Bava Batra 103a — the Talmud in English

But if there were there depressions ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

they are not measured with it.

That is, they are not redeemed according to the calculation mentioned above [fifty silver shekels for each beit kor], but are considered a field in themselves.

Less than this, they are measured with it,

since they are not important in themselves and are nullified to the rest of the field .”

And

we considered it:

Why

are they not measured according to the calculation stated in the passage?

To consecrate them in themselves,

that is, let them be consecrated in themselves, and let them too be redeemed according to the calculation stated in the passage?!

And if you would say

[and if you say],

since it is not a beit kor, they are not consecrated.

That is, they are not considered in order to be redeemed according to the calculation mentioned above, but are redeemed according to their value.

But

it cannot be said so! For

it was taught

in the Sifra: It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 27:19), concerning one who consecrates a field of inheritance: “And if he that consecrated it will indeed redeem the field, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation to it.”

And we derive:

“Field”—what does this teach?

For it was already stated above, “And if a man consecrates some part of the field of his possession,” and it should have written, “And if he that consecrated it will indeed redeem it.”

Rather,

since it is stated

at the beginning of the passage (there, verse 16),

“a homer of barley seed at fifty silver shekels,”

we would say:

I have only one who consecrated in this manner,

that is, only if he consecrated an entire beit kor does he redeem it according to the stated calculation.

From where is it derived to include

one who consecrates

a lethekh,

[fifteen seahs, that is, half a kor],

and half a lethekh, a seah, a tarkav,

[three kav, that is, half a seah],

and half a tarkav,

that these too are redeemed according to the calculation stated in the passage?

The verse says, “field,”

and we derive:

in every case.

That is, every field is redeemed according to the stated calculation.

And it is explained in the beraita that even a small field is measured according to the stated calculation.

And the question returns: Why should they not measure the depressions by themselves according to the calculation stated in the passage?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Ukva bar Hama said: Here we are dealing with depressions filled with water, for they are not fit for sowing.

And they are not called a “beit zera”; therefore, they are not measured as a field of inheritance, but are redeemed according to their value.

And likewise,

it is also precise

in the wording of the Mishna cited above,

, for it teaches

“depressions ten [handbreadths high], or rocks,” implying that the depressions are

analogous to rocks.

Infer from it:

Just as rocks are not fit for sowing, so too the depressions are being discussed in a manner in which they are not fit for sowing.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, even less than this

[depressions less than ten handbreadths]

also

should be considered in themselves and redeemed according to their value?

The Gemara answers:

Those are called the clefts

[clefts]

of the land; the ridges

[mounds]

are called of the land.

That is, they do not have a name in themselves; rather, they are like a part of the land. And since the entire field is called a “beit zera,” they too are considered a “beit zera,” and are redeemed with it.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of our Mishna:

What is the case here?

That is, in our Mishna too, are we dealing with depressions filled with water and unfit for sowing, analogous to rocks?

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is speaking of all depressions,

even though they are not filled with water.

What is the reason?

That is, why should it matter to the buyer to accept depressions that are not filled with water, since they too are fit for sowing?

The Gemara explains:

No person wants to give his money in one place and have it shown to him as two or three places.

Therefore, even if they are not filled with water, nevertheless this is not one field, but several fields, and the buyer does not wish to purchase several fields, but only one field.

Ravina challenged him

[he objected to his words]:

But Ravina—the

depressions—

are taught as analogous to rocks!

And why should we not infer as above:

Just as rocks are not fit for sowing, so too these are not fit for sowing?

The Gemara answers:

When it teaches “analogous to rocks,” it refers to less than this.

That is, the Mishna comes to teach that depressions less than ten handbreadths join with the field even when they are unfit for sowing.

But more than ten, even if they are fit for sowing, they do not join with it, since it is like two places.

We learned in the Mishna: “Rocks ten [handbreadths] high are not measured with it;

less than this they are measured with it”:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: The rocky ground

[rocks, and likewise depressions filled with water and unfit for sowing]

that they said

in the Mishna, “less than this they are measured with it”, means specifically when, throughout the entire field, they amount to no more than

a beit of four kav.

But if the field is full of small rocks, more than four kavs per kor, they are not measured with it. For all this, no person is willing to forgo [the requirement].

Rav Ukva bar Hama said: And that is when they are embedded within five kavs.

That is to say, those four kavs must be in an area containing at least five kavs, or more.

But if they are gathered together in one place, they are not measured with it, and are considered a place in its own right.

And specifically when there are four kavs in them. But less than this, even if they were gathered together in one place, they are measured with it.

But

Rav Hiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: And that is when they are embedded in the majority of the field.

That is to say, even if they were scattered over more than five kavs, they are like contiguous [rocks], until they are scattered throughout the majority of the field.

For example, in a field containing thirty seahs, its majority is sixteen seahs. If so, the five kavs must be scattered within sixteen seahs—that is, a quarter of a kav per seah.

Rav Hiyya bar Abba raised a question: [If] the majority of them is in the minority [of the majority of the field], and the minority of them is in the majority [of the majority of the field], what is [the law]?

For example, if the majority of the five kavs—such as nine quarters of a kav—were scattered in the minority of the majority of the field, that is, in seven seahs, and the minority of the five kavs—seven quarters of a kav—were scattered in the majority of the majority of the field, that is, in nine seahs, it follows that in part of the field the ratio is more than a quarter of a kav per seah. In such a case, are they measured with it?

Teyku.