Bava Batra 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

But if there were depressions ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high

they are not measured along with it.

That is, they are not redeemed according to the aforementioned calculation [fifty silver shekels for each beit kor], but are considered a field in their own right.

Less than this, they are measured along with it,

since they are not significant in their own right and are subordinate to the rest of the field .

And

we raised the matter:

Why

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

To consecrate them individually,

that is, they should be consecrated separately and redeemed according to the calculation stated in the passage ?!

And if you would say [

if you were to ask],

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

That is, it is not considered a beit kor for redemption according to the aforementioned calculation, but is redeemed according to its value.

But

it cannot be said this way! For

it was taught

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

And we derive:

“Field”—what does it teach us?

The word is unnecessary, since it was already stated above, “And if a man consecrates some part of the field of his ancestral property”; the verse could have said, “And if he that consecrated it shall redeem it, he shall add to it”!

Rather,

since it is stated

at the beginning of the passage (ibid., verse 16),

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

we would have said:

I know only that one who consecrated it in this manner,

that is, only if he consecrated a complete beit kor, redeems it according to the stated calculation.

From where is it derived to include

one who consecrates

a letekh, [

fifteen se'a, that is, half a kor]

half a letekh, a se'a, or a tarkav, [

three kav, that is, half a se'a]

or half a tarkav,

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

The verse states, “field,”

and we derive:

in every case.

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

It is clear from the beraita that even a small field is measured according to the stated calculation.

The question returns: Why should the depressions not be measured separately according to the calculation stated in the passage?

The Gemara answers:

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

They are not called a “house of seed,” and therefore they are not measured as an ancestral field; rather, they are redeemed according to their value.

And

this is also precise

from the wording of the Mishna cited above,

as it teaches

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

analogous to rocks.

Learn from this:

Just as rocks are unfit for sowing, so too the depressions are being discussed in a case in which they are unfit for sowing.

The Gemara challenges this:

If so, even less than this [

depressions less than ten handbreadths]

too

should be considered separately and redeemed according to their value?

The Gemara answers:

Those are called [

cracks]

of the land; these are called [

mounds]

of the land.

That is, they do not have a name of their own; rather, they are considered part of the ground. Since the entire field is called a “house of seed,” they too are considered a “house of seed” and are redeemed along with it.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of our Mishna:

What is the case here?

That is, does our Mishna also deal with depressions filled with water and unfit for sowing, analogous to rocks?

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is referring to all depressions,

even when they are not filled with water.

What is the reason?

That is, why should the buyer object to receiving depressions that are not filled with water? They too are fit for sowing.

The Gemara explains:

A person does not want to give his money for one place and be shown two or three places.

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

Ravina raised an objection against him [

he challenged his words]:

But

the Mishna teaches the

depressions analogously to rocks!

Why, then, 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 those less than this.

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

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

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

less than this, they are measured along with it”:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: The rocky areas [

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

that they stated

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

a beit of four kav.

But if the field is filled with small rocks, more than four kav per beit kor, they are not measured together with it. For a quantity this large, no person waives his claim.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: And this is when they are interspersed within five kav .

That is, the four kav must be within an area containing at least five kav, or more.

But if they are gathered in one place, they are not measured together with it, and are considered a separate area.

This applies specifically when they amount to four kav. But if they are less than that, even if they were gathered in one place, they are measured together with it .

But

Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: And this is when they are interspersed throughout the majority of the field.

That is, even if they were scattered over an area larger than five kav, they are considered contiguous until they are scattered throughout the majority of the field.

For example, in a field containing thirty seah, its majority is sixteen seah. Therefore, the five kav must be scattered within sixteen seah—that is, one-quarter kav per seah.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba raised a dilemma: If the majority of them is in the minority [of the area], and the minority of them is in the majority [of the area], what is the law?

For example, if the majority of the five kav—for example, nine quarter-kav—were scattered in the minority of the majority of the field, that is, in seven seah, while the minority of the five kav—seven quarter-kav—were scattered throughout the majority of the majority of the field, that is, in nine seah, it follows that in part of the field the ratio is greater than one-quarter kav per seah. In such a case, are they measured together with it?

Teyku.