigh for him in a gratuitous manner. The sages say that the appropriate gratuity is a Kolbon for every weighing.

The law should be that these brothers who bring a complete Shekel between them should not give more than one Kolbon, as there is only one Shekel between them.

However, the sages placed on them an obligation to give two Kolbons, not to lessen from their friends and Hekdesh.

We see from here that for every half-Shekel, which equals a Rabbinic Shekel, when a storekeeper is paid a Kolbon is given.

A Kolbon is a half of a Ma'ah, as explained in the Mishnah in Shekalim (2a).

Therefore, for twenty four silver dinar with which one is buying a golden dinar, which is the equivalent of twelve Rabbinic Shekalim, one gives twelve Kolbons. This equals six Ma'ah, and six Ma'ah of silver equal a silver dinar.

This is why the Zuz is not included in the sixth that is taken off (as it is taken off for the separate reason that it is a Kolbon, just as in an exchange with a storekeeper or moneychanger). This is why we do not say instead that a fifth is taken off of the total (of twenty five). This was all deduced by Rabeinu Tam.

Explanation: When the messenger brings a small shirt of poor quality, it is considered akin to the claim (of the owner in the previous case in the Gemara) that it is not beneficial for him to have a lot of sale documents.

Question: Originally the Meilah of the messenger was also the fact that he bought a cloak (when he was not instructed to do so). [Why should the Gemara's answer avoid Meilah?]

First Answer: The Gemara thinks at this moment that because the messenger brought a shirt worth six with three (Sela), he is not even considered someone who added on to the owner's words, but rather he was faithfully carrying out his duty.

This is because the owner's intent was indeed that if the messenger would find a shirt for three (Sela) he should buy a cloak with the rest of the money.

Second Answer: Alternatively, we originally thought that the Meilah was Rabbinic in nature, and due to the purchase of the shirt. Now we are thinking that he should not even be guilty of Meilah at all (regarding the shirt).

Third Answer: Alternatively, the Gemara at this point does not understand that the Meilah refers to the cloak. The Gemara is assuming that since he bought a shirt of six for three, those three that remain are not considered Hekdesh.

The Gemara answers that the Meilah problem is because of the cloak. Just because the shirt was worth six does not mean that the other three (Sela) are no longer Hekdesh.

Explanation: Certainly Rashi's explanation is correct. Rashi explains that the messenger would have been able to buy a shirt worth twelve, meaning that he would have received a deal worth more than double six. This is because when someone buys in bulk he gets a better price than someone who buys less.

Some Sefarim (Gemaros) state explicitly in their text "that would have been worth more than twelve."

The owner therefore did not transgress Meilah, as the messenger went against his will and made him lose a better deal. If he would have bought a shirt with all six Sela as instructed, he would have gotten a great deal that would be even better than double the value.

Observation: This leads us to understand why the owner does transgress Meilah if he sends a messenger to purchase legumes (instead of a shirt). Even if the messenger will buy a lot of legumes together he will not get a better deal, as legumes is the type of thing where the price is the same whether one buys in bulk or with a small coin.

Proof: However, if we will explain our Gemara that he could have bought with six (Sela) something worth exactly twelve and this is why he is considered to have gone against the owner's instructions, this is difficult.

If so, why would Meilah be transgressed by the owner in the case of legumes? It is clear that regarding legumes as well, if the messenger originally received legumes worth six (Sela) for the price of three, with the three that were left he would similarly receive six for the price of three.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara earlier (99a) did not answer its question whether or not we say that the owner does not want multiple sale documents. How can Rav Huna and Rav Chisda answer this question?

Rabeinu Tam's Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that this insistent quoted earlier that a person (master) does not want to have more sales documents than necessary is not because this cheapens the property, but rather it is bothersome to have to get witnesses and enact proper Kinyanim for many deals.

The Gemara here is discussing a case where the witnesses already signed on two documents, so there is no insistence that "there are too many documents." The problem here is that there are too many possible people to bring to court, as it is bothersome for a person to have to make a deal today and then tomorrow go with them to Beis Din.

Rebbi's Answer: Rebbi understands that the Gemara is discussing one document, so there is no insistence regarding too many documents. The problem here is the fact that there are more potential litigants. This is the point of contention in our Gemara's argument.

This is the explanation of the Gemara (according to Rebbi's explanation). If the master said "to one and not to two" he obviously meant that he is insistent that the sale not be done to two people, even in one document.

What is the Halachah if he merely said to "(sell it) to one person?" This means, can the messenger still effectively sell the field to two people even if he does so using only one document? However, the previous Gemara was talking about two documents (which he very possibly would not want).

Rabeinu Chananel's Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text that if he said "(sell it) to one" he is certainly insistent that it not be sold to two people. The Gemara's question is, what if he just said to sell it?

Rif and Rabeinu Chananel's Ruling: The Rif states that this question, whether (or not) he can say that it is not beneficial for me to have so many documents, is not clearly answered by the Gemara. The Rif says that our Gemara implies that such a messenger is considered as transgressing the word of his master. This is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel.

Rav Hai's Ruling: Rav Hai Gaon writes in Sefer Ha'Mekach that this is considered an addition to the master's words, not a transgression. This is apparent from the Gemara's statement that it is obvious that if he said sell to one that he is insisting that the sale be to one. What if he simply said to sell?

The Gemara concludes that "(to sell) to one" means that he can even sell to two people or even to one hundred people. This implies that the Gemara rules like the opinion that it is just adding onto his words. It is apparent that Rav Hai understood this statement of the Gemara starting off with "it is simple" similar to a common question the Gemara will ask when it wants to conclude with the Halachah: "What is (the Halachah) regarding this (argument/question)?"

Explanation: This means, you hold that whenever the master did not say explicitly that he wants only one buyer, he allows the messenger to sell to as many people as he wishes. This is apparently the meaning "to one and even to one hundred."

Here, too, we should say that the master accepted the mistake of the messenger.

Rav Nachman answered that he does not include a case where the messenger made a mistake in the above logic. It is clear that he would never think to accept the messenger's mistake.

Explanation: Rebbi explains that the Gemara's point is that this is even true regarding a messenger. This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (108a) where Nehardai say in the name of Rav Nachman that there is no Ona'ah for land (purchases).

The Gemara there continues that this is even if he bought land for two hundred that was worth one hundred. The master cannot claim "I sent you to help me not to hinder me." It is as if he is the messenger of the person bordering the land.

Rav Nachman answers (in our Gemara) that this is only where the master made a mistake. This means that where the messenger made a mistake when he is like an owner, there is no Ona'ah.

Even though in the end he bought it for the person on the border of the property, at first he bought it for himself. It is therefore impossible to invoke the rule "I sent you to help me etc."

However, an actual messenger who indeed bought the property as a messenger and not for himself cannot make a mistake.

Question: What kind of proof is there that there is a difference between a messenger and an owner from the Mishnah that states that if someone says to a messenger "go and take off Terumah etc.?" The owner in the case of Terumah is a real owner!

Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna themselves know that there is a clear difference between the cases. This is evident from the fact that they only asked from a case of someone bordering a field who makes someone else a status akin to his messenger.

Answer: This is what Rav Nachman told them. How do you know that there is a difference between a master and a messenger? It must be that you base yourself on the Gemara in Bava Metzia (108a) dealing with the person on the border who has someone else buy the field, because you consider that first buyer to be a messenger.

It must be that you understand that I equate a messenger to an actual owner. This is impossible (he answered), as evident from the Mishnah regarding someone who says to his messenger "go and take off Terumah etc."

First Question (on Rashi): According to Rashi's explanation there is a difficulty. First of all, he corrects the text and inserts "and didn't Mar (instead of "you") say?"

Second Question: Additionally, the Gemara should have asked using the terminology "v'Ha Tnan" - "and doesn't it say in a Mishnah" as it is asking from a Mishnah in Bava Metzia (56a).

Third Question: Additionally, what was the mistake of Rav Chisda and Rabah who did not differentiate between a messenger and an owner? Their entire question was originally regarding a messenger solely because of the claim one could use against the messenger that "I sent you to help me etc."

Implied Question: This is incomparable to the case in Bava Metzia (22a) where a person who takes Terumah for someone else from his best crops is not considered to have separated Terumah unless the owner sees what he is doing and remarks "You should go to the better crops."

Answer: Here it is possible that the messenger sized up the owner as someone who wanted to give a certain amount of Terumah. However, arbitrarily deciding that the owner wants to give from either better or worse crops is akin to a mistake.

Statement: The Mishnah in Terumos (4:3) states that the amount of Terumah varies. A generous person gives one fortieth. Beis Shamai says they give one thirtieth. An average person gives one fiftieth, and a stingy person gives one sixtieth.

These amounts are derived by the Yerushalmi there (ibid.). The Pasuk states "this is the Terumah that you will give, a sixth of an Eifah from the Chomer of wheat and Shishisem of an Eifah from the Chomer of barley" (Yechezkel 45:13).

One might think that he should take off one sixtieth of wheat, and one thirtieth of barley. This can be explained in the following manner. A sixth of an Eifah is half of a Sa'ah, as an Eifah is three Sa'ah. A sixth of an Eifah from a Chomer (Kur) is one sixtieth of a Kur, which equals thirty Sa'ah.

This equals one sixtieth of wheat and one thirtieth of barley. The amount of barley can be determined because by barley the Pasuk states "v'Shishisem," which implies that two sixths of an Eifah, equaling a Sa'ah out of the Kur, should be taken as Terumah.

The Pasuk therefore states "and all Terumos," (ibid. 44:30) teaching us that all takings of Terumah (from all crops) should be equal.

Shmuel says that a sixth should be added onto "v'Shishisem," causing a giving of one fortieth. This can be explained in the following manner. Three sixth of an Eifah equals one and a half Sa'ah. If one calculates the percentage of this amount of the two Kur ("Chomer") stated in the Pasuk regarding wheat and barley, he receives one fortieth.

How do we know the proper amount for an average person? Rebbi Levi says that the Pasuk states "and from the half of Bnei Yisrael one portion out of fifty." This teaches us that whenever one takes from one place he takes this amount.

Just like this is one fiftieth, so too what you take from somewhere else is one fiftieth.

How do we know that a stingy person takes one sixtieth? This is as it says in the Pasuk, "a sixth of an Eifah from a Chomer (Kur) of wheat" (ibid. 45:13). The simple explanation of this amount is one sixtieth (half a Sa'ah out of thirty Sa'ah).

Beis Shamai says one out of thirty (is the giving of a generous person). This is as the Pasuk states "u'Shishisem" - "and you should take two sixths" of an Eifah from a Chomer of barley" (ibid.).

All of these Pesukim are only Asmachtos. This is evident from the fact that Shmuel himself states elsewhere that one kernel of wheat could technically serve as Terumah to exempt an entire silo (Kidushin 58b).