Bava Batra 104b (קד:) — the Talmud in English

And if there is any amount in excess, which amounts to nine kav

—and if there is any amount in excess of the four quarter-kor measures, and altogether it amounts to nine kav—then

he returns

the land to him, and we do not say, “He shall make an accounting” and return money to him.

He raised an objection

—he challenged

Rava

against

Rav Nahman:

we learned in the Mishna,

“That if he retained in the field the area of nine kav,”

but we do not say, “That if he retained in a kor of land nine kav,”

is it not referring to a case where he sold him two kor?!

Does this not also refer to a case where he sold him two kor? It is implied from the Mishna that in every circumstance, if he retained nine kav, he gives him land?

The Gemara answers:

No!

The latter clause is speaking of the case mentioned in the first clause,

where he sold him one kor.

But in a case where he sold him more than one kor, he gives him the quarter-kav per se'a, and only if the surplus over the entire amount exceeds a quarter per se'a and reaches nine kav does he return the land to him.

Rava raised another objection from what we learned:

“And according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, in a garden, the area of one-quarter kav.”

And this is difficult:

is it not

also referring to a case

where he sold him two se'a?!

And even so, if the garden contains an area of half a kav, he returns the land to him?

The Gemara answers:

No!

It is speaking

where he sold him one se'a.

In that case, we say that if the surplus reaches a quarter, he has waived his claim to it. If it is more than a quarter, he shall make an accounting and pay him money. But if the surplus is half a kav, he returns the land to him rather than money.

Rava raised another objection from what we learned:

“And according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, in a garden, the area of one-quarter kav.”

Is it not referring to a case where he sold him one se'a?!

Does this not also refer to a case where he sold him a garden measuring one se'a, and nevertheless, if he retained a quarter-kav, he gives him land, despite the fact that generally we say that if he retained a quarter per se'a, the buyer has received the surplus?

The Gemara answers:

No!

It is speaking of a case

where he sold him half a se'a.

In that case, we say that if the surplus reaches one-eighth of a kav—the measure of a quarter per se'a—he has waived his claim to it. If it is more than one-eighth, he shall make an accounting and pay him money. But if the surplus is a quarter-kav, he returns the land to him rather than money.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of the Mishna:

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

If he sold him

a field, and it became a garden

in the possession of the buyer before he returned money or land to him , or, conversely, he sold him

a garden, and it became a field—what is the halakha? Does he return land to him at the measure of half a kav, as for a garden, or at the measure of nine kav, as for a field?

Does he return land to him in the amount of half a kav, as is the measure for a garden, or in the amount of nine kav, as is the measure for a field?

And it remains with

teiku.

The Gemara teaches us another law:

It was taught: If the

surplus land was

adjacent to his field

of the seller,

even any amount

he returns land to him,

and he cannot compel the buyer to purchase it.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

If there was

a pit between them, does it interrupt the adjacency?

If you say that it does not interrupt,

a water channel

that is wider,

does it interrupt the adjacency?

If you say that it does not interrupt,

a public thoroughfare

does it interrupt the adjacency?

If you say that it does not interrupt,

a row of palm trees

—a row of date palms—

does it interrupt the adjacency?

And it remains with

teiku.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he does not return to him only the quarter-kav, but rather the entire surplus”:

The Gemara challenges this:

What is this pointing toward ?

That is, the tanna should have stated the matter in the reverse manner: He does not return only the surplus, but also the quarter-kav measures?

Indeed,

Ravin bar Rav Nahman taught

—Ravin corrected the wording of the Mishna and taught:

“He does not return only the surplus; rather, he returns all the quarter-kav measures.”

Mishna:

In the previous Mishna it was explained that if he said, “I am selling you a kor of earth, measured exactly,” if it was deficient by any amount or exceeded by any amount, he deducts or returns.

But if he said, “Whether deficient or in excess,” even if it was deficient or exceeded by a quarter-kav per se'a, the transaction stands.

Our Mishna discusses a case where he stated both contradictory formulations together. How are his words to be interpreted?

One who says to another,

“I am selling you [land] measured exactly, whether deficient or in excess.”

The latter formulation

that he stated is nullified,

“whether deficient or in excess,”

which indicates a measure that is not exact, and it nullifies the formulation

“measured exactly,”

which indicates an exact measure. His law is as though he had said only, “Whether deficient or in excess.”

And likewise, if he said the reverse,

“Whether deficient or in excess, measured exactly.”