Bava Batra 139
בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת חוץ מחרוב פלוני חוץ מסדן פלוני מהו אותו חרוב הוא דלא קני הא שאר חרובים קני או דלמא שאר חרובין נמי לא קני אמר ליה לא קנה
however, say that all which are bent back by the yoke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the ground under the tree is ploughed by oxen and the yoke knocks against it. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
איתיביה חוץ מחרוב פלוני חוץ מסדן פלוני לא קנה מאי לאו אותו חרוב הוא דלא קנה הא שאר חרובין קנה
are not reserved, but all those which are not bent back by the yoke are reserved. There is really no conflict of opinion, because the former [speaks] of date trees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which being slender can be bent back even when well grown. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
א"ל לא אפילו שאר חרובין נמי לא קנה תדע דאילו א"ל שדי מכורה לך חוץ משדה פלונית ההיא הוא דלא קני הא אחרנייתא קני אלא לא קנה ה"נ לא קנה
and the latter [speaks] of other trees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit of which can be plucked without the use of a ladder. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ואיכא דאמרי בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת חוץ מחצי חרוב פלוני חוץ מחצי סדן פלוני מהו שאר חרובין ודאי לא קני הא מה ששייר באותו חרוב קני או דלמא אפילו מה ששייר באותו חרוב נמי לא קני אמר ליה לא קני
R. Aha b. Huna enquired of R. Huna: [If the vendor says, I sell you the whole field] with the exception of such-and-such a carob tree or such-and-such a sycamore, how do we decide? Is it that carob alone which the purchaser fails to acquire, while he acquires all the rest, or does he fail to acquire the rest also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the vendor had said nothing, the purchaser would not have acquired any of the carob trees, since these are not sold with the field (v. Mishnah). Since therefore he goes out of his way to except this carob tree, do we presume that he desires to include the rest in the sale? ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
איתיביה חוץ מחצי חרוב פלוני חוץ מחצי סדן פלוני שאר חרובין לא קנה מאי לאו שאר חרובין הוא דלא קנה הא מה ששייר באותו חרוב קנה
— He replied: He does not acquire them. R. Aha then raised an objection [from the following]: [If the vendor says], Except such-and-such a carob tree, except such-and-such a Sycamore, he does not obtain possession. Does this not mean that he fails to acquire possession of that carob, but he does acquire possession of the rest? — No, he replied; he fails to acquire possession of the other carobs also. The proof is this. Suppose [he was selling him a field and] said to him, 'My field is sold to you with the exception of such-and-such a field',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bordering on the other. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר ליה לא אפילו מה ששייר באותו חרוב נמי לא קנה תדע דאילו א"ל שדי מכורה לך חוץ מחצי שדה פלוני ההוא הוא דלא קנה הא אידך קנה אלא לא קני ה"נ לא קני
would this mean that the purchaser failed to acquire ownership of that field alone, but did acquire ownership of all the other fields [belonging to the vendor]? Of course he would not acquire ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because obviously the vendor only meant to sell him one field, in spite of his foolish manner of expressing himself. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ולימא ליה שטרך בידי מאי בעי אמר ליה וליטעמיך וכי א"ל נאנסו מי מצי א"ל שטרך בידי מאי בעי אמר ליה
Some report this discussion as follows. R. Ahab. Huna inquired of R. Shesheth: [If the vendor said, 'I sell you the field] with the exception of half of such-and-such a carob tree', or 'half of such and-such a sycamore', how do we decide? Of course he does not acquire the other carobs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it would be impossible to press so much into the word 'except' in this case. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> The question is, does he acquire the half left over in the carob specified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the 'except' avail for this? ');"><sup>9</sup></span> or does he fail to acquire even that? — He replied: He does not acquire it. R. Aha then raised an objection [from the following]: '[If the vendor says], "Except half of such-and-such a carob, half of such-and-such a sycamore", he does not acquire the remaining carobs'. Does not this mean that he only fails to acquire the remaining carobs, but he does acquire the remainder of that carob? — No, replied R. Shesheth; even the remainder of that carob he does not acquire. The proof is this. Suppose [he was selling him a field and] said to him, 'My field is sold to you with the exception of half of such-and-such a field', would he fail to acquire only that half and acquire the other half? Obviously he would not acquire it; so here too he does not acquire. <span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage is introduced at this place because it contains a ruling of the 'judges of the Exile' mentioned above. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> R. Amram inquired of R. Hisda: If a man deposits something with another and receives a written acknowledgment for it, and the other subsequently asserts, 'I returned it to you', how do we decide? Do we argue that since we should accept his word if he cared to say that he had lost it through circumstances over which he had no control,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the rule laid down in Ex. XXII, 10-11, If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass etc. to keep,' and it die, or be hurt, or be driven away, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both … and the owner thereof shall accept it. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> now too we accept his word,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is putting forward a weaker plea. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> or [do we accept the plea of] the other if he says, 'How comes your acknowledgment in my hand?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if, as you say, you returned it to me, why did you not take back the acknowledgment? ');"><sup>13</sup></span> — He replied: We accept the word [of the defendant]. But the claimant can plead, 'How comes your acknowledgment in my hand?' — Said he [R. Hisda]: On your own argument, if the defendant said, 'I lost it through circumstances over which I had no control,' could the claimant plead, 'How comes your acknowledgment in my hand?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would not be any evidence, because the defendant could say that seeing he was pleading force majeure he thought it unnecessary to take back the acknowledgment. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> He [R. Amram,] replied: When all