Bava Batra 107b (קז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It is assessed at ninety,

since

dinars

is what the land is worth, and when he says twenty

sela, which are eighty dinars,

he is erring by ten downward. And when he says a maneh, [

one hundred dinars]

he is erring by ten upward.

The Gemara raises an objection: Why do we follow the first two?

On the contrary,

we should follow the later ones and say that

this land is worth one hundred and ten, and when he says a maneh, he is erring by ten downward, while when he says thirty [

sela, which are one hundred and twenty dinars]

he is erring by ten upward?

The Gemara answers: Since it is possible to say this, and it is possible to say that,

at least take the first two in your hand [

it is preferable to follow the first two], as “if you have grasped too much, you have grasped nothing” . And since

the entire world

everyone

does not take it out of the category of a maneh

and according to everyone the assessment is close to a maneh, he gives ninety.

Others say: they make an assessment between them and divide the difference into thirds. They hold that this land is worth ninety-three and one-third,

Others say: They make an assessment between them and divide it into thirds. They hold that this land is worth ninety-three and one-third,

and when he says twenty, he is erring by thirteen and one-third downward. And when he says a maneh, he is erring by thirteen and one-third upward.

In fact, he should have said more [

he should have said: a maneh, six dinars, and two-thirds],

but the reason he did not say it is that he thought: It is enough that I have added so much to my fellow’s assessment [

it is sufficient that I have already added to my fellow’s assessment] . The Gemara raises an objection: Why do we follow the first two?

On the contrary,

we should follow the later ones and say that

this land is worth one hundred and thirteen and one-third. When he says a maneh, he is erring by thirteen and one-third downward. And when he says thirty, he is erring by thirteen and one-third upward. In fact, he should have said more,

but

he thought: It is enough that I add so much to my fellow’s assessment!?

The Gemara answers: Since it is possible to say this, and it is possible to say that,

at least take the first two in your hand [

it is preferable to follow the first two], as “if you have grasped too much, you have grasped nothing.” And since

the entire world

everyone

does not take it out of the category of one hundred [

according to everyone, the assessment is close to a maneh], therefore, he gives ninety-three and one-third.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Others.

Rav Ashi said: We do not know the reasoning of Others, [

that is, it is not a logical rationale, and if so, are we to]

establish the halakha in accordance with them?!

Rather, we rule in accordance with the first tanna, who says: “It is assessed at a maneh.”

The judges of the Exile taught [

Shmuel and Karna]:

They make an assessment between them and divide it into thirds.

That is, in accordance with the opinion of Others.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the judges of the Exile.

As above.

Rav Ashi said: We do not know the reasoning of the judges of the Exile,

and if so, are we to

establish the halakha in accordance with them?!

As above .

Mishna:

One who says to his fellow, “I am selling you half of a field,”

and some parts of it were fertile and some parts were inferior.

How do they divide it between them?

They assess the value between them,

that is, they assess the entire field, and the seller retains the fertile parts for himself, in accordance with the value of half the field,

and the buyer takes

according to the value of

his half of the field,

from the inferior plots within it.

The seller has the upper hand, enabling him to say to the buyer: “I did not intend to sell you an actual half; rather, I intended to sell you land worth the value of half the field.”

And similarly, if he said to him,

“I am selling you its southern half,” they assess the value between them,

that is, they assess how much the southern half of the field is worth,

and the buyer takes

inferior land in the field, equal in value to

its half

that is

in the south .

And he [

the seller]

takes upon himself

to deduct from his portion

space

for

the fence,

and likewise space for a

ditch and an inner ditch .

And how large is an inner ditch?

Six handbreadths.

And an inner ditch is three.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “One who says to his fellow, ‘I am selling you half of a field,’ they assess the value between them, and he takes the value of his half of the field”:

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

The intention of the Mishna is that the

buyer

takes

the

inferior portion within it,

equal in value to half the field.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yohanan: But did we not learn, “They assess the value between them”?

This implies that both have equal standing in the assessment, to take fertile and inferior land equally ?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

While you were eating dates in Babylonia, we interpreted it from the latter clause [

before you ate delicacies in Babylonia, and failed to engage in Torah study, you should have explained our words from the latter clause of our Mishna].

For it teaches in the latter clause: “If he says, ‘I am selling you its southern half,’ they assess the value between them, and he takes its southern half.”

And

if it is as you say, that he gives him an actual half of the field,

why do they assess the value between them [

why must they assess the entire field]

? He said to him, “the southern half,”

and he should have given him the portion they stipulated between them.

Rather,

certainly, the intention of the Mishna in the expression “they assess the value between them” is not as you said, but

to

say that he gives him

the value of

half the field, from the inferior land .

And

here too [

in the first clause], the intention of the Mishna is

the value.

We learned in the Mishna: “And he

takes upon himself space

for the

fence,

ditch, and inner ditch.”

Etc.:

The Gemara explains: For what purpose did they need a ditch and an inner ditch?

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

The ditch [

a trench six handbreadths deep, about which the Mishna spoke, he makes it]

on the outside,

toward the outside.

And

adjacent to it, he also makes

an inner ditch [

a trench three handbreadths deep]

on the inside,

toward the fence—that is, between the ditch and the fence.

And both of these,

the ditch and the inner ditch, are located

behind the fence,

on the outer side of the field, and this,

is so that an animal will not

jump

up to the fence and enter the field.