Bava Batra 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

And if he said to him, “My properties,” it includes even houses and slaves.

Because the term “properties” includes them as well.

And if

he specified a boundary,

he wrote in the deed of sale the boundaries—that is, the borders of the field—

one boundary being long and one boundary being short,

for example, he wrote that on the western side there was a long boundary, meaning that Shimon’s field was the western boundary, and Shimon’s field was one hundred cubits long, whereas on the eastern side he wrote a short boundary, such as Levi’s field, which was only fifty cubits long —

Rav said: He acquired only the area corresponding to the short boundary.

He acquired only half the field, extending fifty cubits, which lay between the boundary on the east and the boundary on the west; but he did not acquire the other half, which extended beyond the boundary on the west. [See illustration 4 in “Perush Hai.”] For we interpret his words to mean that he intended to sell only the area corresponding to the short boundary. The reason he mentioned a long boundary on the western side was that he needed to mention Shimon’s field as the western boundary, and Shimon’s field was one hundred cubits long; he could not indicate how far the boundary extended into Shimon’s field, and therefore he broadened the boundary and simply wrote that Shimon’s field was the western boundary.

Illustration 4

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Let him acquire according to a rosh tor.

Is it not possible to say that the fact that he mentioned a long boundary here and a short boundary there was intentional, and that he did not broaden the boundary? Rather, he intended that the buyer acquire the half of the field corresponding to the short boundary, and in the other half, corresponding only to the long boundary, he would acquire half of that area diagonally—that is, a line would be drawn diagonally from the end of the long boundary to the short boundary, and he acquired all the area within this line, but not the area beyond it. [See illustration 5 in “Perush Hai.”] Illustration 5

Rav was silent.

He did not answer them.

And Rav concedes,

before he became silent,

where there is a boundary belonging to Reuven and Shimon on one side,

for example, on the western side there are the field of Reuven and the field of Shimon,

and a boundary belonging to Levi and Yehuda on one side,

meaning that on the eastern side there are the field of Levi and the field of Yehuda: Levi’s field is opposite Reuven’s field, and Yehuda’s field is opposite Shimon’s field. If he wrote the field of Reuven and the field of Shimon as the western boundary, but wrote only Levi’s field [or only Yehuda’s field] as the eastern boundary, Rav concedes that the buyer acquired according to a rosh tor, and not only the area corresponding to the short boundary. [See illustration 6 in “Perush Hai.”]

Illustration 6, because

it would have been appropriate for him to write, “Reuven opposite Levi,”

for if he wanted to convey only the area corresponding to the short boundary, why did he write the field of Reuven and Shimon on the western side? He should have written only Reuven on the west, since it is opposite Levi on the eastern side. Or

“Shimon opposite Yehuda,”

if he wrote Yehuda’s field on the eastern side, he should have written only Shimon’s field on the western side, since it is opposite Yehuda.

But he did not write it

that way; rather, he wrote the field of Reuven and the field of Shimon on the western side.

Infer from this

that

he told him that it was according to a rosh tor.

This proves that he intended to convey to him half the field diagonally: On the western side, he conveyed the area corresponding to the fields of Reuven and Shimon, while on the eastern side he conveyed only the area corresponding to Levi or Yehuda. It necessarily follows that a diagonal line is drawn.

Reuven’s boundaries are to the east and west, and Shimon’s boundaries are to the north and south,

meaning that Reuven has two fields, one on the eastern side of this field and one on the western side, and Shimon likewise has two fields, one on the northern side and one on the southern side.

He must write for him, “Reuven’s boundary, two directions,” and “Shimon’s boundary, two directions.”

He should not simply write to him: “This field that I am selling you is situated among the fields of Reuven and Shimon.” For if he writes this, it could be interpreted as dividing the field diagonally into two [see illustration 7 in “Perush Hai”], so that each half of the field lies between Reuven on one side and Shimon on the other: Reuven is on the eastern side of one half of the field and Shimon is on its southern side, whereas in the other half Reuven is on the western side and Shimon is on the northern side. Therefore, he must write that this field lies between two fields belonging to Reuven and between two fields belonging to Shimon, in which case it is clear that he is selling him the entire field. All the more so if he explicitly writes: “Reuven’s boundary is east and west, and Shimon’s boundary is north and south,” for this certainly proves that he is selling the entire field.

Illustration 7

They raised a dilemma before them: If he specified its corners,

when many people’s fields surrounded his field, and he wrote only the four fields at the four corners of the field—that is, the corners of the field—but did not write the other boundaries along its length and width,

what is the halakha?

Should we say that it is not customary to sell only the corners of a field, and therefore he necessarily sold him the entire field within the boundaries of those corners? Or should we say that he intended to sell him only one row diagonally from corner to corner, lengthwise and widthwise? [See illustration 8 in “Perush Hai.”]

Illustration 8. And similarly, they raised a dilemma: If he wrote for him

in the form of a “gamma,”

the Greek letter resembling a final kaf—for example, he wrote for him the boundary of the southeastern corner, meaning a boundary part of which is at the southern edge and part of which is at the eastern edge, and on the other side he wrote a boundary at the northwestern corner, part of which is at the northern edge and part of which is at the western edge [see illustration 9 in “Perush Hai”],

what is the halakha?

Illustration 9

That is, according to the side that says that when he specified the corners he acquired only one row from corner to corner, is this only because he wrote only the boundaries corresponding to the corners? Here, however, since he wrote the beginning of each direction, it is possible to interpret this as meaning that he sold him the entire field and did not take the trouble to write the entire boundary in each direction, but only its beginning. Or should we say that he sold only the area between the boundary he wrote in the south and the boundary he wrote in the east, and likewise the area between the boundary he wrote in the north and the one he wrote in the west? That is, one draws a diagonal line from south to east and from north to west, and then draws another line through the area between the southeastern boundary and the northwestern boundary; this is what he sold him, and no more.