Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask what the Din will be if Reuven promised to sell Shimon 'Beis-Kur Afar' S'tam - whether it is similar to 'Midah be'Chevel', where the Din is 'Yenakeh' or 'Yachzir' in the case of the smallest discrepancy, or to 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser', where a person is Mochel up to a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah.

(b) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Reisha of our Mishnah, which rules in the case of 'Midah be'Chevel, Piches Kol-she'Hu Yenakeh, Yiter Kol-she'Hu, Yachzir' - implying that S'tam, is comparable to 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser'.

(c) We refute this proof from the Seifa - 've'Im Amar Lo, Hein Chaser Hein Yeser, Afilu Piches Rova ... Higi'o', which implies that S'tam is comparable to 'Midah be'Chevel'. So we cannot deduce anything.

(d) The Tana nevertheless teaches us these two cases, in spite of the fact that we cannot infer anything from either of them - to balance the Seifa, where the seller uses both Leshonos, and where the Tana teaches us that the second Lashon negates the first one.

(a) The Beraisa 'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher Lach, ke'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher Lach, Hein Chaser Hein Yeser Ani Mocher Lach' concludes - Afilu Piches Rova le'Sa'ah O Hosir Rova le'Sa'ah, Higi'o'.

(b) We attempt to refute the proof from there that S'tama has the same Din as 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' - by explaining that the Seifa is really a continuation of the Reisha, to teach us that 'Beis-Kur Afar ... Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' has the same Din as 'ke'Beis-Kur Afar'.

(c) Rav Ashi counters this however - on the grounds that, if that was the case, the Tana should not have said 'Ani Mocher Lach' in each case, but 'Beis-Kur Afar, ke'Beis-Kur Afar Hein Chaser Hein Yeser Ani Mocher Lach'. Consequently, he renders the proof conclusive.

(a) According to the Beraisa, in a case where Reuven gave Shimon seven and a half Kabin more land than the Kur that he promised to sell him, assuming that ...

1. ... Reuven wants money - Shimon is obligated to give him money (like we learned in our Mishnah).
2. ... Reuven wants land, but Shimon wants to give him money - then Reuven must accept money.

(b) The Beraisa's Shiur is in fact, equivalent to the quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah of our Mishnah (since there are thirty Sa'ah in a Kur and four Kabin in a Sa'ah).

(c) We initially think that we force Reuven to conform with Shimon's request in the second case - because Shimon does not want Reuven snooping around his field, in which case he has the right to force him to conform because of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser' (which is synonymous with 'Kofin Oso al Midas S'dom').

(d) The apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa and our Mishnah - lies in the inference from our Mishnah, which only forces Shimon to conform with Reuven, but not vice-versa (whereas the Beraisa learns both ways).

(a) So that the Beraisa should conform with our Mishnah, we reinterpret it to mean (not that we force Reuven to sell the field to Shimon, but) - that should the price of land drop, and Reuven now wants to sell the seven and a half extra Kabin at the original (higher) price, we force him to sell it at the current price.

(b) Whereas the Beraisa which says 'ke'she'Hu Nosen Lo, Nosen Lo ke'Sha'ar she'Lakach Mimenu' - speaks in a case when the price went (not down but) up.

(c) The reason for this is - because the seller's right to force the purchaser to buy the land is based on the principle of 'Kofin Oso al Midas S'dom' (which means that the latter has nothing to lose, as we explained). Consequently, if the purchaser argues that he only bought the land in the first place because it was cheap, we concede that, and make him pay for the extra land accordingly.

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven gave Shimon nine Kabin in excess of what he had promised, he no longer has the right to claim money. When Rav Huna says that this even applies to a large valley, he means - that once the total excess reaches nine Kabin (thirty-six quarters), Reuven is no longer Mochel and Shimon is obligated to return the entire excess (in Karka, and not cash) irrelevant of how many Sa'ah there are in the field (i.e. even in a field of ten Kurim).

(b) In a case where Reuven sold Shimon a field of thirty-five Sa'ah, which turns out to be thirty-five quarter-Kabin more, Rav Huna will agree that Reuven is Mochel, and Shimon may keep the excess.

(c) Rav Nachman holds that in a case where the excess amounts to

1. ... thirty-five quarter Kabin in a field which was supposed to comprise thirty-five Sa'ah - Reuven is Mochel (since the total amounts to not more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah), and the same will apply to an excess of ...
2. ... thirty-six quarter Kabin in a field which was supposed to comprise thirty-six Sa'ah.

(d) According to Rav Nachman, the (technical) difference between the excess of one Kur in a case where Reuven is not Mochel, and that of two is - in a case where the excess is only a Mashehu, because in the former case, where the sum total amounts to less than nine Kabin, Reuven has the right to claim money, whereas in the latter, where the excess totals more than nine Kabin, Shimon can force Reuven to accept the excess land itself.

(a) According to some, Rav Nachman requires nine Kabin over and above the quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah before Shimon becomes obligated to return the excess in Karka.
Yet others require one and a half Kabin more than the total quarter Kabin per Sa'ah of one Kur.

(b) We refute this latter theory however, on the grounds - that there seems to be no reason to attach the one and a half extra Kabin to the first Kur (rather than to distribute it equally to all the Kabin, thereby making the excess more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah but less than a total of nine Kabin). Consequently, we ought to need nine Kabin excess for each Beis-Kur.

(c) The Halachah is like - Rav Nachman (following the principle 'Hilch'sa ke'Rav Nachman be'Dini' [in money matters]).

(a) Our Mishnah states 'she'Im Shiyer be'Sadeh Beis Tish'ah Kabin ... Machzir Lo es ha'Karka'. Rava asked from this Mishnah on Rav Nachman - whether the Tana was not speaking even when Reuven sold Shimon two Kur, yet Shimon is obligated to return the excess (even though it amounts to less than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah [like Rav Huna])?

(b) What prompted Rava to ask this Kashya (without thinking that Rav Nachman would answer 'Lo de'Zavin Leih Kur') was - the fact that the Tana did not specifically say that he was referring to a field of one Kur like he did in the Reisha.

(c) And the point of Rav Nachman's reply was - that this section of Mishnah is merely a continuation of the Reisha, which, as we explained, specifically mentions one Beis-Kur.

(a) Rava then asked Rav Nachman from the continuation of the Mishnah ...

1. ... 'u've'Ginah Beis Chatzi Kav' - which seems to be speaking even when Reuven sold Shimon two Sa'ah, implying that he is not Mochel half a Kav in a vegetable garden, even when the excess does not amount to more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah (like Rav Huna).
2. ... 'u'che'Divrei Rebbi Akiva Beis Rova ha'Kav' - which seems to be speaking even when Reuven sold Shimon a Sa'ah (like we just established the previous case), implying that he is not Mochel a quarter of a Kav in a vegetable garden, even when the excess does not amount to more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah (like Rav Huna).

(b) To which Rav Nachman replied - that the Tana Kama speaks when he sold him a Sa'ah, and Rebbi Akiva, when he sold him half a Sa'ah (in which case, the excess in both cases, is more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah).

(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if Reuven sells Shimon a field, which then became a vegetable garden - when a new river or a fountain began flowing beside the field (in keeping with the Pasuk in Eikev "and you will water it with your feet like a vegetable garden".

(b) Rav Ashi's She'eilah is - when the excessive measure of field was less than nine Kabin, in which case Reuven was entitled to ask for money, but before Shimon paid, it became a vegetable garden, and, since there was more than half a Kav, it is Chashuv, so Shimon now insists that he must accept Karka. The She'eilah is whether we go after the time when the error occurred, or after the time when Shimon pays.

(c) He also asks what the Din will be in the reverse case - where Reuven gave Shimon half a Kav in excess of the field that he sold him, but less than nine Kabin, and then the river or the fountain stopped flowing, and it became a regular field.

(d) Rav Ashi would not have asked his She'eilah - in a case where there was Mechilah (e.g. if Reuven sold Shimon half a Kav in excess of two Sa'in) before it became a vegetable garden (according to Rav Huna, who, in a straight case of a vegetable-garden, would obligate him to return the excess), because once Reuven is Mochel, the Mechilah cannot become negated retroactively.

(e) The two She'eilos remain unresolved (Teiku).

(a) The Beraisa obligates Reuven to accept land, even when the excess is less than nine Kabin, even though he sold him a field - if he owns land adjacent to the extra piece that Shimon wants to return (because he can no longer claim that due to its smallness, it is of no use to him).

(b) The Tana cannot mean that since the extra piece of land adjoins another piece of land of his, he is not Mochel even an excess of a quarter of a Kav in the field of a Sa'ah that he sold him - because then, what purpose would 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' (that our Mishnah declares him as having said) serve? In any event, we concluded earlier that even S'tama has the same Din as 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser'.

(a) Rav Ashi asks whether the ruling of the Beraisa will apply even though a pit, a stream of water or a Derech ha'Rabim divide between the two fields. A Derech ha'Rabim is a public path sixteen Amos wide (not a Reshus ha'Rabim, which will obviously divide between the two fields.

(b) The fourth thing on Rav Ashi's list is - a cluster of trees.

(c) The significance in the sequence of these four things is - that each subsequent case assumes that the previous one is not considered a division.

(a) The Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Lo es ha'Rova Bilevad Machzir, Ela Kol ha'Mosar' is wrong because - 'K'lapei Laya', which means 'Which way does this lean' (i.e. it is leaning in the wrong direction), seeing as it is the excess over and above the Rova ha'Kav that obligates Shimon to return the Rova too, and not vice-versa.

(b) Consequently, we amend the Lashon of the Mishnah to read - 've'Lo es ha'Mosar Bilevad Machzir, Ela Kol ha'Reva'in Kulan'.

1. ... 'Midah be'Chevel Ani Mocher Lach Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' - ben Nannes rules that 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' negates 'Midah be'Chevel' (in which case, if Reuven gave Shimon an extra quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah, he may keep it).
2. ... 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser Ani Mocher Lach Midah be'Chevel' - ben Nannes rules that Midah be'Chevel' negates 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser', and Shimon is obligated to return the excess.