Bava Batra 104b — the Talmud in English

And if there is any excess that amounts to nine kavs

[and if there is any amount in excess of the quarters, and altogether there are nine kavs]—then

he returns

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

He raised an objection to him

and challenged

Rava

against

Rav Nahman,

for we learned in the Mishna:

“For if he left over in the field nine kavs of a beit se'a,”

and we do not say, “For if he left over in a beit kor nine kavs,”

does this not refer to a case where he sold him two kur?!

Does this not also refer to a case where he sold him two kur? For it is implied in the Mishna that in every manner, if he left over nine kavs, he gives him land?

And the Gemara answers:

No!

the latter clause deals with the case mentioned in the first clause,

where he sold him one kur.

But in a case where he sold him more than one kur, he gives him one quarter-kav per se'a, and only if the excess over all of it is more than one quarter per se'a and reaches nine kavs does he return the land to him.

Rava further raised an objection from that which we learned,

“And in a garden, half a kav.”

And it is difficult:

does this not

also refer to a case

where he sold him two se'ahs?!

And nevertheless, if there is in the garden an amount of half a kav, he returns the land to him?

And the Gemara answers,

No!

It is referring to a case

where he sold him one se'a.

And then we say that if the excess reaches one quarter-kav, he has waived it for him. If it is more than one quarter-kav, he shall make an accounting and pay him money. But if the excess is half a kav, he returns land to him and not money.

Rava further raised an objection from that which we learned,

“And according to the words of Rabbi Akiva, a quarter-beit se'a.”

What, is this not a case where he sold him one se'a?!

Does this not also refer to a case where he sold him a garden with an area of one se'a, and nevertheless, if he left over one quarter-kav, he gives him land, even though generally we say that if he left over one quarter per se'a, it is waived?

And the Gemara answers,

No!

It is referring to a case

where he sold him half a se'a.

And then we say that if the excess reaches one-eighth of a kav [the measure of one quarter per se'a], he has waived it for him. If it is more than one-eighth, he shall make an accounting and pay him money. But if the excess is one quarter-kav, he returns land to him and not money.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of the Mishna:

Rav Ashi inquired:

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 law?

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

And it concludes with

teyku.

The Gemara teaches us another law:

A tanna taught: If the

excess 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 inquired:

If there was between them

a pit, what is the law—does it interrupt?

If you should say that it does not interrupt,

a water channel

that is wider,

what is the law—does it interrupt?

If you say that it does not interrupt,

a public road

what is the law—does it interrupt?

If you say that it does not interrupt,

a row of palm trees

[a row of palm trees]

what is the law—does it interrupt?

And it concludes with

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he returns to him not only the quarter-kav, but all the excess.”

And the Gemara asks:

To which direction is this turned?

That is to say, the tanna should have said the opposite: that he returns not only the excess, but also the quarters.

And indeed

Ravin son of Rav Nahman taught

Ravin amended the wording of the Mishna and taught:

“He returns to him not only the excess, but all the quarters.”

Mishna:

It was explained in the preceding Mishna that if he said, “I am selling you a beit kor of earth, measured by the cord,” if it was lacking by any amount, or if it exceeded by any amount, he deducts or returns.

But if he said, “Whether lacking or exceeding,” even if it was lacking or exceeded by one quarter-kav per se'a, it is waived.

Our Mishna discusses a case where he said both contradictory expressions together. How shall we interpret his statement?

One who says to his fellow,

“I am selling you [this] measured by the cord, whether lacking or exceeding.”

The latter expression

that he said,

“whether lacking or exceeding,”

whose meaning is an inexact measure,

nullifies the expression “measured by the cord,”

whose meaning is an exact measure. And his law is as though he had said only, “Whether lacking or exceeding

” And likewise if he said the opposite,

“Whether lacking or exceeding, measured by the cord.”