Commentary for Bava Kamma 204:10

א"ר אבא לא כל המקדיש נכסיו אין דעתו על כסות אשתו ובניו

R. Samuel b. Sasarti demurred: If so, why not also say the same even in the case where wheat [was wanted by the principal] and wheat [was bought by the agent]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the vendor had no knowledge of the existence of the contract of agency between the purchaser and the principal. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Abbahu however said: The case where wheat [was wanted] and wheat [was bought] is different, as in this case the agent was acting for the principal upon the terms of his mandate and it is the same [in law] as if the principal himself had done it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case before us where the agent acted against the instructions, the mandate has thereby been set aside and the purchase could no more be ascribed to the principal. ');">¹⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 204:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.