Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) POORLY DEFINED BORDERS

(a) David sold a field to Moshe; he defined one border (e.g. the western) to be longer than the opposite (eastern) border.
(b) (Rav): Moshe only acquires what faces the smaller border (David found it easiest to define the western border by extending it).
(c) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): He should acquire everything within the diagonal (between the long and short borders)!
(d) Rav was silent (he admitted to them).
(e) Even before this, Rav admitted that if David's field was between fields of Reuven and Shimon on one side, and fields of Levi and Yehudah on the other side, and he sold 'My field, Reuven's and Shimon's fields are to the west, Yehudah's field is to the east', that he sold everything within the diagonal (if he only sold what is between the fields of Shimon and Yehudah, he would not have mentioned Reuven's field at all).
(f) If Reuven owned the fields to the east and west of David's, and Shimon owned on the north and south sides, David must write 'bounded by Reuven's property in two directions and by Shimon's in two directions'.
(g) Question: If David only gave the borders in four corners, what is the law (does he acquire the entire enclosed area, or only thin strips connecting the corners)?
(h) Question: If David only defined the borders as two 'L'-shapes in two opposite corners, what is the law (does he acquire the entire enclosed area (if one extends the 'L'-shapes until they cross), or only the land between the 'L'-shapes themselves?

(i) Question: If David defined the border in each direction to be half of a side of a rectangle in an alternating way (i.e. no two borders touch), what is the law (does he acquire the entire rectangle, or only the triangles between the borders and the center)?
(j) These questions are not resolved.
(k) (Rav): If Reuven defined the borders in three directions, he acquires everything between them, but not (a furrow's width of land that is) the fourth border;
(l) (Shmuel): He also acquires the fourth border;
(m) (Rav Asi): He only acquires a furrow's width of land on the three borders.

1. Rav Asi agrees with Rav, his omission of the fourth border shows that he did not sell it;
2. Since he retained land on a border, we say that he also retained the land inside the borders.

(n) Version #1 (Rava): The Halachah is, he acquires everything except for the fourth border;

1. This is only if the fourth border lies outside the ends of the opposite borders (of the three), but if it lies between them, it is included;
2. Even if the fourth border lies outside, this is only if there is a row of date trees on it, or if it (is big enough to sow) nine Kavim (of seed); if not, it is not important, it is included in the sale.
3. Inference: If the fourth border lies between the other borders, even though there is a row of date trees on it or it is nine Kavim; it is included in the sale.

(o) Version #2 (Rava): The Halachah is, he acquires everything, including the fourth border;

1. This is only if the fourth border lies between the other borders; if not, it is not included;
2. Even if the fourth border lies inside, if there is a row of date trees on it, or if it is nine Kavim; it is not included in the sale.
3. Inference: If the fourth border is not between the other borders, even though there is not a row of date trees on it and it is not nine Kavim; it is not included.

(p) In both versions, Rava says that everything in the field itself is sold;

1. If the fourth border is between the other borders, and there is not a row of date trees on it, and it is not nine Kavim, it is included in the sale;
2. If the fourth border is not between the other borders, and there is a row of date trees on it or it is nine Kavim; it is not included in the sale.

i. If the fourth border is between the other borders, and there are date trees on it or it is nine Kavim; or, if the fourth border is not between the other borders, and there are not date trees on it and it is not nine Kavim, the two versions argue; the judge decide whether he thinks it was sold (Rashbam; Tosfos - he picks who he wants to give it to).

(a) (Rabah): If Reuven and Shimon were partners in a field; Reuven sold to Levi 'The half that I have' - Levi acquires Reuven's half of the field;

1. If he sold 'Half of what I have', Levi acquires a quarter of the field.

(b) Question (Abaye): What is the difference between the two languages?
(c) Rabah did not answer.
(d) Abaye: I thought that Rabah admitted to me - I was wrong.

1. Cases occurred, and Rabah ruled like he said.

(e) (Rabah): If David sold part of his field to Moshe, and defined one of the borders as 'My (remaining) half of the field', he sold half;

1. If he called it 'The land I cut off (for myself)', he kept for himself the area to sow nine Kavim (the minimum size fitting to be called a field).

(f) Question (Abaye): What is the difference between the two languages?
(g) Rabah did not answer.
(h) Suggestion: Rabah agreed that in either case, he sold half.
(i) Rejection: Rav Yemar bar Shalmiyah cited Abaye as saying, no matter which of the two languages he used, if he added (the extra words) 'These are the borders', he kept half for himself; if not, he only kept nine Kavim.