Bava Batra 212:1
אמר ליה הויא עשרין גריוי משחיה ולא הואי אלא חמיסרא אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה סברת וקבילת
who stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also pointed out the marks and boundaries of the field. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> that it contained an area of twenty griva,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A griva equals one se'ah. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> but it contained only fifteen. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
והתנן פחות משתות הגיעו עד שתות ינכה הני מילי היכא דלא קים ליה בגוה אבל היכא דקים ליה בגוה סבר וקביל
came before Abaye who said unto him, '[Surely] you realized [its size] and accepted.' But did we not learn: THE SALE IS VALID [IF THE DIFFERENCE IS] LESS THAN A SIXTH; [IF IT AMOUNTS] TO A SIXTH, DEDUCTION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here, the difference was more than a sixth, 5/20 = 1/4; why, then, was not R. Papa allowed to deduct the difference? ');"><sup>4</sup></span> MUST BE MADE? — This applies only where [the buyer] is not acquainted with the field, but where he is acquainted with it [it is assumed that] he understood [the conditions] and accepted. 'But,' [argued R. Papa.] 'he said to me, twenty!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that if found to contain less, the difference would be made good from another field, or a deduction from the price would he allowed. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> — He replied: '[The seller might say that he meant] that the field was as good<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fifteen se'ah of that field will produce as much as twenty in an ordinary field. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
והא עשרין אמר לי אמר ליה דעדיפא כעשרין
as [one of] twenty. It was taught: R. Jose said: When brothers divide [an estate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into equal shares. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> all of them acquire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And none may withdraw. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
תניא ר' יוסי אומר האחין שחלקו כיון שעלה גורל לאחד מהן קנו כולם מ"ט אמר ר' אלעזר כתחלת ארץ ישראל מה תחלה בגורל אף כאן בגורל
possession [of their respective shares] as soon as the lot for one of them is drawn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there are only two brothers, one acquires possession of one share as soon as the other brother has acquired by lot his share. If more than two brothers, they acquire possession collectively of the remaining shares when the lot has determined to whom the first share was to be allotted. The first brother then, stands out, and lots are cast between the others. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> On what ground [is possession acquired]? — R. Eleazar said: [Possession is acquired in the same way] as [at] the beginning of [the settlement of] the land of Israel. As [at that] beginning, [the acquisition was] by lot, so here [also it is] by lot. Since there, however, [the division was made] through the ballot box<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 222a. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> and the Urim and Tummim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXVIII, 30, Lev. VIII, 8, Num. XXVII, 21. Cf. also I Sam. XXVIII, 6, Ezr. II, 63, Neh. VII, 65. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אי מה להלן בקלפי ואורים ותומים אף כאן בקלפי ואורים ותומים אמר רב אשי בההוא הנאה דקא צייתי להדדי גמרי ומקנו להדדי:
[should not the division] here also [be made] through<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, are the shares acquired here, in the absence of the Urim and Tummim, by mere lot? ');"><sup>12</sup></span> the ballot box and the Urim and Tummim? — R. Ashi replied: [The lot alone suffices here] because [in return for] the benefit of mutual agreement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because they listen to one another,' viz., to dissolve a partnership (Rashb.) [or to divide by lot (R. Gershom)]. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> they determine to allow each other to acquire possession [by the lot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are all so anxious to dissolve their partnership at the earliest possible moment, that they readily agree that through the lot alone every one of them shall acquire possession of his share. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
איתמר שני אחין שחלקו ובא להן אח ממדינת הים רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת ושמואל אמר מקמצין
alone]. It has been stated: [In the case when] two brothers divided [an estate between them] and a [third] brother arrived from a country beyond the sea, Rab said the division is cancelled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a new division in three parts is to be made, lots being drawn again. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> and Samuel said they relinquish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the division is valid, but each of the two brothers 'gives up a third of his share in favour of the new arrival. Thus, each of the three brothers retains or receives two thirds of half the estate, which form a third of the whole. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן לרב דאמר בטלה מחלוקת אלמא הדר דינא אלא מעתה הני בי תלתא דקיימי ואזול בי תרי מינייהו ופלוג הכי נמי דבטלה מחלוקת
[thirds from their respective shares for the third brother]. Raba said to R. Nahman: According to Rab, who said that the division is cancelled, it is clear that [we act on the principle that even a definite] decision may be revised; but if so, the division should be cancelled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the third party raises an objection. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> also in the case where [a partnership] of three was in existence and two of these divided<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In three parts, in the presence of a lay court of three, without consulting the third partner. (Cf. B.M. 32b.) ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
הכי השתא התם נחיתי אדעתא דבי תלתא מעיקרא הכא לא נחיתי אדעתא דבי תלתא מעיקרא
the property!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But, as a matter of fact, such a division cannot be cancelled, however much the third partner or brother may object. (Cf. B.M. 31b.) ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — What a comparison! There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case just cited. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> they went [into the matter], from the very beginning, with the intention of [dividing the property between] three;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there was a proper and equitable division which the third party cannot upset. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי לשמואל דאמר מקמצין למימרא דקם דינא והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כור בשלשים אני מוכר לך יכול לחזור בו אפילו בסאה האחרונה כור בשלשים סאה בסלע אני מוכר לך ראשון ראשון קנה
but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the arrival of an absent brother from beyond the sea. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> they did not enter '[into the matter], at first, with the intention of [dividing the estate between] three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They divided the estate into two parts only, ignoring altogether the just claims of the absent brother. Such a division, therefore, may be justifiably cancelled. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> R. Papa said to Abaye: According to Samuel, who said that they relinquish [thirds from their respective shares for the third brother], it appears that [where] a decision [has been arrived at, it] must be adhered to; but, surely, both Rab and Samuel have said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 105a. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [If the seller said.] 'I sell you a <i>kor</i> for thirty', he may withdraw even at the last <i>se'ah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 437. n. 23. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> [if, however, he said,] 'I sell you a <i>kor</i> for thirty. [each] <i>se'ah</i> for a <i>sela'</i> [the buyer] acquires<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' loc. cit. n. 14. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> possession of every <i>se'ah</i> as it is measured out for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 438, n. 1. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> [This shows that even a decision arrived at,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the first case of Rab's and Samuel's statement, where twenty-nine se'ah of the thirty in the kor had already been handed over to the buyer. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> may be upset!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all must be returned to the seller. If decisions are to be adhered to, why should the buyer be obliged to return that portion of the purchase which by mutual agreement had passed over into his possession? ');"><sup>29</sup></span>