הא מדסיפא בדאוזיל הוי רישא בדלא אוזיל דקתני סיפא היתה כתובתה ארבע מאות זוז מכרה לזה במנה ולזה במנה ולאחרון יפה מנה ודינר במנה של אחרון מכרה בטל ושל כולן מכרן קיים
The Gemara asks: Since the last clause of the mishna deals with a case where she reduced the price, it stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is a case where she did not reduce the price. Why would the mishna repeat itself for no reason? As it teaches in the last clause of 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 as for all of the others, their sale is valid because they were sold for the correct price.
לא רישא וסיפא בדאוזיל וסיפא הא קא משמע לן טעמא דאוזיל בדיתמי אבל בדידה מכרה קיים
The Gemara 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 marriage contract, she reduced the price in a sale that she made with property of the orphans and at their expense. However, when she reduced the price of the land in the sale of her own property, as in the earlier clauses of the mishna, her sale is valid.
הא מדרישא שמעת מינה היתה כתובתה מאתים ומכרה שוה מנה במאתים או שוה מאתים במנה נתקבלה כתובתה
The Gemara asks: How can it be that this is what the last clause of the mishna is teaching? It can already be concluded from the first clause of the mishna, which states: In the case of a widow whose marriage contract was worth two hundred dinars and she sold property that was worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or if she sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, she has received payment of her marriage contract and can demand nothing more. This teaches that although she reduced the price of her own property by half, the sale is valid.
מהו דתימא התם הוא דאיסתלקא לה מהאי ביתא לגמרי אבל הכא ניגזור מנה ראשון אטו מנה אחרון קא משמע לן
The Gemara answers: Lest you say: There, in the first clause of the mishna, 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, decree that the first sale for one hundred dinars will be void due to the last one hundred dinars. If the first sale is allowed to take effect, this may lead to the error of the last sale taking effect as well. Therefore, the first sale should be void if she reduces the price. Lest you make this argument, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.
ואיכא דאמרי הא לא תיבעי לך היכא דאמר ליה זיל זבין לי ליתכא וזבין ליה כורא דודאי מוסיף על דבריו הוי
The Gemara 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 the first half-kor is valid.
כי תיבעי לך דאמר ליה זיל זבין לי כורא ואזיל וזבין ליה ליתכא מאי מי אמרינן א"ל דטבא לך עבדי לך דאי לא מצטרכי לך זוזי לא מצית הדרת ביה
Where you should raise the dilemma is a case in which the employer said to his agent: Go sell on my behalf a kor, and he went and sold for him a half-kor. What is the halakha in that case? Do we say that the agent can say to the employer: I did what is good for you by not selling everything, because you now have the opportunity to determine if you are truly in need of more money. If you decide that you do not need the money then you will not have to sell more property, because if you will realize that you do not need the money after the sale has been completed, you will not be able to reverse the sale. I therefore did you a favor by selling as little as I could.
או דלמא אמר ליה לא ניחא לי דליפשו שטרי עילואי
Or perhaps the employer can say to the agent: I do not agree to this. I am not amenable to the fact that this will increase the number of bills of sale that I have because I will have to write a separate promissory note for each sale, and if I will have to go to court then I may earn a reputation as someone who has many mortgages.
אמר רבי חנינא מסורא תא שמע נתן לו דינר של זהב ואמר לו הבא לי חלוק והלך והביא לו בשלש חלוק ובשלש טלית שניהם מעלו
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna for that which we learned about the halakhot of misusing consecrated property (Me’ila 21a): If one gave his agent a gold dinar, which is equal in value to twenty-five dinars or six sela, and said to him: Get me a robe. And he went and brought him a robe that cost three sela, and a cloak that also cost three sela, after which it was discovered that the original dinar was conse-crated property, the halakha is that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property.
אי אמרת בשלמא שליח כי האי גוונא עושה שליחותו ומוסיף על דבריו הוי משום הכי בעל הבית מעל אלא אי אמרת מעביר על דבריו הוי אמאי מעל
Granted, if you say that the agent in a case like this is considered to be performing his assigned agency, and he was merely adding to the words of the employer, it is due to that reason that the homeowner is guilty of misusing consecrated property. However, if you say that the agent is disregarding the words of the employer, as the employer intended for him to buy a robe with all six sela, why is the employer guilty of misusing consecrated property? In this instance, the agent did not fulfill his assignment.
הכא במאי עסקינן דאייתי ליה שוה שש בשלש
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he brought him a robe worth six sela that he had succeeded in buying for only three sela, so that the employer received exactly what he wanted. And the agent did not deviate from his intentions, he merely added to them because he also bought him a cloak.
אי הכי שליח אמאי מעל אטלית
The Gemara asks: If that is so, if the employee did exactly what the employer had asked him to do, then why is the agent guilty of misusing consecrated property? The Gemara answers: He is guilty of misusing consecrated property because he spent three sela of consecrated property to buy the cloak, which the employer never requested from him.
אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אף בזה בעל הבית לא מעל מפני שיכול לומר חלוק גדול הייתי מבקש ואתה הבאת לי חלוק קטן ורע
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then say the last clause of the mishna quoted by Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura (Me’ila 21b): Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in this case the homeowner is not guilty of misusing consecrated property because he is able to say: I would have requested a large robe and you brought me a robe that is small and bad. If the agent had brought him a robe worth six sela as requested, then this should not be a bad robe.
מאי רע רע בדמים דאמר ליה אי אייתית לי בשית כל שכן דהוה שוה תרתי סרי
The Gemara answers: What is meant by bad? It is bad in its monetary value because the agent spent on the robe less than what the employer instructed him. That is why the agent is considered to have violated the wishes of his employer, as the employer can say to him: Since you chanced upon a merchant who reduced his prices to such a degree, if you had brought me a robe for six sela as I asked you, it would all the more so have been worth twelve sela, and it would have been a much finer robe.
דיקא נמי דקתני מודה רבי יהודה בקטנית ששניהם מעלו
The Gemara notes: The language of the mishna is also precise when understood in this way, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that both are guilty of misusing consecrated property in the following case: The agent purchased only part of what the employer requested in the case of legumes, which are sold for a set price under all circumstances,