Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Ketubot 99b: Did He Specify "To One" But No Further? Or Did He Not Specify At All?

In Rif on Ketubot 99b, I would offer the following translation, which diverts a bit off of the standard translation, all because of one missing word.

The Rif:
{Ketubot 99b}
וסוגייא דמעביר על דבריו הוי פשיטא אמר לחד קפידא ואי זבין לתרי לא הוי זביניה זביני
אמר סתמא מאי
רב הונא אמר לאחד ולא לשנים
רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי לאחד ואפילו לשנים לאחד ואפילו למאה
{note girsological differences with our gemara, such that the topic is where he said "one but not two," vs. saying simply "one" with no further specification}
And the sugya of violating his words is:
It is obvious that if he {=the owner} said {to his agent to sell} to one, it is a point of insistence, such that if he sold to two, his sale is not a sale. If he said it plainly {without specifying the number of purchasers}, what?
Rav Huna said: To one but not to two. {Alternatively, as our gemara: 'To one,' implying not to two.}
Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: To one and even to two. To one and even to 100.

אקלע רב נחמן לסורא
עול לגביה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא
אמרי ליה כה"ג מאי
אמר להו לאחד ואפילו לשנים ואפילו למאה
ואע"ג דטעה שליח
היכא דטעה שליח לא קאמינא
והא מר הוא דאמר אין אונאה לקרקעות
ה"מ היכא דטעה בעה"ב אבל שליח א"ל לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי
וכן הלכתא
Rav Nachman visited Sura. Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered to him. They said to him: In such an instance, what?
He said to them: To one, and even to two, and even to one hundred.
"And even where the agent erred?"
"Where they agent erred, I am not speaking of."
"But Master is the one who said that there is no overreaching {ona'ah} by land."
"Those words are where the homeowner erred, but if the agent erred, he may say to him, 'I sent you so fix me and not to mess me up.'"
And so is the halacha.
Our gemara, meanwhile, has:
פשיטא אמר לאחד ולא לשנים האמר ליה לאחד ולא לשנים
א"ל לאחד סתמא מאי
רב הונא אמר לאחד ולא לשנים רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דאמרי תרוייהו לאחד ואפילו לשנים לאחד ואפילו למאה איקלע רב נחמן לסורא עול לגביה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרו ליה כי האי גוונא מאי אמר להו לאחד ואפי' לשנים לאחד ואפילו למאה אמרו ליה אע"ג דטעה שליח אמר להו דטעה שליח לא קאמינא אמרו ליה והאמר מר אין אונאה לקרקעות הני מילי היכא דטעה בעל הבית אבל טעה שליח אמר ליה לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי

Thus, in our gemara, we have: "If he said to him, 'to one and not to two,' he has told him to one and not to two." "If he said to him, "to one" without further stipulation, what?

Thus, in our gemara, the question is about where he actually said the word "to one," but did not further specify.

Meanwhile, the Rif has two features which differ. He has:
פשיטא אמר לחד קפידא ואי זבין לתרי לא הוי זביניה זביני
אמר סתמא מאי

Here, in the "obvious" case, there is no word "and not to two." We might interpret לחד קפידא as "one, insistently," which would map to an explicit statement of "to one but not to two."

However, we could also interpret it, and parse it, as having the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the single word לחד. This, IMHO, is the better parsing, and would mean: If he said to to "{sell} to one," this is a point of insistence, such that if he sold to two, his sale was not a sale.

Furthermore, in the next statement in the Rif's gemara, the word לאחד is missing, as well as the word ליה. Therefore, the statement reads, "if he told him without stipulation." We can then read this as "he told him to sell" without stipulating to how many people to sell to. Thus, our gemara's question (where he said "to one") is Rif's gemara's peshitta.

This all colors how we read the subsequent gemara, and how we parse לאחד ואפילו לשנים לאחד ואפילו למאה. Is the word לאחד a quote, and ואפילו לשנים לאחד ואפילו למאה the implication. Or is it all an implication, and they are discussing the extent of the implication?

I also think it quite likely that this is the reason for the setama digmara's establishing of what the peshitta and what the question is. There was a dispute, perhaps even between manuscripts, on the matter, and so it is important to arrive at what the question is before approaching the Amoraic statements.

My feeling is that the gemara originally has סתמא מאי, and our gemara is elaboration on the point. But that the interpretation of our gemara (rather than Rif's) may well match the intention of the Amoraim more closely.

No comments:

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin