The Daf-B-Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Bava Batra, has been dedicated by our good friend and pioneer student in the Daf Yomi Shiur, Amram Ezra, may Hashem protect and sustain him, Amen. This dedication is for the success of his dear children, that they should grow up to bring him much nachat, and that they should possess wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. With the help of Hashem, may they merit, in due time, the proper zivugim, and may they have prosperity, wealth, and honor from now until eternity. This learning is also dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in Gan Eden, Amen. Additionally, we are studying today for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Luna; may he be healed soon, both in spirit and body, and may it be His will, and we say Amen. We also include in our prayers a recovery for Yafa Zakia bat Mazal; may she be healed soon, both in spirit and body, and may it be His will, and we say Amen.
Today, we delve into a case that relates to yesterday's Mishna. The Mishna discusses a situation where I sell you a measurement by rope, which is an exact measure, and then I tell you more or less. The case states: “I sell you a measurement by rope, whether it is lacking or excessive.” It further states that the second statement nullifies the first. This means that the second expression, or statement, takes precedence over the first. If one were to follow the second statement, it would indicate that in the case of a more or less situation, the last thing said is what is upheld.
In contrast, the Mishna presents another case where it states: “Whether it is lacking or excessive, I sell you a measurement by rope.” Here, the words regarding the measurement are what nullify the claim of lacking or excessive, affirming that the measurement is exact. The principle derived from the Mishna is that one must follow the last statement made. This ruling is attributed to the opinion of Ben Nanas.
However, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Abba bar Memel states that the friends of Ben Nanas disagree with him, arguing that it is a safek, a doubt. They contend that we do not know which statement is the primary one, thus the matter must be divided between the buyer and the seller. This means that if a seller states, “I am selling you an exact amount, more or less,” it remains unclear what he meant, leading to a division of any discrepancies.
The Gemara then questions the necessity of stating that the Rabbis argue with Ben Nanas, as this is a well-known machloket throughout Shas regarding whether to take the first or the second statement. The Gemara clarifies that if the only proof was from the case of the rental, one might mistakenly think that the case has a different interpretation. In that scenario, there could be a doubt whether the second statement was a retraction or merely an explanation of the first statement.
In the case of the rental of the bathhouse, where one party claims twelve gold coins per year, and then states one coin per month, there exists a contradiction. If the first statement is taken, it would imply a total of twelve coins for the year, but the second statement suggests a total of thirteen for a leap year. The Rabbis decided that the parties should split the difference because it was unclear whether to follow the first or second statement.
However, the Gemara asserts that in the case of the field sale, there is no doubt; the seller certainly retracted his previous statement. Therefore, in this instance, we would assume that the Rabbis might agree with Ben Nanas concerning the last statement. The Gemara emphasizes that even in cases of clear retraction, the machloket between Ben Nanas and the Rabbis remains relevant.
Rabbi Yehuda, in the name of Shmuel, states that while this is Ben Nanas's opinion, the Chachamim say one should follow the weaker of the statements. This means that in any situation, the language that is disadvantageous to the buyer is the one that should be upheld. The rationale is that the seller must be placed in a favorable position.
For instance, if the field sold is found to be less than agreed upon, the seller does not have to return any money to the buyer. This is because the seller's original statement of “more or less” favors him. Conversely, if the field is found to be more than agreed, the seller may demand additional payment, again upholding the seller's advantage.
Thus, the Gemara delineates three positions: Ben Nanas's view, the Rabbis' position of splitting the difference, and the opinion that favors the seller, based on who holds the money. The Gemara then reaffirms that Rabbi Yehuda, in the name of Shmuel, asserts that this reflects Ben Nanas's opinion, while the Rabbis maintain their stance of division when there is uncertainty.
The discussion continues with a case where one states, “I am selling you a kor for thirty coins.” The sale is not binding until the full payment is made. If the seller states, “I am selling you thirty seahs for one coin each,” the buyer acquires each seah as it is taken. Thus, the second statement, which indicates a per-unit price, is the one that prevails.
The Gemara then returns to the rental case, noting that if the rental agreement was established in the middle of the month, the parties should split the rental for the thirteenth month. However, if the rental agreement is made at the beginning or end of the month, the landlord or tenant, respectively, retains the whole amount. This leads to the conclusion that the machloket revolves around the timing of the statements made.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that while Ben Nanas asserts that one should follow the last statement, the Rabbis argue that in cases of uncertainty, one must divide the amounts based on who holds the money. The discussion illustrates the complexity of language in halachic matters, emphasizing the importance of precision in statements and the implications for both buyers and sellers.