בְּסֵירוּגִין מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

A third dilemma was also raised before the Sages: If the seller defined the boundaries of the property he is selling in an alternating fashion, what is the halakha? No resolution was found for these questions, and these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

מָצַר לוֹ מֶצֶר רִאשׁוֹן וּמֶצֶר שֵׁנִי וּמֶצֶר שְׁלִישִׁי, וּמֶצֶר רְבִיעִי לֹא מָצַר לוֹ – אָמַר רַב: קָנָה הַכֹּל חוּץ מִמֶּצֶר רְבִיעִי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֶצֶר רְבִיעִי. וְרַב אַסִי אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא תֶּלֶם אֶחָד עַל פְּנֵי כוּלָּהּ;

§ The Gemara raises a similar dilemma. If, in the bill of sale, the seller delineated for the buyer the field’s first boundary, its second boundary, and its third boundary, but he did not delineate its fourth boundary at all, Rav says: The buyer acquires the entire field, except for the one furrow along which the fourth boundary runs, which is usually differentiated in some way from the field itself. And Shmuel says: The buyer acquires even the furrow along which the fourth boundary runs. And Rav Asi says: He acquires only the width of one furrow along the entire perimeter of the three boundaries specified by the seller.

סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַב, דַּאֲמַר: שִׁיּוּרֵי שִׁיֵּיר, וּמִדְּשִׁיֵּיר בְּמֶצֶר – שִׁיֵּיר נַמִי בְּכוּלְּהִי.

The Gemara explains Rav Asi’s opinion: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that by failing to delineate the fourth boundary, the seller withheld some part of the field, i.e., one furrow, for himself. But Rav Asi takes this further and says that since he withheld some part of the field for himself at the fourth boundary, he withheld also some portion of the entire field, and therefore the buyer acquires only that which is adjacent to the specified boundaries.

אֲמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: קָנָה הַכֹּל חוּץ מִמֶּצֶר רְבִיעִי. וְלָא אֲמָרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מִבְלַע, אֲבָל מִבְלַע – קָנָה.

Rava said: The halakha is that the buyer acquires the entire field except for the one furrow along which the fourth boundary runs, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. And we said this only in a case where the fourth boundary is not included within the space between two adjacent boundaries, but rather juts out beyond them. But when it is included within the space delineated by the other boundaries, the buyer acquires it as well.

וְכִי לָא מִבְלַע נַמִי – לָא אֲמָרַן אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא וְהָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין, אֲבָל לֵיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, וְלָא הָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – קָנָה. מִכְּלָל דְּכִי מוּבְלָע, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא וְהָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – קָנָה.

Rava adds: And even when it is not included in that space, we said that the buyer does not acquire it only in a case where there is a row of trees on it, or it is an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed. But where there is no row of trees on it, and it is not an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, the buyer acquires it along with the rest of the field. By inference one derives from here that when the fourth border is included within the space delineated by the two adjacent boundaries, even if there is a row of trees on it and it is an area fit for sowing nine kav, the buyer acquires it.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: קָנָה הַכֹּל, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֶצֶר רְבִיעִי. וְלָא אֲמָרַן אֶלָּא דְּמִבְלַע, אֲבָל לָא מִבְלַע – לָא קָנֵי.

There are those who say that Rava’s ruling and the conclusion drawn from it are as follows: Rava said: The halakha is that the buyer acquires the entire field, and he acquires even the furrow along which the fourth boundary runs, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And we said this only in a case where the fourth boundary is included within the space delineated by the two adjacent boundaries. But when it is not included within those boundaries, the buyer does not acquire it.

וְכִי מִבְלַע נַמִי – לָא אֲמָרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, וְלָא הָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין, אֲבָל אִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא וְהָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – לָא קָנָה. מִכְּלַל דְּכִי לָא מוּבְלָע, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, וְלָא הָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – לָא קָנֵי.

Rava adds: And even when it is included within the adjoining boundaries, we said that the buyer acquires it only in a case where there is no row of trees on it, and it is not an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed. But where there is a row of trees on it, or it is an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, the buyer does not acquire it. By inference one derives from here that when the fourth boundary is not included within the two adjacent boundaries, even if there is no row of trees on it and it is not an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, the buyer does not acquire it.

שָׁמְעִינַן מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ לִישָּׁנֵי דְּרָבָא, דִּבְשָׂדֶה לָא שִׁיֵּיר וְלָא מִידֵי. וְשָׁמְעִינַן נַמִי, דְּהֵיכָא דְּמִבְלַע, וְלֵיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, וְלָא הָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – קָנָה; לָא מִבְלַע, וְאִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, וְהָוֵי תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין – לֹא קָנָה;

We conclude according to both versions of the statement of Rava that even if the seller withheld something for himself along the fourth boundary, he did not withhold anything at all in the field itself. And we also conclude according to both versions that where the fourth boundary is included within the space defined by the two adjacent boundaries, and there is no row of trees on it and it is not an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, the buyer acquires it. And furthermore, we conclude according to both versions that if the fourth boundary is not included within the two adjacent boundaries, and there is a row of trees on it, or it is an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, the buyer does not acquire it.

מִבְלַע וְאִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ, לָא מִבְלַע וְלֵיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ – אִתְּמַר לָהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא וְאִתְּמַר לָהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא, שׁוּדָא דְדַיָּינֵי.

If the fourth boundary is included within the two adjacent boundaries, and there is a row of trees on it or it is fit for sowing nine kav of seed, or if the fourth boundary is not included within the two adjacent boundaries, and there is no row of trees on it nor is it fit for sowing nine kav, the ruling in these cases was stated in this direction, that the land adjacent to the fourth boundary is acquired by the buyer, and it was stated in that direction, that this land is not acquired by the buyer, depending upon which version of Rava’s statement is accepted. Since there is no clear ruling in these cases, the decision is left to the discretion of the judges, who must rule in accordance with what appears to them to be the intention of the seller.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: ״פַּלְגָּא דְּאִית לִי בְּאַרְעָא״ – פַּלְגָּא, ״פַּלְגָּא בְּאַרְעָא דְּאִית לִי״ – רִיבְעָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא הָכִי וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכִי? אִישְׁתִּיק.

§ Rabba said: If one owns a field in partnership with another, and he says to a third person: I am selling you the half that I have in this land, he means to sell him half of that field, i.e., his entire share. If he says to the buyer: I am selling you half of the land that I have, he means to sell him one-quarter of that field, i.e., half of his share. Abaye said to him: What is different about this wording and what is different about that wording, that you rule differently in the two cases? Rabba was silent, offering no reply.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: אֲנָא סְבַרִי, מִדְּאִישְׁתִּיק קַבּוּלֵי קִבְּלָהּ; וְלָא הִיא, חֲזֵינָא הָנְהוּ שְׁטָרֵי דְּנָפְקִי מִבֵּי מָר, וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ הָכִי: ״פַּלְגָּא דְּאִית לִי בְּאַרְעָא״ – פַּלְגָּא, ״פַּלְגָּא בְּאַרְעָא דְּאִית לִי״ – רִיבְעָא.

Abaye said: I had assumed that since he was silent, he must have accepted my opinion and retracted his statement; but that is not so. As on another occasion I saw certain bills of sale that issued from my Master’s house, that is, they were issued under the auspices of my master Rabba, in which it was written: The half that I have in this land, and it was clear from another clause in the bill that half of the field was being sold. And there was another bill of sale in which it was written: Half of the land that I have, and it was clear from another clause in the bill that one-quarter of the field was being sold.

וַאֲמַר רַבָּה: ״מְצַר אַרְעָא דְּמִינָּהּ פַּלְגָּא״ – פַּלְגָּא, ״מְצַר אַרְעָא דְּמִינָּהּ פְּסִיקָא״ – תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין.

And Rabba also said: If one sold land to another and delineated boundaries on three sides of the field, and with regard to the fourth side he wrote in the bill of sale: The boundary of the field is the land through which the field is halved, he has sold him half of the field. If he writes with regard to the fourth boundary: The boundary of the field is the land from which a plot can be set apart, he has sold him only an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed, as that is the minimum size of a plot of land defined as a field.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא הָכִי וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכִי? אִישְׁתִּיק. סְבוּר מִינָּהּ: אִידִי וְאִידִי פַּלְגָּא.

Abaye said to him: What is different about this wording, and what is different about that wording, that you rule differently in the two cases? Rabba was silent, and did not respond. The Sages understood from this silence that Abaye understood that Rabba retracted his ruling and conceded that in both this case and that case, the buyer acquires half of the field.