Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 62a

If he says 'my property',¹  this would include houses and slaves also.

If the seller draws one of two parallel boundaries shorter than the other, Rab says that the purchaser obtains only the width of the shorter line.²  R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab: Should he not obtain as much as is bounded by the oblique line?³  — Rab made no reply.⁴  Rab, however, had [previously] admitted that if [the field in question] is bounded by those of Reuben and Simeon on one side, and by those of Levi and Judah on the other, since [if he desired to transfer only half the field] he should have written either '[the boundaries are the field] of Reuben [on one side and] opposite [to it the field of] Levi', or else '[the field] of Simeon [on one side and] opposite [to it the field of] Judah', and he did not do so, he meant to transfer all within the oblique line [from the end of Simeon's field to the end of Levi's].⁵

If the field is bounded by fields of Reuben on the east and west and by fields of Simeon on the north and south, he must write, 'the field is bounded by fields of Reuben on two sides and by fields of Simeon on two sides.'⁶

The question was raised: If he merely marks the corners,⁷  how do we decide? If he draws the boundaries like a gam,⁸  how do we decide?⁹

1. Or, 'my belongings'.
2. Rab assumes that the field sold is to be a parallelogram, v. fig. I.
3. Lit., 'head of an ox': i.e., by a line drawn from the end of the shorter to the end of the longer boundary, v. fig. 2.
4. Signifying assent. v. Tosaf.
5. The case dealt with here apparently is one in which the field is bounded on the north by those of Reuben (R) and Simeon (S), by each to half its length, and on the south by those of Levi (L) and Judah (J), by each to half its length, and the seller writes, 'the field that is bounded by those of Reuben and Simeon on the north and by that of Levi on the south', making no mention of Judah. (Fig. 3) The reading, however, is somewhat uncertain, and Tosaf. gives another explanation.
6. And not simply, 'it lies between the fields of Reuben and Simeon', as in that case half the field would suffice, v. fig. 4:
7. Suppose the field is bounded by a number of other owners' fields, some abutting on the corners, does he sell the whole or only two diagonal strips from corner to corner, v. fig. 5.
8. Marking a little of each side, in the shape of a Greek Gamma, thus: I' [Gandz, S., Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 1930-32, pp. 37ff., connects the Hebrew term Gam with the Gnomon with the carpenter's square.] v. fig. 6.
9. Is this sufficient for the whole field, or does it convey only a diagonal strip?

If he mentions one and skips one,¹  how do we decide? — These questions must stand over.

If the seller defines the first, second and third boundaries, but not the fourth, Rab says that the purchaser acquires the whole of the field with the exception of the fourth boundary,²  and Samuel said that he acquires the fourth boundary also. R. Assi, however, said that he acquires only one furrow alongside of the whole.³  He [so far] agreed with Rab [as to hold] that he reserved something, but [he further held] that since he reserved the boundary he reserved the whole field,⁴

Raba said: The law is that he acquires the whole field with the exception of the fourth boundary.⁵  And even this is the case only if the fourth boundary does not lie within the adjoining two,⁶  but if it does so lie,⁷  the purchaser acquires it. And even if it does not lie within the adjoining two, [he fails to acquire it] only if there is on it a clump of date trees, or it has an area of nine kabs,⁸  but if there is no clump of date trees on it and it does not contain an area of nine kabs, he does acquire it.⁹  From this it can be inferred that if it lies between the adjoining boundaries, then even if there is a clump of date trees on it and it has an area of nine kabs, the purchaser acquires it.¹⁰

According to another version, Raba said that the law is that the purchaser acquires the whole, including the fourth boundary. This is the case, however, only if it lies between the two adjoining boundaries, If, however, it does not so lie, he does not acquire it. And even where it does so lie, he acquires it only if there is not on it a clump of date trees, or it has not an area of nine kabs,¹¹  but if there is on It a clump of date trees, or it has an area of nine kabs, he does not acquire it. From this we infer that when it does not lie between the two adjoining boundaries, even though there is no clump of date trees on it and it has not an area of nine kabs, he does not acquire it.¹²

From either version of Raba's statement we learn that the seller does not reserve any part in the field itself.¹³  We also learn that where the fourth boundary lies between the two adjoining ones and there is no clump of date trees on it, or it has not an area of nine kabs, the purchaser acquires it [even though it is not specified], and that if it does not so lie and there is on it a clump of date trees or it has an area of nine kabs, he does not acquire it.¹⁴  If it lies between the adjoining boundaries and there is a [clump of date trees] on it [etc.],¹⁵  or if it does not so lie and there is [no clump] on it [etc.],¹⁵  according to one version the rule is one way and according to the other version the rule is the other way, and so we leave the judges to use their own discretion.¹⁶

Rabbah said: [If a man who owns half a field¹⁷  says to another], I sell you the half which I have in the land, [he sells him] half [of the whole]. [If he says, I sell you] half of the land that I have,¹⁸  [he sells him] a quarter [of the whole]. Said Abaye to him: What difference does it make whether he says one thing or the other? Rabbah made no reply. Abaye [subsequently] said: I thought that, because he made no reply, he accepted my view, but this was not so, for I saw [later] some documents that were issued from the master's court; where it was written, 'the half that I have in the land', [the transaction was for] half, and where it was written, 'the half of the land that I have', [the transaction was for] a quarter.

Rabbah further said: [If the seller writes in the deed,] [The boundary of the land is] the land from which half has been cut off,¹⁹  [he sells] half. If he writes, [The boundary of the land is] that from which a piece is cut off, [he only sells an area of] nine kabs.²⁰  Said Abaye to him: What difference does it make whether he says one way or the other? Rabbah made no reply. The conclusion was drawn that in either case [the proper rule was that he sold him] half,

1. If there are two separate fields on each side, and he mentions one and skips one, does he sell the whole or only the sections opposite the fields he specifies? v. fig. 7.
2. I.e., one furrow alongside of it.
3. Right round the other three boundaries.
4. With the exception of the furrow round,
5. As laid down by Rab.
6. Lit., 'is not swallowed', v, fig. 8.
7. v. fig. 9.
8. I.e., sufficient for the sowing of nine kabs of seed. In these cases it counts as a separate field.
9. Because it goes with the field.
10. In other words, there must be two weaknesses in his claim to disqualify it, (a) that the fourth boundary lies outside the adjoining two, (b) that there is a clump etc.
11. Because here also there is only one weakness in his claim, not two.
12. In other words, there must be two things in his favour to make his claim good.
13. Where he defines all the boundaries except one, the difference between the two versions being only in regard to the fourth boundary.
14. Being in this case practically a separate field.
15. [So Yad Ramah.]
16. According to what they consider to have been the intention of the seller. In most analogous cases, the property in dispute either remains with the possessor or is to be divided.
17. Being joint owner with someone else.
18. I.e., half of his share.
19. I.e., part of a field is sold and the boundary is formed by the rest of it.
20. The minimum which constitutes a field.