Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Agents
Property Law
Sources
A
When a person tells a colleague: "Go out and sell landed property for me," "...movable property...," or "...purchase for me...," then the person should perform his agency, selling or buying. All his deeds are binding.
It is not necessary for a person who appoints an agent to perform a
kinyan
or have the appointment observed by witnesses. Instead, the statement he makes to his colleague is sufficient. Witnesses are necessary solely to reveal what transpired if one of the two denies the matter, as is the case with regard to other claims…
Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners 1-3
Abaye said: We have a tradition
that
a husband requires authorization with regard to his wife’s property,
meaning that if there is a legal dispute between the husband and another person with regard to the usufruct property the husband received from his wife, he requires authorization from his wife that he may act on her behalf in order to present himself in court as a litigant. If he does not receive such authorization, the other litigant has the right to claim that he is not legally answerable to the husband, and may insist that the wife come before the court herself…
Gittin 48b:3
Rav Naḥman
said to
the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say:
I sent you
to act
for my benefit and not to my detriment.
Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore,
go
yourself and
purchase
the land
from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to
this woman
with a guarantee
that you will reimburse her in the event the land is…
Bava Batra 169b:11
§ The Sages
of Neharde’a say: One cannot write a document of authorization [
orakhta
]
to assign another to collect a debt or a deposit
of movable property
on his behalf.
Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason
for this
halakha
? Ameimar
said to him:
It is
due to
a principle stated
by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
As Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
If one
stole
an item
and the owners have not
yet
despaired
of recovering it,
neither of them is able to consecrate
it:
This
one, the thief…
Bava Kamma 70a:2-8
§
Rav Huna said:
In a case of
two brothers or two partners who have legal
proceedings
against
another
individual, and one of them went to
attend to the
legal
proceedings
against him
and lost,
the other
brother or partner
cannot say
to the litigant:
I am not legally answerable to you,
i.e., I am not bound by the verdict because I was not represented in the legal proceedings.
Rather,
the brother or partner who appeared in court is considered to have
acted as his agent.
…
Ketubot 94a:8-12
The verse states:
“And did that which is not good among his people”
(Ezekiel 18:18).
Rav says: This
is referring to
one who comes
to court
with authorization
to present claims on behalf of another.
And Shmuel says: This
is referring to
one who purchases a field
concerning which
there are those who contest
ownership
of it,
as in that way, he involves himself in the disputes of others.
Shevuot 31a:13
§ The mishna teaches that if the robber wishes to return the stolen item, he
may not give
the payment
to
the robbery victim’s
son
to return it to the robbery victim,
nor to his agent.
The Gemara comments: It
was stated
with regard to
an agent who was appointed in
the presence of
witnesses
to collect a debt from another:
Rav Ḥisda said:
Such an agent
is
a legally recognized
agent,
so that the debtor is considered to have repaid his debt as soon as he transfers the money to the agent…
Bava Kamma 104a:3
The Gemara comments:
And now,
since the time of Rav Naḥman,
when the Sages instituted an oath of inducement,
an oath instituted by the Sages in a case where a defendant completely denies a claim, these witnesses are affected by their testimony. If they were to claim that they returned the money to the one who appointed them, they would be required to take an oath of inducement to that effect. Consequently, they have an incentive to lie and claim that they fulfilled their agency and repaid the loan. Therefore, their testimony that they fulfilled their agency is not deemed credible…
Kiddushin 43b:6
§
A dilemma was raised before
the Sages: When Rav Ḥisda said that a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan is exempt, is he
exempt
only
from
the strict obligations of
a borrower, but
he remains
liable as a paid bailee, or perhaps he is also not
liable as
a paid bailee? Ameimar said: It stands to reason
that he is
exempt as a borrower but
is still
liable as a paid bailee.
Ameimar’s reasoning is that
since
he previously
had benefit, he
must
provide benefit
in return…
Bava Metzia 81a:6-11
to purchase wheat for him,
which he plans to sell at a profit,
and
instead the agent
purchased barley with
the money, or if he gave his agent money to purchase
barley and
instead
he purchased wheat with
the money, two
baraitot
issue discordant rulings with regard to the
halakha
.
It is taught
in
one
baraita
that
if there was a loss, the loss is for
the agent,
and if there was a profit,
the
profit is for
the agent as well…
Bava Kamma 102b:1
§ In continuation of the previous discussion, the Gemara raises another problem:
It is obvious
that if the employer
said to
his agent: Sell my property
to one
person,
but not to two,
and the agent sold the property to two people, since
he said to him: To one, but not to two,
it is certain that the agent has disregarded his instructions and is no longer considered an agent. However, if the employer
said to
the agent: Sell
to one
person,
without specifying
that he should not sell to two people…
Ketubot 99b:6-10
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.
Where you
should
raise the dilemma
is a case in
which
the employer
said to
his agent:
Go sell
on
my
behalf
a
kor
…
Ketubot 99a:5-7
The Gemara comments:
And this is not so;
Rav Ashi’s ruling is not accepted as
halakha
.
Whether
the instructions were given in
this
manner
or whether
the instructions were given in
that
manner, the agent must
pay, as
the one who appointed him can
say to him: I sent you to
act for
my benefit, and not to my detriment.
His right to act as an agent did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who designated him.
Ketubot 85a:7
The Gemara explains: The mishna does not mean to disqualify an agent appointed by the robbery victim in the presence of witnesses, but rather is referring to a case
where
the robbery victim
provides
the robber
with an agent
without appointing him in the presence of witnesses, in
that he says to
someone:
I have money
owed to me that is currently
with so-and-so, and he is not sending it. Present yourself to him,
as
perhaps
he wishes to return it but
cannot find a person with whom to send it.
…
Bava Kamma 104a:13-104b:4
And a similar
halakha
applies
with regard to
cases of
monetary law.
If one appoints agents to perform a transaction for him, e.g., paying a debt to his creditor, they can testify that he has paid.
Kiddushin 43b:1
Some Sages
say
that one cannot infer this resolution from the mishna.
What are the circumstances
of the mishna
here?
It is referring a case
where
the agent
brought him
a robe
worth six
sela
, i.e., the value of the gold
dinar
that the homeowner gave him, which he acquired
for three
sela
. If so, the homeowner received exactly what he wanted and the agent did not deviate from the agency, except that he also purchased a cloak without being instructed to do so…
Meilah 21b:3
The Gemara asks:
But didn’t
the Sages
of Neharde’a say: We do not write an authorization document [
adrakhta
] concerning movable property?
Therefore, in the case of redemption, where money, which has the status of movable property, is demanded from the priest, an authorization document may not be used. The Gemara answers:
This statement,
that one does not write authorization for movable property, applies only
when
the respondent, in this case the priest, already
denied
the claim against him…
Bekhorot 49a:2
Rav Pappa said: The
halakha
is that
an item that has a fixed
price
is split,
and with regard to
an item that does not have a fixed
price,
the entire
profit belongs
to the owner of the money.
The Gemara asks:
What is he teaching us
with that statement? That is exactly what Rami bar Ḥama said. The Gemara explains: He wanted to say that
the answer that we taught is the
correct
answer,
and one can issue practical halakhic rulings based on it.
Ketubot 98b:3
MISHNA:
With regard to
one who sends his son to a storekeeper with a
pundeyon
,
a coin worth two
issar
,
in his hand, and
the storekeeper
measured oil for him for
one
issar
and gave him the
second
issar
as change, and the son
broke the jug and lost the
issar
, the storekeeper
must compensate the father, as he gave the jug and coin to one who is not halakhically competent.
Rabbi Yehuda exempts
him from liability,
as
he holds that the father
sent
his son
in order to
do
this…
Bava Batra 87b:5-6
Rather, Abaye said: This
is what the
baraita
is saying:
With regard to
one who purchases a field in the name of his friend, the Exilarch,
the seller is not compelled to sell
the field
another time,
i.e., to provide the purchaser with a document denoting him as the owner of the field.
But if he said to him:
I will purchase the field
on the condition
that you will provide a deed in my name,
the seller is compelled to sell
the field again, i.e., to provide the purchaser with a document denoting him as the owner…
Bava Kamma 102b:20-103a:3
Property Law
דיני רכוש
Laws of the Release of Loans
Laws of Selling Ancestral Fields
Laws of Selling Property in a Walled City
Laws of the Methods of Acquisition
Laws of Retraction of a Transaction before its Completion
Laws of Cancellation of a Transaction and the Seller's Responsibility
Stipulations of a Purchased Acquisition
Intent of the Seller and the Purchaser
Laws of Ownerless Property
Laws of Gifts
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
×
×
