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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 8, 2017 | 讬状讘 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 106

If one sells land and says it is a specific size聽but also says “according to its markers and borders” and shows the buyer the land, if the difference between the size stated and the actual size is wrong by less than 1/6th, the sale is valid. 聽But if it is more than 1/6, the buyer/seller can demand/take back the difference. 聽At the exact measurement of 1/6, what is the halacha? 聽Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree and a source is brought to question Rav Huna. 聽However, he resolves the contradiction. 聽A case is brought where Abaye ruled against Rav Pappa (the buyer) even though the difference was more than 1/6th. 聽And Abaye explains that since it was clear Rav Pappa knew the property and knew it wasn’t the size the seller mentioned, the seller could have meant that it was such good property聽that it’s as if it was larger. 聽Brothers who split inherited property acquire the property as soon as the first brother picks his lot in a lottery. 聽Explanations are brought explaining how the lottery can affect a聽kinyan. 聽There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel about a case where two brothers divided property and later a third brother shows up. 聽Do they cancel the division and redo the whole thing or do they each give the third brother part of their portion?


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

诪转谞讬壮 讘住讬诪谞讬讜 讜讘诪爪专讬讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛

MISHNA: If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor, with its particular demarcations and borders that the seller specifies for the buyer, the field鈥檚 measurement is not treated in as exacting a manner as in a standard sale. Therefore, if it later turns out that the field was not precisely a beit kor, but the difference is still less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is valid as is. But if the difference is greater, e.g., one-quarter or one-fifth, then, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price and return money to the buyer.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue: Rav Huna says: A difference that is precisely one-sixth is like one that is less than one-sixth, and the sale is valid. Rav Yehuda says: A difference that is precisely one-sixth is like one that is more than one-sixth, and the difference must be deducted from the purchase price.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讜砖转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讙讬注讜 讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讜砖转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讬谞讻讛

The Gemara explains the respective reasons of the two amora鈥檌m: Rav Huna says that a difference of one-sixth is like a difference of less than one-sixth, as this is what the mishna is saying: If the difference is less than one-sixth, and including a difference that is precisely one-sixth, it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid, and if it is more than one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price. Rav Yehuda says that a difference of one-sixth is like a difference of more than one-sixth, as this is what the mishna is saying: If the difference is less than one-sixth, it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid, and if the difference is greater, until it is calculated at one-sixth, and including a difference that is precisely one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘住讬诪谞讬讜 讜讘诪爪专讬讜 驻讬讞转 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜转讬专 砖转讜转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讙讬注讜 讜讛讗 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讚砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 statement from a baraita: If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor within its particular demarcations and borders, and he gave him a field that is one-sixth less than the measure stipulated, or, alternatively, he gave him a field that is one-sixth more than the measure stipulated, it is like a sale of orphans鈥 property that is executed in accordance with the judges鈥 assessment of the value of that property, and therefore it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid. The Gemara states the objection: But in the case of a sale executed in accordance with the judges鈥 assessment, an error of precisely one-sixth is like an error of more than one-sixth, and the sale is void. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion that an error of one-sixth is like an error of less than one-sixth.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讙讬注讜 拽讗 转谞讬 讗诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讜诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讛讙讬注讜

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna could have said to you in reply: Even according to your reasoning, there is still a difficulty, since the baraita teaches that it is the buyer鈥檚, i.e., the sale is final. Rather, the comparison drawn between this halakha and the judges鈥 assessment is not a general comparison. It is like the judges鈥 assessment, but it is not entirely like the judges鈥 assessment. It is like the judges鈥 assessment in that the limit is one-sixth, but it is not like the judges鈥 assessment, as there, in the case of the judges鈥 assessment, the sale is voided, while here, in the mishna, it is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is final.

专讘 驻驻讗 讝讘谉 讗专注讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗

It is related that Rav Pappa bought land from a certain man,

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 注砖专讬谉 讙专讬讜讬 诪砖讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬住专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘专转 讜拽讘讬诇转

who, after specifying its demarcations and boundaries, said to him: It is an area of twenty griv, meaning that it is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃 of grain. Rav Pappa later measured the field and found that it was fit for planting only fifteen se鈥檃. Rav Pappa came before Abaye to sue the seller. Abaye said to him: You knew what you were buying and accepted the field as is.

讜讛转谞谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 住讘专 讜拽讘讬诇

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye鈥檚 ruling from the mishna. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that when the seller specifies the field鈥檚 demarcations and borders, if the difference between the stated size of the field and its actual size is less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is valid as is, but if the difference is greater, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price? And here, in this case, the difference between what the seller promised and the actual size of the field is greater than one-sixth. Abaye replied: That statement applies in a case where the buyer is unfamiliar with the plot being sold to him, but in a case where he is familiar with it, he knew what he was buying and accepted it as is.

讜讛讗 注砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚注讚讬驻讗 讻注砖专讬谉

Rav Pappa raised another objection to Abaye鈥檚 ruling: But the seller said to me that the field is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃, and it is not. Abaye said to him: What he meant was that the field is as good and as fruitful as one that is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讻讬讜谉 砖注诇讛 讙讜专诇 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽谞讜 讻讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讞诇转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 转讞诇讛 讘讙讜专诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜专诇

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: When brothers divide their father鈥檚 estate between them by lottery, i.e., after dividing the property into equal shares they draw lots to determine which brother is to receive which portion, once the lot for one of them is drawn, they all acquire the remainder of the property, and they can no longer retract their decision to divide the estate in this manner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Drawing lots is not one of the recognized modes of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha that applies here is similar to the initial division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes. Just as the initial division of Eretz Yisrael was carried out by drawing lots, so too here, the brothers can divide their father鈥檚 estate by drawing lots.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽诇驻讬 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽诇驻讬 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讙诪专讬 讜诪拽谞讜 诇讛讚讚讬

The Gemara challenges: If the brothers鈥 division of their father鈥檚 estate is comparable to the initial division of Eretz Yisrael, an additional comparison should apply: Just as there, the initial division of Eretz Israel was carried out through a receptacle [bekalpi] in which lots were placed and the Urim VeTummim, so too here, the division of the father鈥檚 estate should be executed only through a receptacle and the Urim VeTummim. Rav Ashi said: With the satisfaction that each of the brothers receives from the fact that they listen to each other and agree to accept the results of the lottery, they fully transfer ownership to each other. Therefore, the division becomes final as soon as the first lot is drawn.

讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 诇讛谉 讗讞 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪拽诪爪讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about a related issue: If two brothers divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, and then later a third brother, of whose existence they had previously been unaware, arrived from a country overseas, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the property among the three of them. And Shmuel says: The original division is still valid, but the two brothers must each take off a share from their portion and give it to the third brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诇诪讗 讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛谞讬 讘讬 转诇转讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讜讗讝讜诇 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜驻诇讜讙 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara clarifies the opinions of Rav and Shmuel: Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to Rav, who says that the division is void, apparently the halakha is that if a division of property was found to have been performed in error, the original verdict is reconsidered and the entire division is void. Accordingly, in the case of the brother who arrived from overseas, the original division of the father鈥檚 estate is void. But if that is so, then in the case of these three people who stand as partners, and two of them go and divide the property into three parts without consulting with the third partner, so too, the division should be void, and it should be necessary to divide the property a second time between the three partners. But elsewhere (Bava Metzia 31b), the Gemara indicates that in such a case, if the division of property took place in the presence of a court, it is valid.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讞讬转讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讘讬 转诇转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讘讬 转诇转讗 诪注讬拽专讗

Rav Na岣an rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? There is a clear difference between them: There, in the case of the three partners, they entered the process of dividing the property from the outset with the knowledge that they were three, and it was necessary only to clarify the portion to be received by each partner. Here, in the case of the brother who arrived from overseas, they did not enter the process of dividing the property from the outset with the knowledge that they were three, as at the time of the original division, they thought that there were only two brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪拽诪爪讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽诐 讚讬谞讗 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 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

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Shmuel, who says that the two brothers must each take off a share from their portion and give it to the third brother, is this to say that he is of the opinion that even if a division of property was found to have been made in error, the original verdict stands and the division is valid? But don鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you one 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; but if he said: I am selling you one 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? If the original verdict stands, why in the first case may the seller renege even on that portion of the sale that already reached the buyer?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 106

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 106

诪转谞讬壮 讘住讬诪谞讬讜 讜讘诪爪专讬讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛

MISHNA: If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor, with its particular demarcations and borders that the seller specifies for the buyer, the field鈥檚 measurement is not treated in as exacting a manner as in a standard sale. Therefore, if it later turns out that the field was not precisely a beit kor, but the difference is still less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is valid as is. But if the difference is greater, e.g., one-quarter or one-fifth, then, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price and return money to the buyer.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue: Rav Huna says: A difference that is precisely one-sixth is like one that is less than one-sixth, and the sale is valid. Rav Yehuda says: A difference that is precisely one-sixth is like one that is more than one-sixth, and the difference must be deducted from the purchase price.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讜砖转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讙讬注讜 讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讜砖转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讬谞讻讛

The Gemara explains the respective reasons of the two amora鈥檌m: Rav Huna says that a difference of one-sixth is like a difference of less than one-sixth, as this is what the mishna is saying: If the difference is less than one-sixth, and including a difference that is precisely one-sixth, it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid, and if it is more than one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price. Rav Yehuda says that a difference of one-sixth is like a difference of more than one-sixth, as this is what the mishna is saying: If the difference is less than one-sixth, it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid, and if the difference is greater, until it is calculated at one-sixth, and including a difference that is precisely one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘住讬诪谞讬讜 讜讘诪爪专讬讜 驻讬讞转 砖转讜转 讗讜 讛讜转讬专 砖转讜转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讙讬注讜 讜讛讗 砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讚砖转讜转 讻讬讜转专 诪砖转讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 statement from a baraita: If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor within its particular demarcations and borders, and he gave him a field that is one-sixth less than the measure stipulated, or, alternatively, he gave him a field that is one-sixth more than the measure stipulated, it is like a sale of orphans鈥 property that is executed in accordance with the judges鈥 assessment of the value of that property, and therefore it is the buyer鈥檚, as the sale is valid. The Gemara states the objection: But in the case of a sale executed in accordance with the judges鈥 assessment, an error of precisely one-sixth is like an error of more than one-sixth, and the sale is void. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion that an error of one-sixth is like an error of less than one-sixth.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讙讬注讜 拽讗 转谞讬 讗诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讜诇讗 讻砖讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讛讙讬注讜

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna could have said to you in reply: Even according to your reasoning, there is still a difficulty, since the baraita teaches that it is the buyer鈥檚, i.e., the sale is final. Rather, the comparison drawn between this halakha and the judges鈥 assessment is not a general comparison. It is like the judges鈥 assessment, but it is not entirely like the judges鈥 assessment. It is like the judges鈥 assessment in that the limit is one-sixth, but it is not like the judges鈥 assessment, as there, in the case of the judges鈥 assessment, the sale is voided, while here, in the mishna, it is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is final.

专讘 驻驻讗 讝讘谉 讗专注讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗

It is related that Rav Pappa bought land from a certain man,

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 注砖专讬谉 讙专讬讜讬 诪砖讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬住专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘专转 讜拽讘讬诇转

who, after specifying its demarcations and boundaries, said to him: It is an area of twenty griv, meaning that it is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃 of grain. Rav Pappa later measured the field and found that it was fit for planting only fifteen se鈥檃. Rav Pappa came before Abaye to sue the seller. Abaye said to him: You knew what you were buying and accepted the field as is.

讜讛转谞谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 讛讙讬注讜 注讚 砖转讜转 讬谞讻讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 住讘专 讜拽讘讬诇

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Abaye鈥檚 ruling from the mishna. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that when the seller specifies the field鈥檚 demarcations and borders, if the difference between the stated size of the field and its actual size is less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer鈥檚, and the sale is valid as is, but if the difference is greater, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price? And here, in this case, the difference between what the seller promised and the actual size of the field is greater than one-sixth. Abaye replied: That statement applies in a case where the buyer is unfamiliar with the plot being sold to him, but in a case where he is familiar with it, he knew what he was buying and accepted it as is.

讜讛讗 注砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚注讚讬驻讗 讻注砖专讬谉

Rav Pappa raised another objection to Abaye鈥檚 ruling: But the seller said to me that the field is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃, and it is not. Abaye said to him: What he meant was that the field is as good and as fruitful as one that is fit for planting twenty se鈥檃.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讻讬讜谉 砖注诇讛 讙讜专诇 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽谞讜 讻讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讞诇转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 转讞诇讛 讘讙讜专诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜专诇

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: When brothers divide their father鈥檚 estate between them by lottery, i.e., after dividing the property into equal shares they draw lots to determine which brother is to receive which portion, once the lot for one of them is drawn, they all acquire the remainder of the property, and they can no longer retract their decision to divide the estate in this manner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Drawing lots is not one of the recognized modes of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha that applies here is similar to the initial division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes. Just as the initial division of Eretz Yisrael was carried out by drawing lots, so too here, the brothers can divide their father鈥檚 estate by drawing lots.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽诇驻讬 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽诇驻讬 讜讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讙诪专讬 讜诪拽谞讜 诇讛讚讚讬

The Gemara challenges: If the brothers鈥 division of their father鈥檚 estate is comparable to the initial division of Eretz Yisrael, an additional comparison should apply: Just as there, the initial division of Eretz Israel was carried out through a receptacle [bekalpi] in which lots were placed and the Urim VeTummim, so too here, the division of the father鈥檚 estate should be executed only through a receptacle and the Urim VeTummim. Rav Ashi said: With the satisfaction that each of the brothers receives from the fact that they listen to each other and agree to accept the results of the lottery, they fully transfer ownership to each other. Therefore, the division becomes final as soon as the first lot is drawn.

讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 诇讛谉 讗讞 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪拽诪爪讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about a related issue: If two brothers divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, and then later a third brother, of whose existence they had previously been unaware, arrived from a country overseas, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the property among the three of them. And Shmuel says: The original division is still valid, but the two brothers must each take off a share from their portion and give it to the third brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诇诪讗 讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛谞讬 讘讬 转诇转讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讜讗讝讜诇 讘讬 转专讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜驻诇讜讙 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara clarifies the opinions of Rav and Shmuel: Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to Rav, who says that the division is void, apparently the halakha is that if a division of property was found to have been performed in error, the original verdict is reconsidered and the entire division is void. Accordingly, in the case of the brother who arrived from overseas, the original division of the father鈥檚 estate is void. But if that is so, then in the case of these three people who stand as partners, and two of them go and divide the property into three parts without consulting with the third partner, so too, the division should be void, and it should be necessary to divide the property a second time between the three partners. But elsewhere (Bava Metzia 31b), the Gemara indicates that in such a case, if the division of property took place in the presence of a court, it is valid.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讞讬转讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讘讬 转诇转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讘讬 转诇转讗 诪注讬拽专讗

Rav Na岣an rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? There is a clear difference between them: There, in the case of the three partners, they entered the process of dividing the property from the outset with the knowledge that they were three, and it was necessary only to clarify the portion to be received by each partner. Here, in the case of the brother who arrived from overseas, they did not enter the process of dividing the property from the outset with the knowledge that they were three, as at the time of the original division, they thought that there were only two brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪拽诪爪讬谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽诐 讚讬谞讗 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 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

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Shmuel, who says that the two brothers must each take off a share from their portion and give it to the third brother, is this to say that he is of the opinion that even if a division of property was found to have been made in error, the original verdict stands and the division is valid? But don鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you one 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; but if he said: I am selling you one 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? If the original verdict stands, why in the first case may the seller renege even on that portion of the sale that already reached the buyer?

Scroll To Top