Bava Metzia 204

ובא מעשה לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולפני ר' יוסי ואמרו יחלוקו את חדש העיבור:

AND THE MATTER CAME BEFORE RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL AND R. JOSE, WHO ORDERED THEM TO DIVIDE THE INTERCALATED MONTH.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם אמר לו בשנים עשר זהובים לשנה מדינר זהב לחדש יחלוקו ומעשה נמי בציפורי באחד ששכר מרחץ מחבירו בשנים עשר זהובים לשנה מדינר זהב לחדש ובא מעשה לפני רבן שמעון ב"ג ולפני ר' יוסי ואמרו יחלוקו את חדש העיבור

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A story is quoted in contradiction [of the ruling given]! — The text is defective, and is thus meant: But if he said to him, '[I let it to you] for twelve golden <i>denarii</i> per annum, at a golden <i>denar</i> per month,' they must share. And IT HAPPENED IN SEPPHORIS THAT ONE RENTED A BATHHOUSE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR FOR TWELVE GOLD <i>DENARII</i> PER ANNUM, AT A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> PER MONTH, AND THE MATTER CAME BEFORE RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL AND R. JOSE, WHO ORDERED THEM TO DIVIDE THE INTERCALATED MONTH.

אמר רב אי הואי התם הוה יהיבנא ליה כוליה למשכיר

Rab said: Were I there, I would have awarded the whole of it to the owner. Now, what does this teach us — that the last expression alone is regarded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if an agreement is made, of which the two terms are contradictory, as here, the latter alone counts. ');">¹</span>

מאי קא משמע לן תפוס לשון אחרון

But Rab has already said it once. For R. Huna said in the name of the college of Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the expression be Rab may simply mean 'the schoolmen', without any particular reference to Rab (cf. Weiss, Dor. III. 141, and Bacher, Ag. der Bab. Am. 2), it is here understood as the college of Rab, the dictum being assigned actually to him. ');">²</span>

הא אמר רב חדא זימנא דאמר רב הונא אמרי בי רב אסתירא מאה מעי מאה מעי מאה מעי אסתירא אסתירא

[If the agreed price is] an istera, a hundred <i>ma'ahs</i>, then a hundred <i>ma'ahs</i> [are due];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An istera is half a zuz = 96 Perutahs or ma'ahs. ');">³</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא פרושי קא מפרש קמשמע לן

if a hundred <i>ma'ahs</i>, an istera [are arranged], an istera [is meant]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that in all cases the second expression is decisive. ');">⁴</span>

ושמואל אמר בבא באמצע חדש עסקינן אבל בא בתחלת חדש כוליה למשכיר בא בסוף חדש כוליה לשוכר

— If from there, I might have thought that [the second term] defines the first;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an istera, for which I will accept 100 light-weight ma'ahs, so that they are only worth an istera. In that case, the second term is binding because it defines the first. ');">⁵</span>

מי אמר שמואל לא אמרינן תפוס לשון אחרון והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כור בשלשים אני מוכר לך יכול לחזור בו אפילו בסאה אחרונה כור בשלשים סאה בסלע אני מוכר לך ראשון ראשון קנה

therefore we are informed otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the two terms are indeed contradictory, both there and here, and that the second is decisive. ');">⁶</span>

התם טעמא מאי משום דתפיס הכא נמי קא תפיס

Samuel said: We refer to a case where he [the landlord] comes [to claim rent] in the middle of the month. But if he comes at the beginning, it is all the landlord's; at the end, it is all the tenant's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reverting to the Mishnah, which states that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Jose ruled that the intercalated month is divided, he applies to it the principle that possession establishes a title. Hence, if the landlord comes to demand the rent for the extra month in the middle of the month, the tenant retains the half month which he has already enjoyed, but must pay for the second half, since the house undoubtedly belongs to the landlord, whilst the ownership of it for the next half month is disputed. The rest of Samuel's dictum is based on the same principle. ');">⁷</span>

ורב נחמן אמר קרקע בחזקת בעליה קיימת מאי קמ"ל תפוס לשון אחרון היינו דרב אע"ג דאפיך מיפך

Now, did Samuel reject the principle that the last term only is regarded? But Rab and Samuel both said: [If A says to B,] 'I sell you a <i>kor</i> for thirty [sela'im],' he can retract even at the last <i>se'ah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the vendee begins to carry it away, the possession is not effected until meshikah is performed upon the whole, which ranks as a single purchase, and even when only a se'ah remains, both parties can cancel the bargain. ');">⁸</span>

בעו מיניה מרבי ינאי שוכר אמר נתתי ומשכיר אומר לא נטלתי על מי להביא ראיה

[But if he says,] 'I sell you a <i>kor</i> for thirty, a <i>sela'</i> per <i>se'ah</i>,' then as he [the vendee] takes each, he acquires it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each se'ah counting as a separate transaction, which is completed when meshikah is performed thereon, v. B.B. 105a. This shews that the second expression, 'a sela' per se'ah,' is the decisive one, not the first, and so contradicts Samuel's previous dictim. ');">⁹</span>

אימת אי בתוך זמנו תנינא אי לאחר זמנו תנינא דתנן מת האב בתוך שלשים יום בחזקת שלא נפדה עד שיביא ראיה שנפדה לאחר שלשים יום בחזקת שנפדה עד שיאמרו לו שלא נפדה

— The reason there is that he has taken possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually, it is doubtful whether the first or the last term is binding, and on that account the vendee acquires each se'ah as he takes it, since he is then in possession. ');">¹⁰</span>

לא צריכא ביומא דמשלם זמניה מי עביד איניש דפרע ביומא דמשלם זמניה או לא

so here too, has he not taken possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the tenant does not pay for what he has already enjoyed. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר להו ר' יוחנן תניתוה

But R. Nahman ruled: Land remains in the presumptive possession of its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the intercalated month belongs to the landowner, and he may demand rent even at the end of the month. ');">¹²</span> Now, what does this teach us — that the last term is decisive? But that is Rab's teaching!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should R. Nahman state it? ');">¹³</span> [He informs us that it is thus] even if the terms were reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it does not depend on order, but on presumption. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Jannai was asked: If the tenant maintains, 'I have paid [rent],' and the landlord pleads, 'I have not received [it],' upon whom rests the onus of proof? But when [does the dispute take place]? If within the term, we have learnt it; if after, we have [likewise] learnt it! For we learnt: If the father died within the thirty days, the presumption is that he [the firstborn] has not been redeemed, unless proof is adduced to the contrary; after thirty days, he is presumed to have been redeemed, unless told that he was not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 49a. This refers to the redemption of the firstborn. Cf. Num. XVIII, 16: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem. Hence, if the father died within the month, it is assumed that he had not redeemed the child before the obligation matured; on the other hand, if he died after, it is assumed that he had redeemed him at the proper time. Now, rent is payable at the end of the year, and the same principle holds good. ');">¹⁵</span> The question is only [when the dispute arises] on the day that completes the term: does one pay on the day which completes the term, or not? — R. Jannai replied: We have learnt it: