Bava Batra 105b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves:

Rather, throughout, “this,” and he does not hold so.

And he held like the Rabbis, and because of the uncertainty, we follow the one in possession.

And

if you say: If so, why, regarding one who says to his fellow, “A kor for thirty, a se'ah for a sela,” did Shmuel rule, “The first one, the first one, he acquired”? Rather, it must be said:

There [that is, regarding the bathhouse ]

meaning, concerning the bathhouse ]

What is the reason?

Why do we rule, “They divide”?

Because he is holding it. And

as was explained above, the case concerns “he came in the middle of the month.”

Here too,

regarding “a kor for thirty, a se'ah for a sela,” we say, “The first one, the first one, he acquired,” for

this one is held.

Since each and every se'ah that enters the buyer’s domain is in his possession . And we do not have the power to remove it from his possession, for “establish the matter according to its presumption.” And the reason is not “grasp the latter expression.”

And according to this, even if he says to him the opposite, “A se'ah for a sela, a kor for thirty,” the law will be, “The first one, the first one, he acquired.”

Rav Huna said, they say in Rav’s academy:

One who says to his fellow, “This object is sold to you for

an istera, [a sela of the state, worth 96 ma'ot],

a sela medina, worth ninety-six ma'ot],

one hundred ma'ei,

and they agreed—he is obligated to give him

one hundred ma'ei.

And likewise conversely, if he said

“One hundred ma'ei, an istera,”

he is obligated to him

an istera.

Like Ben Nannos, for “grasp the latter expression.”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What does this come to teach us—that one grasps the latter expression?!

This

was already

stated by Rav one time.

For Rav said: If I had been there, [that is, regarding one who rented a bathhouse to his fellow for twelve gold coins per year, one gold dinar per month, and the year became intercalated],

that is, concerning one who rents a bathhouse to another for twelve gold dinars a year, one gold dinar per month, and the year becomes a leap year],

I would have given all of it [I would have given the entire additional month]

I would have given the entire additional month]

to the landlord.

That is, “grasp the latter expression.” And what did Rav innovate with his statement?

And the Gemara resolves:

Lest you say [that you should not say] that there, all of it goes to the landlord, because

that you should not say] that there, the entire additional month goes to the landlord, because

he is merely explaining,

that is, certainly his intention was to take one gold dinar each month, and he was afraid lest the year become intercalated, so he explained: “This year of which I told you, ‘twelve dinars per year’—I did not mean an intercalated year, but an ordinary year, in which a dinar comes to each month.”

And since it is possible to explain his words in this manner, it is preferable to explain them in this manner rather than say that he retracted his earlier words .

But not because of “grasp the latter expression.”

This comes to teach us,

that Rav held, “Grasp the latter expression.” Like Ben Nannos.