Bava Batra 62a — the Talmud in English

And if he said to him, “my properties,” even houses and slaves.

Because the expression “properties” includes these as well.

And if

he marked its boundaries,

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

one boundary long and one boundary short,

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

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

He acquired only half the field, fifty cubits in length, which is between the eastern boundary and the western boundary; but the other half, which is only corresponding to the western boundary, he did not acquire at all. [See Illustration 4 from “Perush Hai.”] For we interpret his words as meaning that he intended to sell only corresponding to the short [boundary]. And the fact that he mentioned a long boundary on the western side is because he had to mention Shimon’s field as the western boundary, and Shimon’s field is one hundred cubits long; but he could not indicate how far the boundary extended into Shimon’s field. Therefore, he expanded the boundary and wrote without specification that Shimon’s field is the western boundary.

Illustration 4

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Let him acquire corresponding to “the ox-head.”

Is it not possible to say that the fact that he mentioned here a long boundary and there a short boundary was written deliberately, and that he did not expand the boundary, but intended that he acquire the half of the field corresponding to the short boundary, and in the other half, which corresponds only to the long boundary, he should acquire half of this diagonally? That is, a line is drawn diagonally from the edge of the long boundary to the short boundary, and all the area within this line he acquired, while what lies outside this line he did not acquire. [See Illustration 5 from “Perush Hai.”] Illustration 5

Rav was silent.

He gave them no answer.

And Rav concedes,

before he was silent,

where there is a boundary of 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 of Levi and Judah on one side,

for on the eastern side there are the field of Levi and the field of Judah: Levi’s field is opposite Reuven’s field, and Judah’s field is opposite Shimon’s field. And he wrote for him on the western boundary the field of Reuven and the field of Shimon, while on the eastern boundary he wrote only the field of Levi [or only the field of Judah]. Rav concedes that he acquired corresponding to “the ox-head,” and not only corresponding to the short [boundary]. [See Illustration 6 from “Perush Hai.”]

Illustration 6, for

since he should have written for him, “Reuven corresponding to Levi,”

if he wished to grant him only what corresponded to the short [boundary], why did he write on the western side the fields of Reuven and Shimon? Let him write only Reuven on the west, which is opposite Levi on the eastern side. Or

“Shimon corresponding to Judah,”

if he wrote the field of Judah on the eastern side, let him write on the western side only the field of Shimon, which is opposite Judah.

And he did not write for him

this way; rather, he wrote on the western side the fields of Reuven and Shimon.

Infer from this

that

it is corresponding to the ox-head that he said to him.

It is evident from this that he intended to grant him half diagonally: on the western side he granted him what corresponded to the fields of Reuven and Shimon, while on the eastern side only what corresponded to the field of Levi or to that of Judah. Necessarily, a diagonal line is drawn.

The boundary of Reuven is east and west, and the boundary of Shimon is north and south,

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

He must write for him, “The boundary of Reuven: two directions,” and “the boundary of Shimon: two directions.”

He should not write for him merely, “This field that I am selling you is within the fields of Reuven and Shimon,” for if he writes this, it will be possible to interpret that the field is divided into two diagonally [see Illustration 7 from “Perush Hai”], so that each half of the field stands between Reuven on one side and Shimon on the other. That is, Reuven stands on the eastern side of one half of the field, and Shimon on the 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 stands between two fields of Reuven and between two fields of Shimon, for then it is clear that he is selling him the entire field. And all the more so if he explicitly writes “the boundary of Reuven: east and west, and the boundary of Shimon: north and south,” in which case it is certainly evident that he is selling the entire field.

Illustration 7

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

when many fields belonging to people surrounded his field, and he wrote for him only the four fields at the four corners of the field, that is, the angles of the field, and did not write the remaining boundaries of its length and width,

what is [the law]?

Is it to be said that it is not customary to sell only the corners of a field, and necessarily he sold him the entire field within the boundary of these corners? Or is it to be said that he intended to sell him only one row diagonally from corner to corner, lengthwise and widthwise? [See Illustration 8 from “Perush Hai.”]

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

in the form of a “gamma,”

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

what is [the law]?

Illustration 9

That is, according to the side that, when he specified the corners, he acquired only one row from corner to corner, is this only because he wrote only what corresponded to the corners? But here, where he wrote the beginning of each direction, it is possible to interpret that he sold him the entire field, and he did not trouble himself to write the entire direction, but only its beginning. Or is it to be said that he sold only what is between the boundary he wrote in the south and the boundary he wrote in the east, and likewise what is between the boundary he wrote in the north and what he wrote in the west? A diagonal line is drawn from south to east and from north to west, and then another line is drawn through what lies between the southeast [boundary] and what lies between the northwest [boundary]; this is what he sold him, and no more.