Commentary for Bava Batra 124:13

א"ל אביי מאי שנא הכי ומ"ש הכי אישתיק סבור מינה אידי ואידי פלגא

but if there is on It a clump of date trees, or it has an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, he does not acquire it. From this we infer that when it does not lie between the two adjoining boundaries, even though there is no clump of date trees on it and it has not an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, he does not acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words, there must be two things in his favour to make his claim good. ');">¹²</span> From either version of Raba's statement we learn that the seller does not reserve any part in the field itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he defines all the boundaries except one, the difference between the two versions being only in regard to the fourth boundary. ');">¹³</span> We also learn that where the fourth boundary lies between the two adjoining ones and there is no clump of date trees on it, or it has not an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, the purchaser acquires it [even though it is not specified], and that if it does not so lie and there is on it a clump of date trees or it has an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, he does not acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being in this case practically a separate field. ');">¹⁴</span> If it lies between the adjoining boundaries and there is a [clump of date trees] on it [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Yad Ramah.] ');">¹⁵</span> or if it does not so lie and there is [no clump] on it [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Yad Ramah.] ');">¹⁵</span> according to one version the rule is one way and according to the other version the rule is the other way, and so we leave the judges to use their own discretion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to what they consider to have been the intention of the seller. In most analogous cases, the property in dispute either remains with the possessor or is to be divided. ');">¹⁶</span> Rabbah said: [If a man who owns half a field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being joint owner with someone else. ');">¹⁷</span> says to another], I sell you the half which I have in the land, [he sells him] half [of the whole]. [If he says, I sell you] half of the land that I have,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., half of his share. ');">¹⁸</span> [he sells him] a quarter [of the whole]. Said Abaye to him: What difference does it make whether he says one thing or the other? Rabbah made no reply. Abaye [subsequently] said: I thought that, because he made no reply, he accepted my view, but this was not so, for I saw [later] some documents that were issued from the master's court; where it was written, 'the half that I have in the land', [the transaction was for] half, and where it was written, 'the half of the land that I have', [the transaction was for] a quarter. Rabbah further said: [If the seller writes in the deed,] [The boundary of the land is] the land from which half has been cut off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., part of a field is sold and the boundary is formed by the rest of it. ');">¹⁹</span> [he sells] half. If he writes, [The boundary of the land is] that from which a piece is cut off, [he only sells an area of] nine <i>kabs</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum which constitutes a field. ');">²⁰</span> Said Abaye to him: What difference does it make whether he says one way or the other? Rabbah made no reply. The conclusion was drawn that in either case [the proper rule was that he sold him] half,

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 124:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.