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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 9, 2017 | 讬状讙 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 107

If brothers split the inheritance and a person comes and seizes the land of one of them in repayment for a loan their father owed, what is the halacha with regards to the brother who lost his land – can he demand half the land of his brother? 聽Three opinions are brought. 聽If three judges assess land at different amounts, what is the amount that we go by? 聽There are three opinions brought. 聽If one sold half one’s land to another, the seller can give the buyer lean land and keep the better land but the seller must repay the buyer if the land isn’t valued at half.


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

讛转诐 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞

The Gemara answers: The cases cannot be compared because there, in the case of the sale of grain, the Sages instituted a matter that is suitable for the seller and also suitable for the buyer. Since the price of grain fluctuates, neither party wants the sale to be considered complete until the last se鈥檃 is measured out, so that they each are able to renege on the sale should the price rise or fall. This reasoning does not apply in cases of division of property.

讗讬转诪专 讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about another related matter: If two brothers divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, and then their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them as repayment for the father鈥檚 debt, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the remaining assets. Shmuel says: Each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost. Rav Asi says: The brother whose portion was seized is entitled to half the remaining inheritance: He takes one-quarter in land and one-quarter in money.

专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara explains the rationale for each opinion: Rav says that the original division of the property is void. This is because he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs with regard to the inheritance as if they never divided the property, so that they continue to share joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. Therefore, if a creditor seizes the portion received by one of them, it is as if he repaid the debt on behalf of all the heirs. Accordingly, they must once again divide the remaining property between them.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛讜讜 讜讻诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost, as he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered as purchasers from each other. And each one is considered like a purchaser who bought his portion without a guarantee that if the field is seized in payment of a debt, the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss. Accordingly, the brother whose portion of the estate was seized by the creditor has no claim against the brother whose portion remained untouched.

专讘 讗住讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛讜讜 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

Rav Asi is uncertain whether brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs or are considered to be like purchasers who bought their property with a guarantee of compensation should the property be repossessed. Therefore, the brother whose portion was seized by the creditor is entitled to half the remaining inheritance, and he takes one-quarter in land like an heir and one-quarter he receives in money, like a purchaser with a guarantee, who is compensated with money for his loss.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 诪拽诪爪讬谉 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rav Pappa says: The halakha in all the cases dealt with in these statements recording disagreements between Rav and Shmuel is that the brothers must each take off a share from their portion in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rather, any brother currently in possession of his portion must give part of it to his brother who lacks a portion, so that in the end they have equal shares. Ameimar says: The halakha in all of these cases is that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in fact that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讬专讚讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讘讟诇 讬讞讬讚 讘诪讬注讜讟讜

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 11:2): In a case of three experts who went down to assess a certain property in order to determine the amount to be collected from it for repayment of a debt, and one says it is worth one hundred dinars, and the other two say it is worth two hundred, or one says it is worth two hundred dinars and the other two say it is worth one hundred, the assessment of the single expert is nullified, since his is the minority opinion, and the assessment of the two others is accepted.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讚讜谉 讘诪谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘转砖注讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉

If one says the property is worth one hundred dinars, and another says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars, since four dinars equal a sela, and yet another says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, it is assessed at one hundred dinars, which is the average of the assessments, as it is equivalent to twenty-five sela. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It is assessed at ninety dinars, as will be explained below. A岣rim say: An appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘转砖注讬诐 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗 讗专注讗

The Gemara clarifies the various opinions: The one who says that the property is assessed at one hundred dinars holds that the middle of the two extreme assessments is followed. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that it is assessed at ninety dinars because he holds that this land

转砖注讬谉 砖讜讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 注砖专讬诐 讚拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇拽诪讬讛

is in fact worth ninety dinars, and the one who says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, i.e., too low, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead, i.e., too high. Therefore, the average of these two assessments is followed.

讗讚专讘讛 讛讗讬 讗专注讗 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讛 砖讜讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讜讟 诪讬讛转 转专讬 拽诪讗讬 讘讬讚讱 讚诪转讜专转 诪谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and ten dinars, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead. If so, the average of these two assessments, one hundred and ten dinars, should be followed. The Gemara replies: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them takes the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉 拽讗 住讘专讬 讛讗讬 讗专注讗 转砖注讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 砖讜讬讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 注砖专讬诐 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转讬诇转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转讬诇转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬诪讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 住讘专 诪讬住转讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讟驻讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讞讘专讗讬

The baraita teaches that A岣rim say that an appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment. The Gemara explains this opinion: A岣rim hold that this land is in fact worth ninety-three and one-third dinars. The one who says it is worth twenty sela, the equivalent of eighty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, that assessor should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and six and two-thirds dinars. And the reason that he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth eighty dinars. Therefore, he lowers the sum of his assessment to one hundred dinars.

讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 讗专注讗 诪讗讛 讜转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 砖讜讬讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 讟驻讬 住讘专 诪讬住转讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讟驻讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讞讘专讗讬 谞拽讜讟 诪讬讛转 转专讬 拽诪讗讬 讘讬讚讱 讚诪转讜专转 诪讗讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and thirteen dinars and one-third, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equal to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, he should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and twenty-six dinars and two-thirds. And the reason he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth one hundred dinars. The Gemara answers: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them take the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讬讛讜 转谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讬讛讜

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, who say that the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments is calculated and then divided by three, and this sum is then added to the lowest assessment. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reason of A岣rim; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion? The judges of the Diaspora taught a baraita that accords with the opinion of A岣rim in the previously cited baraita: An appraisal is performed to determine the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments and then that sum is divided by three and added to the lowest assessment. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the judges of the Diaspora. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reasoning of the judges of the Diaspora; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion?

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讞爪讬 砖讚讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬 砖讚讛讜 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讙讚专 讞专讬抓 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 讞专讬抓 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 砖诇砖讛

MISHNA: If one says to another: I am selling you half a field, without specifying which half he is selling, an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, and the buyer takes half of the seller鈥檚 field. If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. And he accepts upon himself to provide the space for the fence between the two halves of the field out of his own property. He also accepts to provide out of his own property the space for the larger ditch and the smaller ditch, which are meant to keep animals out of the field. And how wide is the larger ditch? Six handbreadths. And how wide is the smaller ditch? Three handbreadths.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讜拽讞 谞讜讟诇 讻讞讜砖 砖讘讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讗讻诇转 讻驻谞讬讬转讗 讘讘讘诇 转专讙讬诪谞讗 诪住讬驻讗

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When one sells half of his field to another person, the buyer takes the leaner part of the field, the part that is of lower quality. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that in such a case an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, which indicates that the buyer and the seller are given similar parcels of land? How then can you say that the buyer takes the leaner part? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in a sarcastic manner: While you were eating dates in Babylonia and neglecting your studies, we explained the matter based on the latter clause of the mishna, which proves that my understanding is correct.

讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讗诪讗讬 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬

As the latter clause teaches: If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. If taken literally, this passage gives rise to a difficulty: Why is an assessment made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them? In any case, didn鈥檛 he say to him that he is selling him the southern half? Let the seller give the buyer the southern half of the field. Why is an assessment necessary? Rather, it must be that the matter is more complicated than it seems, and the mishna is referring to money. That is to say, the buyer takes the southern half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field. Here too, in the first case, the mishna is referring to money: The buyer takes the leaner half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field.

诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪拽讜诐 讙讚专 讻讜壮 转讗谞讗 讞专讬抓 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讞讜专讬 讙讚专

搂 The mishna teaches that the buyer accepts upon himself to provide out of his own property the space for the fence between the two halves of the field and for the larger and smaller ditches. A Sage taught in a baraita: The larger ditch is dug on the outside, while the smaller ditch is dug on the inside, closer to the field. Both this and that are dug behind the fence,

  • 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 107

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 107

讛转诐 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞

The Gemara answers: The cases cannot be compared because there, in the case of the sale of grain, the Sages instituted a matter that is suitable for the seller and also suitable for the buyer. Since the price of grain fluctuates, neither party wants the sale to be considered complete until the last se鈥檃 is measured out, so that they each are able to renege on the sale should the price rise or fall. This reasoning does not apply in cases of division of property.

讗讬转诪专 讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about another related matter: If two brothers divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, and then their father鈥檚 creditor came and took the portion of one of them as repayment for the father鈥檚 debt, Rav says: The original division of the property is void, and the brothers must now redivide the remaining assets. Shmuel says: Each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost. Rav Asi says: The brother whose portion was seized is entitled to half the remaining inheritance: He takes one-quarter in land and one-quarter in money.

专讘 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara explains the rationale for each opinion: Rav says that the original division of the property is void. This is because he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs with regard to the inheritance as if they never divided the property, so that they continue to share joint responsibility for their father鈥檚 debts. Therefore, if a creditor seizes the portion received by one of them, it is as if he repaid the debt on behalf of all the heirs. Accordingly, they must once again divide the remaining property between them.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讜讬转专 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛讜讜 讜讻诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to be reimbursed if his portion is lost, as he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered as purchasers from each other. And each one is considered like a purchaser who bought his portion without a guarantee that if the field is seized in payment of a debt, the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss. Accordingly, the brother whose portion of the estate was seized by the creditor has no claim against the brother whose portion remained untouched.

专讘 讗住讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讬 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛讜讜 讛诇讻讱 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讘拽专拽注 讜专讘讬注 讘诪注讜转

Rav Asi is uncertain whether brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs or are considered to be like purchasers who bought their property with a guarantee of compensation should the property be repossessed. Therefore, the brother whose portion was seized by the creditor is entitled to half the remaining inheritance, and he takes one-quarter in land like an heir and one-quarter he receives in money, like a purchaser with a guarantee, who is compensated with money for his loss.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 诪拽诪爪讬谉 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讟诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rav Pappa says: The halakha in all the cases dealt with in these statements recording disagreements between Rav and Shmuel is that the brothers must each take off a share from their portion in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rather, any brother currently in possession of his portion must give part of it to his brother who lacks a portion, so that in the end they have equal shares. Ameimar says: The halakha in all of these cases is that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in fact that the original division of the property is void, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讬专讚讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪谞讛 讘讟诇 讬讞讬讚 讘诪讬注讜讟讜

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 11:2): In a case of three experts who went down to assess a certain property in order to determine the amount to be collected from it for repayment of a debt, and one says it is worth one hundred dinars, and the other two say it is worth two hundred, or one says it is worth two hundred dinars and the other two say it is worth one hundred, the assessment of the single expert is nullified, since his is the minority opinion, and the assessment of the two others is accepted.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讚讜谉 讘诪谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘转砖注讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉

If one says the property is worth one hundred dinars, and another says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars, since four dinars equal a sela, and yet another says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, it is assessed at one hundred dinars, which is the average of the assessments, as it is equivalent to twenty-five sela. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It is assessed at ninety dinars, as will be explained below. A岣rim say: An appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讘转砖注讬诐 拽讗 住讘专 讛讗 讗专注讗

The Gemara clarifies the various opinions: The one who says that the property is assessed at one hundred dinars holds that the middle of the two extreme assessments is followed. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that it is assessed at ninety dinars because he holds that this land

转砖注讬谉 砖讜讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 注砖专讬诐 讚拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇拽诪讬讛

is in fact worth ninety dinars, and the one who says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, i.e., too low, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead, i.e., too high. Therefore, the average of these two assessments is followed.

讗讚专讘讛 讛讗讬 讗专注讗 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讛 砖讜讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 拽讗 讟注讬 注砖专讛 诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讜讟 诪讬讛转 转专讬 拽诪讗讬 讘讬讚讱 讚诪转讜专转 诪谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and ten dinars, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead. If so, the average of these two assessments, one hundred and ten dinars, should be followed. The Gemara replies: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them takes the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉 拽讗 住讘专讬 讛讗讬 讗专注讗 转砖注讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 砖讜讬讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 注砖专讬诐 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转讬诇转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转讬诇转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬诪讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专 住讘专 诪讬住转讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讟驻讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讞讘专讗讬

The baraita teaches that A岣rim say that an appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment. The Gemara explains this opinion: A岣rim hold that this land is in fact worth ninety-three and one-third dinars. The one who says it is worth twenty sela, the equivalent of eighty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, that assessor should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and six and two-thirds dinars. And the reason that he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth eighty dinars. Therefore, he lowers the sum of his assessment to one hundred dinars.

讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 讗专注讗 诪讗讛 讜转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 砖讜讬讗 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪谞讛 拽讗 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讟注讬 转诇讬住专 讜转诇转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 讟驻讬 住讘专 诪讬住转讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讟驻讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讞讘专讗讬 谞拽讜讟 诪讬讛转 转专讬 拽诪讗讬 讘讬讚讱 讚诪转讜专转 诪讗讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and thirteen dinars and one-third, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equal to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, he should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and twenty-six dinars and two-thirds. And the reason he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth one hundred dinars. The Gemara answers: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them take the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讬讛讜 转谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 注讜砖讬谉 砖讜诪讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪砖诇砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讬讛讜

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, who say that the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments is calculated and then divided by three, and this sum is then added to the lowest assessment. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reason of A岣rim; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion? The judges of the Diaspora taught a baraita that accords with the opinion of A岣rim in the previously cited baraita: An appraisal is performed to determine the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments and then that sum is divided by three and added to the lowest assessment. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the judges of the Diaspora. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reasoning of the judges of the Diaspora; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion?

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讞爪讬 砖讚讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬 砖讚讛讜 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讙讚专 讞专讬抓 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 讞专讬抓 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 砖诇砖讛

MISHNA: If one says to another: I am selling you half a field, without specifying which half he is selling, an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, and the buyer takes half of the seller鈥檚 field. If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. And he accepts upon himself to provide the space for the fence between the two halves of the field out of his own property. He also accepts to provide out of his own property the space for the larger ditch and the smaller ditch, which are meant to keep animals out of the field. And how wide is the larger ditch? Six handbreadths. And how wide is the smaller ditch? Three handbreadths.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讜拽讞 谞讜讟诇 讻讞讜砖 砖讘讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讗讻诇转 讻驻谞讬讬转讗 讘讘讘诇 转专讙讬诪谞讗 诪住讬驻讗

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When one sells half of his field to another person, the buyer takes the leaner part of the field, the part that is of lower quality. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that in such a case an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, which indicates that the buyer and the seller are given similar parcels of land? How then can you say that the buyer takes the leaner part? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in a sarcastic manner: While you were eating dates in Babylonia and neglecting your studies, we explained the matter based on the latter clause of the mishna, which proves that my understanding is correct.

讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讗诪讗讬 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讞爪讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讚诪讬

As the latter clause teaches: If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. If taken literally, this passage gives rise to a difficulty: Why is an assessment made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them? In any case, didn鈥檛 he say to him that he is selling him the southern half? Let the seller give the buyer the southern half of the field. Why is an assessment necessary? Rather, it must be that the matter is more complicated than it seems, and the mishna is referring to money. That is to say, the buyer takes the southern half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field. Here too, in the first case, the mishna is referring to money: The buyer takes the leaner half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field.

诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪拽讜诐 讙讚专 讻讜壮 转讗谞讗 讞专讬抓 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讘谉 讞专讬抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讞讜专讬 讙讚专

搂 The mishna teaches that the buyer accepts upon himself to provide out of his own property the space for the fence between the two halves of the field and for the larger and smaller ditches. A Sage taught in a baraita: The larger ditch is dug on the outside, while the smaller ditch is dug on the inside, closer to the field. Both this and that are dug behind the fence,

Scroll To Top