Bava Batra 105a — the Talmud in English

cancels

the last wording that he said,

“a measure by the rope,”

whose meaning is an exact measure,

“whether short or whether in excess,”

whose meaning is a measure that is not exact. And his law is as though he said only, “a measure by the rope.”

These are

the words of ben Nanas.

Who holds: “seize the last wording.”

That is, whoever says two wordings that contradict one another, we follow the last wording. Because he retracted, within the time of speech, from the first wording.

But the Sages disagreed with him. As will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said that Rav said: His colleagues disagreed with ben Nanas.

And they did not hold, “seize the last wording”; rather, they are uncertain whether “seize the first wording” or “seize the last wording.” As will be explained later in the words of the Gemara.

Indeed, Rav’s own opinion is like ben Nanas: “seize the last wording.” As will be explained below (page 105b).

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What does he teach us

in Rav’s words?

Have we not

learned

(Bava Metzia 102a):

“An incident occurred in Sepphoris, involving one who rented a bathhouse from his fellow.

And he said to him, ‘I hereby rent you this bathhouse

for twelve gold coins per year, one gold denar per month.’”

And the year became intercalated, and it contained thirteen months.

It must be determined how much he should pay him: on the one hand, the first wording means that he should give him only twelve gold coins, even if the year becomes intercalated.

On the other hand, the last wording means that for each and every month he is obligated to give him one gold denar.

“And the incident came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before Rabbi Yosei, and they said: ‘They shall divide the intercalated month.’”

Thus far the Mishna.

And it is explicitly evident that they did not hold like ben Nanas, but were uncertain whether we seize the first wording or the last wording, and property placed in uncertainty is divided.

If so, what innovation did Rav teach in his words?

And the Gemara answers:

If

Rav had not taught us that “his colleagues disagreed with ben Nanas,” and we had come to learn this

from there, [

from the aforementioned Mishna, “one who rents a bathhouse”],

I would have thought

specifically

there it is

that we say, “they divide,” because

it

is uncertain to us what his intention was.

On the one hand,

it may be said that he retracted from it, [

it is possible to say that at the end of his words he retracted from what he said at their beginning]. And in this case he must pay him for the month of the rental.

And

on the other hand,

it may be said that he is explaining.

That is, his intention was to explain that he should give him the twelve gold coins in each and every month, and not only at the end of the year. And he may also retract during the year, and he will not become obligated to provide him with another dwelling.

But his intention is not to rent to him each month separately. And if this is his intention, he is not obligated to pay for the intercalated month.

And since the uncertainty is evenly balanced, we say: they shall divide.”

But here,

in our Mishna,

where he certainly retracted,

in the last wording, from what he said at the beginning,

say no.

And even the Sages agree with ben Nanas, that we say, “seize the last wording.”

Therefore

he teaches us

Rav that even in our Mishna the Sages disagreed with ben Nanas.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of our Mishna:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the opinion of ben Nanas. But the Sages say,

whether he said “a measure by the rope” at the end, or whether he said “whether short or whether in excess,” in a case of uncertainty,

“follow the lesser of the wordings.”

And the hand of the seller, who is in possession of the land, has the advantage.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

“This”—but he does not hold so?!

That is, from the fact that Shmuel said, “This is the opinion of ben Nanas,” and did not say, “His colleagues disagreed with ben Nanas,” as Rav said above, it implies that he does not hold like ben Nanas, but like the Sages.

And

there is a difficulty:

Rav and Shmuel both said,

with regard to one who says to his fellow,

“A kor

of wheat

for thirty

sela,

I sell to you,”

and he began measuring the wheat for him,

he may retract even with regard to the final se’a.

And even if the buyer drew twenty-nine se’a, the sale is not completed until he gives him thirty se’a.

But if he said to him,

“A kor, for thirty, a se’a for a sela; I sell to you,” the first one acquired each one.

Since he said to him, “a se’a for a sela,” each and every se’a is a sale in itself. And the drawing of each one acquired it.

Evidently, according to Shmuel we say, “seize the last wording,” like ben Nanas.

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, this—and he does hold so.

That is, although he said, “This is the opinion of ben Nanas,” it is not because he did not hold like him; rather, he taught us the opinion of the Sages who disagree with him.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Does he hold so?!

Does Shmuel hold that we say, “seize the last wording”?!

But

indeed

Shmuel said,

in explaining the Mishna concerning the bathhouse, that it says there, “They shall divide the intercalated month,”

and Shmuel established it as

one who came

to the court

in the middle of the month

and said to him, “Leave my house or give me the rent for this month,”

is the case we are dealing with.

And since we are uncertain which wording is seized, we say, place the property upon its presumption, and what he has already dwelled there we do not extract from him, lest we have to seize the last wording.

But if he came at the beginning of the month, it all belongs to the lessor.

For we say, place the land in the possession of its owners.

And

at the end of the month, it all belongs to the lessee .

For we say, place the property in the possession of the one holding it.

In any event, it implies that Shmuel too is uncertain, like the Sages, and follows the one in possession, and not like ben Nanas?