Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 7, 2017 | 讬状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 105

If someone says I am selling you land the size of a beit聽kur measured out with a rope give or take, what did the seller mean to say? 聽Is the second part of his statement聽showing he/she changed their mind or is it keeping open both possibilities? 聽Ben Nanas says we hold by the last thing one says. 聽Rav says that those who disagree with him, hold that we split the difference 50/50 since we don’t actually know what the seller intended. 聽Shmuel says that those who disagree say that we side with the one who has the land in his possession (in the case in the mishna it’s the seller). 聽The gemara聽brings various cases where the same issue is raised and uses it to see who Rav and Shmuel side with in this debate.

PlayPlay

If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讟诇 诪讚讛 讘讞讘诇 讛谉 讞住专 讛谉 讬转专 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住

the words: Measured precisely with a rope, nullify the words: More or less, since the principle is that in all cases, one should attend to the final expression; this is the statement of ben Nanas.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜诇拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 讘谉 谞谞住 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讻专 诪专讞抓 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讝讛讜讘讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诇讞讚砖

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: Ben Nanas鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him with regard to his ruling that one should attend to the final expression. The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rav teaching us? Don鈥檛 we already learn that they disagree from a mishna (Bava Metzia 102a): There was once an incident in Tzippori involving one who rented a bathhouse from another, and it was stated that the rental fee would be twelve gold dinars [zehuvim] a year, one gold dinar per month, and the year was later intercalated, an extra month being added.

讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗转 讞讚砖 讛注讬讘讜专

The incident came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before Rabbi Yosei for a decision as to whether the intercalated month is included in the words: Twelve gold dinars a year, or whether an additional payment must be made for that month, as the agreement stipulated: One gold dinar per month. And they said: The landlord and the tenant should divide the intercalated month between them, and so the tenant should pay only half a gold dinar for it. This indicates that these Sages ruled that the meaning of an agreement containing two contradictory expressions is in doubt, and therefore the parties divide the disputed amount between them. From here it follows that they disagree with the opinion of ben Nanas, who says that in such a case one should attend to the final expression.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara replies: If the Sages鈥 opinion was derived only from there, I would not know that they disagree with the opinion of ben Nanas in all cases, as I would say that it is only there that the Sages say that the parties divide the disputed sum between them. As it is possible to say that the landlord retracted his first statement and set the rental fee at one gold dinar per month, but it is also possible to say that he is explaining his earlier statement. That is to say, he did not mean to relate to the intercalated month; rather, he was clarifying that payment was to be made not with a lump sum at the end of the year, but in monthly installments. Since there is uncertainty with regard to his intention, the parties divide the contested sum between them. But here in the mishna, where the seller certainly retracted his first statement, one might say that the Sages do not disagree with ben Nanas. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in all cases the Sages disagree with ben Nanas.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 驻讞讜转 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜转

Similar to what was cited above in the name of Rav, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of ben Nanas, who says with regard to a case of contradictory expressions that one should attend to the final expression; but the Sages say: Follow the least inclusive expression, the one that is the least advantageous to the buyer, in keeping with the principle that in a case of uncertainty, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讗讛 讛讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel mean to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him? But don鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a kor of grain, an amount equivalent to thirty se鈥檃, for the sum of thirty sela, he can renege on the entire sale even while measuring out the last se鈥檃. Since the seller stipulated that he was selling a full kor of grain, as long as he has not yet measured out the full amount, he may still renege, as the sale is not yet complete.

讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

But if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a kor of grain for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for a sela, the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is being measured out to him. Since the seller specified the price per sela, he has indicated that he is ready to sell each sela on its own. This seems to indicate that Shmuel maintains that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should attend to the final expression. Rather, Shmuel鈥檚 formulation: This is the statement of ben Nanas, must be explained as follows: This is the statement of ben Nanas, and he, Shmuel, agrees with him that one should attend to the final expression.

讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讗 讘讗诪爪注 讛讞讚砖 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讗 讘转讞诇转 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 诇诪砖讻讬专 讘住讜祝 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 诇砖讜讻专

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel actually agree with him? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: Concerning the ruling of the Sages that the landlord and the tenant should divide the intercalated month between them, we are dealing with a case where the landlord came to collect the rent in the middle of the month. Only in that case is the disputed rent divided between them. But in a case where he came to collect the rent at the beginning of the month, the entire sum goes to the landlord who is demanding payment, since he is in possession of the property. And if he came at the end of the month, the entire sum goes to the tenant who is refusing payment, since he is in possession of the money. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should not attend to the latter expression. Rather, the case is viewed as one of uncertainty, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚转驻讬住

Rather, it must be that Shmuel actually meant to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him that one should attend to the latter expression. In fact, he is in agreement with the Sages who maintain that two contradictory expressions create a case of uncertainty. And there, in the case of the rent for the intercalated month, what is the reason for his ruling that if the landlord came to collect the rent at the beginning of the month, the entire sum goes to the landlord, whereas if he came at the end of the month, the money goes to the tenant? Because the party who is awarded the money was seen as already being in possession of it, and in a case of uncertainty, money is left in the hands of the party enjoying possession.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 转驻讬住

Here too, in the case where the seller says that he is selling a kor of grain for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for a sela, the buyer was seen as already being in possession of each se鈥檃 that was measured out to him, and therefore the seller cannot renege on the sale. It is for this reason that the buyer acquires the grain, and not because of the principle that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should attend to the latter expression.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讗讬住转专讗 诪讗讛 诪注讬 诪讗讛 诪注讬 诪讗讛 诪注讬 讗讬住转专讗 讗讬住转专讗

On a similar topic, Rav Huna says that they say in the school of Rav: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this item for an istera, one hundred ma鈥檃, an istera being a silver coin equal to ninety-six copper ma鈥檃, it is assumed he meant one hundred ma鈥檃. And if the seller reversed the order and said that he was selling the item for one hundred ma鈥檃, an istera, it is assumed he meant an istera.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇诪砖讻讬专

The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rav teaching us? Is it that with regard to a statement comprised of contradictory expressions one should attend only to the last statement? Didn鈥檛 Rav already say this on another occasion? As Rav says: Had I been there as a judge when the ruling was issued with regard to the rental fee for the intercalated month, I would have given the entire month鈥檚 rent to the landlord, based on the final expression in the rental agreement: One gold dinar per month.

讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讗 讜诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary to state both rulings, as the one cannot necessarily be inferred from the other. If this halakha with regard to the istera was stated and that halakha with regard to the intercalated month was not stated, I would say that when the seller uttered the second expression: One hundred ma鈥檃, he retracted his first expression: An istera, as the two expressions contradict one another, and for that reason Rav said that one should attend to the final expression. But here, in the case of the intercalated month, perhaps you would say that when the landlord utters the second expression: One gold dinar per month, he is explaining the original intent of his first expression: Twelve gold dinars a year, and one should view it as a clarification. Therefore Rav comes and teaches us that in all cases one should attend to the final expression.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 105

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 105

讘讟诇 诪讚讛 讘讞讘诇 讛谉 讞住专 讛谉 讬转专 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住

the words: Measured precisely with a rope, nullify the words: More or less, since the principle is that in all cases, one should attend to the final expression; this is the statement of ben Nanas.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜诇拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 讘谉 谞谞住 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讻专 诪专讞抓 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讝讛讜讘讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诇讞讚砖

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: Ben Nanas鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him with regard to his ruling that one should attend to the final expression. The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rav teaching us? Don鈥檛 we already learn that they disagree from a mishna (Bava Metzia 102a): There was once an incident in Tzippori involving one who rented a bathhouse from another, and it was stated that the rental fee would be twelve gold dinars [zehuvim] a year, one gold dinar per month, and the year was later intercalated, an extra month being added.

讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗转 讞讚砖 讛注讬讘讜专

The incident came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before Rabbi Yosei for a decision as to whether the intercalated month is included in the words: Twelve gold dinars a year, or whether an additional payment must be made for that month, as the agreement stipulated: One gold dinar per month. And they said: The landlord and the tenant should divide the intercalated month between them, and so the tenant should pay only half a gold dinar for it. This indicates that these Sages ruled that the meaning of an agreement containing two contradictory expressions is in doubt, and therefore the parties divide the disputed amount between them. From here it follows that they disagree with the opinion of ben Nanas, who says that in such a case one should attend to the final expression.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara replies: If the Sages鈥 opinion was derived only from there, I would not know that they disagree with the opinion of ben Nanas in all cases, as I would say that it is only there that the Sages say that the parties divide the disputed sum between them. As it is possible to say that the landlord retracted his first statement and set the rental fee at one gold dinar per month, but it is also possible to say that he is explaining his earlier statement. That is to say, he did not mean to relate to the intercalated month; rather, he was clarifying that payment was to be made not with a lump sum at the end of the year, but in monthly installments. Since there is uncertainty with regard to his intention, the parties divide the contested sum between them. But here in the mishna, where the seller certainly retracted his first statement, one might say that the Sages do not disagree with ben Nanas. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in all cases the Sages disagree with ben Nanas.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 驻讞讜转 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜转

Similar to what was cited above in the name of Rav, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of ben Nanas, who says with regard to a case of contradictory expressions that one should attend to the final expression; but the Sages say: Follow the least inclusive expression, the one that is the least advantageous to the buyer, in keeping with the principle that in a case of uncertainty, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讗讛 讛讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel mean to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him? But don鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a kor of grain, an amount equivalent to thirty se鈥檃, for the sum of thirty sela, he can renege on the entire sale even while measuring out the last se鈥檃. Since the seller stipulated that he was selling a full kor of grain, as long as he has not yet measured out the full amount, he may still renege, as the sale is not yet complete.

讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

But if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a kor of grain for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for a sela, the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is being measured out to him. Since the seller specified the price per sela, he has indicated that he is ready to sell each sela on its own. This seems to indicate that Shmuel maintains that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should attend to the final expression. Rather, Shmuel鈥檚 formulation: This is the statement of ben Nanas, must be explained as follows: This is the statement of ben Nanas, and he, Shmuel, agrees with him that one should attend to the final expression.

讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讗 讘讗诪爪注 讛讞讚砖 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讗 讘转讞诇转 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 诇诪砖讻讬专 讘住讜祝 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 诇砖讜讻专

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel actually agree with him? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: Concerning the ruling of the Sages that the landlord and the tenant should divide the intercalated month between them, we are dealing with a case where the landlord came to collect the rent in the middle of the month. Only in that case is the disputed rent divided between them. But in a case where he came to collect the rent at the beginning of the month, the entire sum goes to the landlord who is demanding payment, since he is in possession of the property. And if he came at the end of the month, the entire sum goes to the tenant who is refusing payment, since he is in possession of the money. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should not attend to the latter expression. Rather, the case is viewed as one of uncertainty, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚转驻讬住

Rather, it must be that Shmuel actually meant to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him that one should attend to the latter expression. In fact, he is in agreement with the Sages who maintain that two contradictory expressions create a case of uncertainty. And there, in the case of the rent for the intercalated month, what is the reason for his ruling that if the landlord came to collect the rent at the beginning of the month, the entire sum goes to the landlord, whereas if he came at the end of the month, the money goes to the tenant? Because the party who is awarded the money was seen as already being in possession of it, and in a case of uncertainty, money is left in the hands of the party enjoying possession.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 转驻讬住

Here too, in the case where the seller says that he is selling a kor of grain for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for a sela, the buyer was seen as already being in possession of each se鈥檃 that was measured out to him, and therefore the seller cannot renege on the sale. It is for this reason that the buyer acquires the grain, and not because of the principle that in a case of contradictory expressions, one should attend to the latter expression.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讗讬住转专讗 诪讗讛 诪注讬 诪讗讛 诪注讬 诪讗讛 诪注讬 讗讬住转专讗 讗讬住转专讗

On a similar topic, Rav Huna says that they say in the school of Rav: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this item for an istera, one hundred ma鈥檃, an istera being a silver coin equal to ninety-six copper ma鈥檃, it is assumed he meant one hundred ma鈥檃. And if the seller reversed the order and said that he was selling the item for one hundred ma鈥檃, an istera, it is assumed he meant an istera.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇诪砖讻讬专

The Gemara asks: What new halakha is Rav teaching us? Is it that with regard to a statement comprised of contradictory expressions one should attend only to the last statement? Didn鈥檛 Rav already say this on another occasion? As Rav says: Had I been there as a judge when the ruling was issued with regard to the rental fee for the intercalated month, I would have given the entire month鈥檚 rent to the landlord, based on the final expression in the rental agreement: One gold dinar per month.

讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讗 讜诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary to state both rulings, as the one cannot necessarily be inferred from the other. If this halakha with regard to the istera was stated and that halakha with regard to the intercalated month was not stated, I would say that when the seller uttered the second expression: One hundred ma鈥檃, he retracted his first expression: An istera, as the two expressions contradict one another, and for that reason Rav said that one should attend to the final expression. But here, in the case of the intercalated month, perhaps you would say that when the landlord utters the second expression: One gold dinar per month, he is explaining the original intent of his first expression: Twelve gold dinars a year, and one should view it as a clarification. Therefore Rav comes and teaches us that in all cases one should attend to the final expression.

Scroll To Top