Study Kiddushin folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הא – דטעו, הא – דלא טעו. אי דלא טעו, מאי יכולים למחות? יכולים למחות ברוחות.
In this case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that their transaction is void, in accordance with the Rabbis, the court erred by 1/6th. But in that case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that the orphans cannot protest when they grow up, they did not err by 1/6th. The Talmud asks: If Rav Naḥman’s ruling that the orphans cannot protest is referring to a case where they did not err by 1/6th, why did Shmuel say that they can later protest; what is the nature of their protest? The Talmud answers: They can protest with regard to the locations. One of the orphans can contend that he prefers property in a different location than he was given.
אמר רב נחמן: האחין שחלקו הרי הן כלקוחות. פחות משתות – נקנה מקח. יתר על שתות – בטל מקח. שתות – קנה, ומחזיר אונאה.
§ Rav Naḥman says: With regard to brothers who divided property received as an inheritance, they are considered like they are purchasers from each other, and the halakhot of fraud are like those for regular transactions: If there was an error of less than 1/6th in the distribution, the transaction is acquired, i.e., valid. If it was more than 1/6th, the transaction is void. If the error was precisely 1/6th, it is acquired, and the one who received more than his fair share must return the amount of the fraud.
אמר רבא: הא דאמרן ״פחות משתות – נקנה מקח״ – לא אמרן אלא דלא שויה שליח, אבל שויה שליח, אמר: לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי.
Rava says: That which we said, that with regard to less than 1/6th the transaction is valid and the item is acquired, we said only in a case where the brother receiving a smaller share did not appoint an agent to deal with the distribution on his behalf. But if the brother receiving a smaller share appointed an agent, this halakha does not apply, as the one who appointed the agent can say: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. The agent’s right to act in this capacity did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who appointed him.