Bava Batra 124

בסירוגין מהו תיקו

If he mentions one and skips one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there are two separate fields on each side, and he mentions one and skips one, does he sell the whole or only the sections opposite the fields he specifies? v. fig. 7. ');">¹</span>

מצר לו מצר ראשון ומצר שני ומצר שלישי ומצר רביעי לא מצר לו אמר רב קנה הכל חוץ ממצר רביעי ושמואל אמר אפילו מצר רביעי ורב אסי אמר לא קנה אלא תלם אחד על פני כולה

how do we decide? — These questions must stand over.

סבר לה כרב דאמר שיורי שייר ומדשייר במצר שייר נמי בכולהי

If the seller defines the first, second and third boundaries, but not the fourth, Rab says that the purchaser acquires the whole of the field with the exception of the fourth boundary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one furrow alongside of it. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא קנה הכל חוץ ממצר רביעי ולא אמרן אלא דלא מבלע אבל מבלע קנה

and Samuel said that he acquires the fourth boundary also. R. Assi, however, said that he acquires only one furrow alongside of the whole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Right round the other three boundaries. ');">³</span>

וכי לא מבלע נמי לא אמרן אלא דאיכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא והוי תשעת קבין אבל ליכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא ולא הוי תשעת קבין קנה מכלל דכי מובלע אע"ג דאיכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא והוי תשעת קבין קנה

He [so far] agreed with Rab [as to hold] that he reserved something, but [he further held] that since he reserved the boundary he reserved the whole field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the exception of the furrow round, ');">⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא הלכתא קנה הכל ואפילו מצר רביעי ולא אמרן אלא דמבלע אבל לא מבלע לא קני

Raba said: The law is that he acquires the whole field with the exception of the fourth boundary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As laid down by Rab. ');">⁵</span>

וכי מבלע נמי לא אמרן אלא דליכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא ולא הוי תשעת קבין אבל איכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא והוי תשעת קבין לא קנה מכלל דכי לא מובלע אף על גב דליכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא ולא הוי תשעת קבין לא קני

And even this is the case only if the fourth boundary does not lie within the adjoining two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is not swallowed', v, fig. 8. ');">⁶</span>

שמעינן מתרוייהו לישני דרבא דבשדה לא שייר ולא מידי ושמעינן נמי דהיכא דמבלע וליכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא ולא הוי תשעת קבין קנה לא מבלע ואיכא עליה ריכבא דדיקלא והוי תשעה קבין לא קנה

but if it does so lie,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. fig. 9. ');">⁷</span>

מבלע ואיכא עליה לא מבלע וליכא עליה אתמר לה להאי גיסא ואתמר לה להאי גיסא שודא דדייני:

the purchaser acquires it. And even if it does not lie within the adjoining two, [he fails to acquire it] only if there is on it a clump of date trees, or it has an area of nine <i>kabs</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sufficient for the sowing of nine kabs of seed. In these cases it counts as a separate field. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבה פלגא דאית לי בארעא פלגא פלגא בארעא דאית לי ריבעא א"ל אביי מאי שנא הכי ומ"ש הכי אישתיק

but if there is no clump of date trees on it and it does not contain an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, he does acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it goes with the field. ');">⁹</span>

אמר אביי אנא סברי מדאישתיק קבולי קבלה ולא היא חזינא הנהו שטרי דנפקי מבי מר וכתיב בהו הכי פלגא דאית לי בארעא פלגא פלגא בארעא דאית לי ריבעא

From this it can be inferred that if it lies between the adjoining boundaries, then even if there is a clump of date trees on it and it has an area of nine <i>kabs</i>, the purchaser acquires it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words, there must be two weaknesses in his claim to disqualify it, (a) that the fourth boundary lies outside the adjoining two, (b) that there is a clump etc. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר רבה מצר ארעא דמינה פלגא פלגא מצר ארעא דמינה פסיקא ט' קבין

According to another version, Raba said that the law is that the purchaser acquires the whole, including the fourth boundary. This is the case, however, only if it lies between the two adjoining boundaries, If, however, it does not so lie, he does not acquire it. And even where it does so lie, he acquires it only if there is not on it a clump of date trees, or it has not an area of nine <i>kabs</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because here also there is only one weakness in his claim, not two. ');">¹¹</span>

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,