Yerushalmi Ketubot 11:4 ירושלמי כתובות י״א:ד׳

MISHNAH: If a widow’s ketubah was 200 and she sold⁷³She sold her husband’s property not under the supervision of the court. either the worth of a mina for 200⁷⁴She received what was due her. or the worth of 200 for a mina⁷⁵It is her fault if she had sold too cheaply; from the estate she received real estate in the valuie of her ketubah. While she was within her rights to sell the property, she could have chosen the process of judicial appraisal which would have shielded her against any claims by the heirs or their guardians., her ketubah was paid. If her ketubah was for a mina and she sold the worth of a mina and a denar for a mina, her sale is void⁷⁶Since she had the right only to sell for the payment of her ketubah, any excess is an unauthorized sale and invalidates the entire transaction.. Even if she says, I shall return the denar to the heirs, her sale is void⁷⁷An unauthorized transaction cannot be validated after the fact..

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200⁷⁸The Babli, 98 ab, does not hold that it is trivial that the widow is not rewarded for getting such a good deal; it concludes that an agent by his office is always required to look for the best possible deal and the widow sells as an agent for the estate. or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina⁷⁹That she receives only 100 zuz for her ketubah if she sells real estate too cheaply is not a matter of the laws of ketubah but of torts in general; the person who causes damage has to pay for it.. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy⁸⁰Lev. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/₃%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.? Explain it that the property increased in value⁸¹And the fair value on the date of transaction can no longer be determined.. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah⁸²Baba meṣi‘a 4:9. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions⁸³Real estate is excluded in Lev. 25:14 since it is not bought “from his hand”; slaves are excluded since they are traded under the rules of real estate; securities are excluded since what one buys “from the neighbor’s hand” is the paper, but what is intended are the rights given by the paper and these are immaterial. The Temple is excluded in its transactions since it is not “a neighbor” (Babli Baba meṣi‘a56b)..” He explains it, unless it was excessive⁸⁴He holds that any transaction is void in which the profit margin is 100% of the fair value. Tosaphot (s. v. ,אלמנה 98a) find the same opinion expressed by Rav Naḥman in the Babli, Baba meṣi‘a 57a.. If he redeemed⁸⁵He had donated something (other than a sacrificial animal) to the Temple. The redemption rules are based on Lev. 27:11–25. what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed⁸⁶The standard commentators agree to switch the places of “mina” and “200 zuz”. Since the Yerushalmi never quotes Samuel’s statement in the Babli (Baba meṣi‘a 57a and 7 other instances) that a redemption of dedicated items worth a mina by a peruṭa is valid (i. e., in ratio 19200: 1), there is no reason to assume that there should be any difference in the rulesfor overpaying or underpaying.. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane⁸⁷He substitutes a toga for the dedicated donkey (which is redeemable since it is not a sacrificial animal) and presumably the donkey is worth at least two togas.. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value⁸⁸It is a biblical requirement that dedications can be redeemed only after their value has been determined (Lev. 27:12). The presumption is that the statement means not only that the value has to be determined but also that it has to be paid in full.. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny⁸⁹Unauthorized use of Temple property is sinful and has to be atoned for by a special sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). If the redemption of the donkey was valid, no sacrifice is due for using the donkey even if there remains the additional obligation to make up the difference in price between toga and donkey. If the redemption is invalid because the difference in price between the dedicated and the substitute values is too large, a sacrifice is due. The Babli, Baba meṣi‘a57a/b, is not quite sure to whom to attribute which opinion in this dispute.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.