Bava Batra 104a (קד.) — the Talmud in English

“For any amount less, he deducts; for any amount more, he returns.”

And this is precise: only if he said to him, “a measured amount exactly,” is he required to return it,

but

if he said to him

simply, it is deemed to be “a kor less or more.”

And we reject this:

Come and hear the latter clause: “But if he said to him, ‘less or more,’ even if he reduced the amount by a quarter-kav per se'a or increased it by a quarter-kav per se'a, it is accepted,”

and the inference is the opposite: only if he said to him, “less or more,” is it accepted,

but if he said it simply, it is deemed to be like a measured amount exactly.

Rather,

certainly,

nothing can be inferred from this .

The Gemara further brought proof:

Come and hear:

we learned in a baraita: One who says to his fellow,

“I am selling you a beit kor of earth,”

or

“I am selling you approximately a beit kor of earth,”

or

“I am selling you less or more,” even if he reduced the amount by a quarter-kav per se'a or increased it by a quarter-kav per se'a, it is accepted.

This concludes the baraita.

The Gemara infers:

Apparently, even when he says it simply, it is deemed to be “less or more.”

For three cases were stated in the baraita: “a beit kor,” “approximately a beit kor,” and “less or more,” and in all three the ruling is, “it is accepted.”

And we reject this:

There,

the baraita is not referring to three separate cases. Rather,

it is explaining: What is the meaning of a beit kor that is approximately a beit kor [

that is, in what case is he not required to give him an exact beit kor, but only approximately a beit kor],

for example, when he said to him, “less or more .”

But if he said to him simply, “a beit kor,” it is possible to say that he is required to give him an exact beit kor.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rav Ashi strongly objected: If so, [

if, as you say, the intent of the baraita is to explain “What is the meaning of a beit kor that is approximately a beit kor,” and so on],

why do I need it to say, “I am selling you” and “I am selling you”?

That is, why did we learn in the baraita, “I am selling you a beit kor of earth,” and “I am selling you approximately a beit kor of earth,” implying that each statement is a separate sale?

Rather, can one not infer from here

that if he said simply, “a beit kor,”

it too

has the same status

as

if he had said

“less or more”?

And we conclude: Indeed, so it is.

Infer from here.

We learned in the Mishna:

“What does he return to him? Money.

And if he wishes, he returns land to him. And why did they say that he returns money? To enhance the seller’s position, for if he left in the field a plot of nine kav … he returns the land to him

,” and so on:

The Gemara asks: Is it only

to enhance the seller’s position that we say this,

but

we do not say it to enhance the buyer’s position?!

And

indeed

it was taught

in a baraita:

, “If he reduced the amount by seven and a half kav per kor, or increased it by seven and a half kav per kor,

which is a quarter-kav per se'a, as was explained in the Mishna,

it is accepted.

But if he increased it

by more than this, we compel the seller to sell

the excess, if the buyer wishes to purchase it ,

and the buyer to purchase it

if the seller wishes to sell

it .”

It is thus apparent that just as we instituted an enactment for the seller, so too we instituted an enactment for the buyer, whereas the Mishna implies that they instituted only to enhance the seller’s position?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, in reality, we enhance the seller’s position and not the buyer’s position. And in fact, we never compel the seller to sell against his will.

And when we say

there

in the baraita, “we compel the seller to sell,” this does not mean that he sells against his will. Rather, it is referring to a case where the seller wishes to sell,

and, for example, it had originally been expensive, and it has now become cheaper

now

[

the land was expensive at the time of the original sale and has now become cheaper, when they came to discuss the excess], and the seller wishes to sell the excess at the original, higher price. In this case, we compel him to sell it at the current, lower price,

as we say to him: “If you give him land, give it to him at the current lower price,”

[if you wish to give the buyer land, give it to him at the current price]. Or else, take your land and leave.

Likewise, if the seller agrees to sell the land at the lower price, we compel the buyer to purchase it from him.

And

indeed

it was taught: “When he gives it to him,

when the seller sells the buyer the excess,

he gives it to him at the price at which he purchased it from him,”

and not at the current lower price?

The Gemara answers:

There, it is referring to a case where it had originally been cheap and has now become expensive

[the land was inexpensive at the time of the original sale and has now become more expensive, when they came to discuss the excess].

In this case, if the seller comes to compel the buyer to purchase the excess, the buyer can claim: “I do not wish to purchase it at the higher price; and even at the outset, when I purchased from you, I purchased only because of the low price.”

And whenever the buyer has a substantial claim, we do not compel him to purchase it.

But if the seller agrees to sell him the land at the lower price, we compel the buyer to purchase it from him, since now he has no claim at all.:

We learned in the Mishna: “To enhance the seller’s position,

for if he left in the field a plot of nine kav …

he returns the land to him

,” and so on.”

Rav Huna said: The nine kav that they stated

with regard to the ruling, “If he left in the field a plot of nine kav, he returns the land to him,” applies not only when he sold him a beit kor,

but even in a very large valley

much larger than a beit kor: if he left nine kav, he returns the land to him .

And Rav Naḥman said: He gives seven and a half kav

[a quarter-kav for each se'a],

for each and every kor,