— There,1 the Rabbis have made a provision which is convenient for the seller2 and [also] for the buyer.3 It was stated:4 [In the case where two] brothers divided [an inherited estate between them], and a creditor [of their father] came and distrained the share of one of them, Rab said: The division is cancelled;5 Samuel said: He6 has forfeited his claim;7 and R. Assi said: He8 takes a quarter9 either in land or in money. Rab said that the division was to be cancelled, because he holds the opinion that brothers, even after having divided [their father's estate between them, remain] co-heirs.10 Samuel said that he [whose share was seized] forfeited his claim, because he holds the opinion that brothers, after having divided [their father's estate between them], stand to each other in the relationship of vendees, each being in the position of a purchaser without a warranty [of indemnity].11 R. Assi is in doubt whether they still remain co-heirs or stand in the relationship of vendees; he [whose share was seized] takes, therefore, a quarter12 either in land or in money.13 R. Papa said: The law in all [the cases dealt with in] these traditions is that [a portion, or portions must be] relinquished.14 Amemar said: The [original] division is cancelled. And the law [is that the original] division is cancelled.15 Our Rabbis taught: [In the case where] three [experts] went16 down [to the estate of male orphans] to assess it,17 [and] one values [the estate] at a maneh11 and the two value [it] at two hundred zuz, [or if] one values it at two hundred zuz and the two value it at a maneh,18 the one, being in the minority, is overruled.19 [If] one values [the estate] at a maneh, one at twenty [sela'],20 and one at thirty [sela'], it is to be adjudged at a maneh. R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok, said: It is to be adjudged at ninety [zuz]. Others said: [The difference]21 between them is calculated and divided by three.22 He who said, 'It is to be adjudged at a maneh', [adopts the] middle course.23 R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok, [who] said, 'It is to be adjudged at ninety', is of the opinion [that] the land
Baba Bathra 107bis worth ninety [zuz], and the reason why one valued it at twenty [sela]1 is because he had underestimated2 it by ten [zuz], and he who valued it at a maneh overestimated3 it by ten [zuz]. On the contrary! [Let it be assumed that] the land is worth a hundred and ten [zuz] and that he who valued it at a maneh underestimated4 it, by ten [zuz], and he who said thirty5 overestimated6 it by ten [zuz]?7 At all events one should adopt the first two, since both do not exceed the sum of one maneh.8 The others [who] said: [The difference] between them is calculated and divided by three, hold the opinion [that] the land is worth ninety-three [zuz] and a third; [and] that he who valued it at twenty [sela'] underestimated4 it by thirteen [zuz] and a third; he who valued it at a maneh overestimated6 by thirteen [zuz] and a third. Logically [the latter] should have given a higher9 estimate10 but the reason why he did not do it11 is because he thought. 'It is enough that I have exceeded my colleague's [estimate] by so much' — On the contrary! [Let it be said]: The land is worth a hundred and thirteen [zuz] and a third; he who valued it at a maneh underestimated12 it by thirteen [zuz] and a third, and he who valued it at thirty [sela'] overestimated13 it by thirteen [zuz] and a third; and logically he should have submitted a higher estimate14 [but] he thinks, 'It is enough that I have exceeded my colleague's by so much'? — At all events one should adopt the first two, since both do not exceed the sum of a maneh.15 R. Huna said: The halachah is in accordance with [the opinion of the] others. R. Ashi said: We do not know the reason16 [for the opinion] of the others; shall we administer the law in accordance with their view? The judges of the Exile17 taught: [The difference] between them is calculated and divided by three. R. Huna said: The law is in accordance with [the teaching of] the Judges of the Exile. R. Ashi said: We do not know the reason18 [for the opinion] of the judges of the Exile, shall we administer the law in accordance with their view?
MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS TO ANOTHER, 'I SELL YOU HALF19 A FIELD', A COMPROMISE IS MADE BETWEEN THEM AND HE TAKES THE HALF OF HIS FIELD.20 [IF ONE SAYS.] 'I SELL YOU HALF OF IT21 ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE', A COMPROMISE IS MADE BETWEEN THEM AND HE TAKES ITS SOUTHERN HALF.20 HE22 MUST UNDERTAKE [TO SUPPLY]23 SPACE FOR THE WALL24 [AND] FOR THE BIGGER AND SMALLER TRENCH.25 AND WHAT IS [THE WIDTH OF] THE BIGGER TRENCH? SIX HANDBREADTHS;26 AND [THAT OF] THE SMALLER ONE, THREE.26
GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The buyer takes the poorer [side] of it.27 Said R. Hiyya b. Abba to R. Johanan: Surely we have learned that a compromise28 was to be made between them? — He replied unto him: While you were [engaged in] eating date-berries in Babylon,29 I expounded [this] with the aid of the concluding clause. For in the concluding clause it is taught: [IF ONE SAYS]. 'I SELL YOU HALF OF IT ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE', A COMPROMISE IS MADE BETWEEN THEM AND HE TAKES ITS SOUTHERN HALF. But why, [according to your reasoning,] should a compromise be made between them? Surely he [explicitly] said to him, 'Half of it on the southern side'!30 But [you must say that the expression there refers] to the price.31 here also [it must be assumed that the expression used refers] to the price.32 HE MUST UNDERTAKE [TO SUPPLY] THE SPACE FOR THE WALL etc. It was taught: The bigger trench is without and the smaller one is within,33 and both [are made] behind the wall [on its outer side] - To Next Folio -
|