Bava Batra 106b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

the seller to Rav Pappa,

“Its measurement is twenty griva”

[the area of the land is twenty se’a].

And

when it was measured,

“It was only fifteen”

[fifteen se’a].

He came before Abaye, and he said to him

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: You have no claim against him at all, for

you saw and accepted.

[You saw the field before the sale, and agreed to purchase it.]

Rav Pappa said to him:

But

we learned:

“If it is less than a sixth, they have received it; up to a sixth, he deducts,”

whereas here he was shorted by a quarter, so why should he not deduct?

Abaye said to him:

This applies where the buyer is not knowledgeable

about it

itself

[he is not expert in the measurements of the field],

but where he is knowledgeable about it, he saw and accepted.

Rav Pappa said to him:

But he said “twenty” to me,

and he said this to me with that intention: that he would complete the deficiency for me from another field, or deduct it from the price?

He said to him

Abaye: That was not his intention; rather, he meant to tell you

that it was superior

[this field was better]

than twenty.

Since

our Mishna deals with one who sells land to his fellow by measure, and finds in it more than its measure, and we rule that he returns the surplus and does not nullify the sale, we also learned the statement brought below: “Two brothers who divided, and another brother came to them from overseas,” concerning which Shmuel says, “They make reductions”—that is, they return the surplus and do not nullify the division.

And incidentally

we learned at the beginning the beraita brought here, which deals with the laws of the division of brothers by lot. Rashbam.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: The brothers who divided

their father’s property—and the same applies to partners who divided—selected for themselves two or three equal portions and cast a lot among them.

Once the lot fell to one of them, they all acquired.

That is, if there were two, they both acquired. And if there were three or more, this one acquired the portion upon which the lot fell, and the others acquired the remaining portions to divide among themselves in whatever manner they wished.

What is the reason?

By what did they acquire their portions? After all, the lot had not yet fallen, and each one had not taken possession of his own.

Rabbi Elazar said: Like the beginning

of the division of

the Land of Israel

among the tribes.

Just as at the beginning,

it was divided among the tribes

by lot,

and each one acquired his portion through it ,

so too here

[the heirs] acquire

their

portion through a

lot.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If

so, let us learn additional laws from the division of the land:

Just as there, through the urn and the Urim and Thummim, so too here, through the urn and the Urim and Thummim?

Rav Ashi said

Here there is no need for the Urim and Thummim, because they completed the matter and acquired immediately, wholeheartedly,

through that benefit that they obeyed one another

[through that benefit that they listened to one another to divide by lot],

they completed the acquisition from one another .

We learned another teaching concerning the laws of the division of brothers:

It was stated: Two brothers who divided

the lands of their father’s property before a court ,

and

afterward

another brother came to them from overseas.

Rav said,

since each one mistakenly took more than his portion,

the division is nullified.

They must divide the property anew into three portions and cast a lot among them.

And Shmuel said: They make reductions,

each one reducing a third from his portion and giving it to the third brother.

Rava said to Rav Nahman: According to Rav, who says “the division is nullified,” it follows

that two partners who divided without the knowledge of the third partner,

the law reverts

[their division is nullified].

But if that is so, these three

[three brothers or partners]

who are standing, and two of them went and divided

before a court, without the knowledge of the third, into three equal portions,

is it likewise the case that the division is nullified

when the third comes to protest against their division?!

And the Gemara rejects this:

Is this comparable!?

What is the comparison!? There is a distinction:

There, they descended with the intention of three from the outset

[they divided the land into three portions from the beginning], and therefore they need not be concerned with the opinion of the third .

But

here,

in the case of two brothers who divided, and another brother came to them from overseas,

they did not descend with the intention of three from the outset.

They divided only into two portions, and it was found that each one took more than was fitting for him; thus it was a mistaken division.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Shmuel, who says “they make reductions,” does it mean that the law stands?

That is, one who took something that was fitting for him, except that he took less or more: whatever he seized, he seized, and he returns the excess.

And

there is a difficulty:

Rav and Shmuel both say: “One who says to his fellow:

‘A

kor

of wheat

for thirty

sela,

I am selling to you,’”

and began measuring the wheat for him,

can retract even at the last se’a.

And even if the buyer pulled 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 am selling to you,” the first acquires the first.

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

And there is a difficulty: Why, if he said to him, “A kor for thirty,” can he retract even at the last se’a and take from the buyer the twenty-nine se’a that he had already acquired, when according to Shmuel, if he seized what was fitting for him, his seizure is effective even if he did not seize the amount fitting for him?