Study Ketubot folio 99A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: Since the last clause of the Mishnah deals with a case where she reduced the price, it stands to reason that the first clause of the Mishnah is a case where she did not reduce the price. Why would the Mishnah repeat itself for no reason? As it teaches in the last clause of the Mishn
The Talmud rejects this: No, both the first and the last clauses discuss cases where she reduced the price of the land and sold it for less than its worth. And the last clause teaches us this: The reason that the sale is void is that in that case, since she had already received full payment of her
The Talmud asks: How can it be that this is what the last clause of the Mishnah is teaching? It can already be concluded from the first clause of the Mishnah, which states: In the case of a widow whose marriage contract was worth 200 dinars and she sold property that was worth 100 dinars for 200 din
The Talmud answers: Lest you say: There, in the first clause of the Mishnah, the sale is valid because through the sale she has left this house entirely, i.e., she no longer has anything to do with her husband’s estate, as her entire claim has been paid off; however, here, in the latter clause, d
The Talmud returns to the question asked earlier (98b): And there are those who say: Don’t raise this dilemma in a case where the employer said to his agent: Go and sell on my behalf a half-kor, and the agent sold for him a kor, as he was certainly adding to the employer’s words, and the sale of th