Ketubot

Rabbi  has taught here  that all [profits  belong] to the owner of the money.  As it was taught,  'If one unit  was added to [the purchases made by an agent] all [the profit belongs] to the agent'; so R. Judah, but R. Jose ruled, '[The profit] is to be divided',  [and, in reply to the objection,] But, surely, it was taught that R. Jose ruled, All [profit belongs] to the owner of the money! Rami b. Hama replied: This is no difficulty for the former refers to an object that has a fixed value  while the latter refers to one that has no fixed  value. R. Papa stated: The law is that  [the profit made by the agent on] an object that had a fixed value must be divided,  but if on an object that had no fixed value all [profit belongs] to the owner of the money. What does he  teach us?  — That the reply that was given  is the proper one. The question was raised: What [is the law where a man] said to his agent,  'Sell for me a lethek'  and the latter presumed  to sell a kor.  [Is the agent deemed to be merely] adding to the owner's instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires possession of a lethek, at all events, or is he rather transgressing his instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires no possession of a lethek either? — Said R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod  in the name of Rabina, Come and hear: If a householder said to his agent, 'Serve a piece [of meat]  to the guests', and the latter said to them, 'Take two',  and they took three,  all of them are guilty  of trespass.  Now if you agree [that the agent]  was merely adding to the host's instruction one can well understand the reason why the householder is guilty of trespass. If you should maintain, however, [that the agent]  was transgressing his instruction [the objection could well be advanced:] Why should the householder be guilty of trespass? Have we not In fact learned: If an agent performed his mission it is the householder who is guilty of trespass but if he did not perform his mission it is the agent who is guilty of trespass?  — Here we may be dealing with a case where the agent said to the guests, 'Take one at the desire  of the householder  and one at my own request's  and they took three. Come and hear: IF HER KETHUBAH, HOWEVER, WAS FOR A MANEH, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR A MANEH, HER SALE IS VOID. Does  not [this mean] that SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR A MANEH and a denar,  and that by  [the expression,] 'FOR A MANEH' the maneh that was due to her [is meant], and by  EVEN  [one is to understand] EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE DENAR TO THE HEIRS [by repurchasing for them] land of the value of a denar'? And was it not nevertheless stated, HER SALE IS VOID?  — No,  retorted R. Huna the son of R. Nathan, [this is a case] where [she sold] at the lower price.