Bava Batra 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

nullifies

the last wording he stated,

“a measure by the rope,”

which means an exact measure, the first wording,

“whether deficient or excessive,”

which means a measure that is not exact. Its law is as though he had said only, “a measure by the rope.”

These are

the words of Ben Nannes.

He holds: “seize the last wording.”

That is, whenever one states two expressions that contradict one another, we follow the last expression, because he retracted the first expression within the time of utterance.

However, the Sages disagreed with him, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said that Rav said: His colleagues disagree with Ben Nannes.

They did not hold: “seize the last wording”; rather, they were uncertain whether “one seizes the first wording” or “one seizes the last wording.” As will be explained later in the Gemara.

In fact, Rav himself holds like Ben Nannes: “seize the last wording,” as will be explained below (105b).

The Gemara raises an objection:

What does Rav teach us

by his statement?

Did we not

learn

(Bava Metzia 102a):

“There was an incident in Sepphoris involving one who rented a bathhouse from another.

And he said to him: ‘I am renting you this bathhouse

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

The year was intercalated, and it consequently contained thirteen months.

The question arises how much he must pay him. On the one hand, the first wording means that he should give him only twelve gold coins, even if the year is intercalated.

On the other hand, the last wording means that he must give him one gold dinar for each and every month.

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

This concludes the Mishna.

It is explicitly evident that they did not hold like Ben Nannes. Rather, they were uncertain whether we seize the first wording or the last wording, and disputed property is divided.

If so, what did Rav innovate by his statement?

The Gemara answers:

If

Rav had not taught us that “his colleagues disagree with Ben Nannes,” and we had come to derive this

from there

—from the aforementioned Mishna, “the one who rented a bathhouse”—

I might have said

that it is

only there

that we say “they divide,” because

it

is uncertain to us what his intention was.

On the one hand,

it is possible to say that he was retracting,

that he retracted at the end of his statement from what he had said at the beginning. In that case, he must pay him for the month of the rental.

And

on the other hand,

it is possible to say that he was clarifying.

That is, his intention was to clarify that he would give him the twelve gold coins each and every month, and not only at the end of the year. He could also retract during the year and would not be obligated to provide him with another dwelling.

However, his intention is not to rent each month separately. And if that 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 first,

say no.

Perhaps even the Sages agree with Ben Nannes, and we say: “Seize the last wording.”

Therefore,

Rav teaches us

that even in our Mishna the Sages disagree with Ben Nannes.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of our Mishna:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Ben Nannes. But the Sages say:

whether he said “a measure by the rope” last, or whether he said “whether deficient or excessive,” in a case of uncertainty,

“follow the lesser of the two expressions.”

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

“This” and he does not agree with it?!

That is, from the fact that Shmuel says, “This is the statement of Ben Nannes,” and does not say, “His colleagues disagree with Ben Nannes,” as Rav said above, it follows that he does not hold like Ben Nannes, but like the Sages.

And

there is a difficulty:

Rav and Shmuel both say:

If one says to another:

“A kor

of wheat

for thirty

sela’im,

I am selling to you,”

and he began measuring out the wheat for him,

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

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

But if he said to him:

“A kor for thirty, a se’ah for a sela. I am selling to you,” the first acquired the first.

Since he said to him, “a se’ah for a sela,” each and every se’ah is a separate sale, and the drawing of each one effected its acquisition.

Evidently, according to Shmuel we say: “Seize the last wording,” like Ben Nannes.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, this, and he agrees with it.

That is, although he said, “This is the statement of Ben Nannes,” it is not because he disagrees with him; rather, he teaches us the view of the Sages who disagree with him.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Does he agree with it?!

Does Shmuel really hold that we say: “Seize the last wording”?

But

indeed

Shmuel said,

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

and Shmuel interpreted it as a case

where he came

to the court

in the middle of the month

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

we are dealing with.

And since we are uncertain which wording should be seized, we say: Place the money in its presumptive status; whatever time he has already lived there, we do not remove from him, lest we must seize the last wording.

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

For we say: Place the land in the possession of its owners.

And

at the end of the month, the entire month belongs to the lessee,

for we say: Place the money in the possession of the one holding it.

In any event, it is implied that Shmuel too is uncertain, like the Sages, and follows the one in possession. And not like Ben Nannes?