Siman 218

One who says to his fellow, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth," and there were within the field small valleys ten tefachim deep and four tefachim wide, even if they do not contain water and are fit for sowing, or rocks ten high and four wide, even if there is much earth upon them and they are fit for sowing, nevertheless they are not included within the beit kor. This is because a person does not want to give his money for one place that will appear as two or three places, as there is more labor in the work than in one place. And the same law applies if he said "a beit kor" without specification or "a beit kor of land." And even though there is one of our teachers who wrote that this is specifically when he said "earth," for he revealed his intent that he needs it for sowing, but when he did not mention "earth," even if it is entirely rocks it has reached him, for the seller can say that you bought it to build or to spread fruit, and the hand of the buyer is at a disadvantage [Rashbam, beginning of chapter 7 of Bava Batra], we do not rule accordingly, because the vast majority buy for sowing. And the measure of a beit kor is thirty se'in, and a beit se'ah is fifty amot by fifty amot, and a beit kor is one thousand and five hundred amot in length by fifty in width. And when you square it, it will be 273 amot and five tefachim and a small finger by 273 amot and five tefachim and a small finger, and there remains only a small matter of no substance in its division. How so? If you multiply one thousand and five hundred by fifty, it results in 75,000, and when you multiply 274 by 274, it results in 75,076, and when you remove from this a tefach minus a finger, the remainder is removed along with a small matter. And know that according to the measurement of our country, Russia, every four amot in the Gemara are three of our arshins, which is seven feet, which is one sazhen, and every tefach is two vershoks.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in the twenty-eighth chapter of Laws of Sales that the buyer takes these valleys and rocks that are within the beit kor without payment, and the seller completes the measurement for him from smooth land, and the valleys and rocks are nullified to the beit kor. This is specifically when there is not a rova kav in any one of them, but when there is a rova kav in one of them, he does not take it without payment. And some say that even with less than a rova, the buyer does not take them and they remain for the seller, and the seller completes the measurement for him from smooth land, and the buyer cannot say "I will not take land interrupted by valleys and rocks," but rather he must take it, provided that the plow can pass between them so that they do not interrupt the entire length of the field. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote likewise. And know that the measurement of a beit rova is one twenty-fourth of a beit seah, for the seah is six kabin. And know that the Tur cited in the name of the Ra'avad that we compel the buyer to take the valleys and rocks because in the hand of the seller they are as lost. And there is one who wondered about him, how we could compel him to buy them [the Maggid Mishneh there]. And it appears to me that his opinion, of blessed memory, is that he should buy them cheaply by the ability to compel him, for since in truth the seller has nothing to do with them, as he has no path to there, this law is like orphans who ate a borrowed cow of their testator in error, who pay cheaply, which is a third less than the price, because we are witnesses that for such a purchase even one who does not need it would buy, as written in siman 341. And I have not seen it stated explicitly that the poskim disagree on this.

If the valleys or the rocks were less than this measure, even if they are not fit for sowing because the valleys are full of water and the rocks are without soil, nevertheless they are measured with it, for you have no field without stony ground, and in everything there is a bit of waste. In what case does this apply? At a time when there was among all of them only four kavs for every kor, and when he sold a quarter of a kor the stony ground would be one kav, for this is not more than a forty-fifth part of the land, as for such an amount a person waives. But more than this he does not waive, and he shall deduct everything [it appears to me]. And even when there were only four kavs to a kor, it is only specifically when they are swallowed within five kavs, and these five kavs are swallowed within the majority of the field, such as if it is a long and narrow strip that holds the majority of the field and within this strip these four kavs are swallowed. But if these four kavs are swallowed in less than five kavs, or if they were scattered in much more than five kavs, or if the five kavs are not swallowed in the majority of the field but in less than the majority of the field, then even though they do not have the measure that has been explained, they are not measured with it, for in such a case people are particular about buying the stony ground. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is specifically when the stony ground is three tefachim high, but less than this they are measured in any case, for it is impossible for a field to be exactly level, and less than three is considered level ground. However, this is specifically when it is fit for sowing in any event; but when it is not fit for sowing, even if it is not three high, they are not measured with it in more than the measure that has been explained [Tur].

According to what has been explained, for every beit seah of the strip, a quarter-kav of rocky ground is allocated. Since the majority of the field is sixteen seah in length and there are four kavin of rocky ground, for each beit seah there is a quarter-kav of rocky ground. There is an inquiry in the Gemara [Bava Batra 103a] when the majority of them are swallowed in the minority of it, or the minority of them in the majority of it; for example, if the strip of sixteen seah does not run evenly, but rather in one place it is very wide and in one place it is very narrow, and the majority of the rocky ground falls within the minority of the strip, and the minority of the rocky ground in the majority of the strip. Or, if the rocky ground was like an even thread and it divides the land such that the plow cannot enter between them. Or, if the rocky ground was like a circle or like a triangle, or if they had protrusions on the sides, where the rocky ground is concentrated in one place but many protrusions extend from them and the field enters within the protrusions—whether this is considered as scattered and is included in the measurement, or it is considered as concentrated and is not included. Or, if it was in a winding path, where the rocky ground is attached to each other in a winding fashion and the field enters between the curves. All of these remained in doubt, and the rule is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Therefore, if the buyer already gave the money, he must accept it, and if he has not yet given it, he does not need to accept it [ibid. according to the opinion of the Rambam]. Similarly, if there was soil on top and rock below, or rock on top and soil below, this is a doubt. And even though we explained that even when there is soil upon the rock it does not help, that is when the rock itself is ten tefachim high; but here we are dealing with a case where the rock itself is not ten tefachim high except when combined with the soil, therefore it is a doubt. And if there was a single rock in it, even a beit rova per kor, it is not measured with it, for specifically rocky ground like pebbles must one accept, but an actual rock, even like a rova, one does not need to accept, and less than a rova one must accept [it appears to me]. Similarly, if the rocky ground was adjacent to the boundary, even any amount, it is not measured with it, for one only needs to accept them when they are in the middle of the field; but when they are at the boundary, he shall measure for him from the other side of the rocky ground, and the seller shall leave the rocky ground for himself. And if there is a small interruption of soil between the rock and the boundary, this is a doubt.

All that has been explained in the two sections is the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are other opinions regarding this, though he did not explain them explicitly. In truth, there are some of our teachers who disagree with the Rambam regarding what he ruled—that the four kabin must be swallowed within five kabin and the five kabin must be like a strip. They hold that the four kabin of stony ground must specifically be scattered throughout the majority of the entire field, which is to say, over the course of sixteen se'in and no less; but in less than this measure, they are not measured with it [like R. Yitzchak ibid.], and there reaches each beit se'ah a quarter-kav. The doubt is when the majority of the four kabin are scattered in the minority of the sixteen se'in, such as when they are scattered in seven se'in and the minority of them are scattered in nine se'in. Furthermore, they hold that an interruption of earth between the boundary and the stony ground constitutes an interruption and they are measured with it [for they interpret the inquiry of R. Elazar that "if you will say" it constitutes an interruption, and every "if you will say" is the halacha]. And the doubt regarding earth above and rock below, and vice versa, they interpret that this is when there is an interruption of earth between the boundary and the stony ground, except that this earth is above and rock is below, or vice versa [Rashbam, the Tur, and R. Y. HaLevi].

If he said to him, "I am selling you about a beit kor of soil," even if there were within it valleys nineteen tefachim deep or more, or rocks nineteen tefachim high or more, these are measured with it. For since he said "about a beit kor," it implies according to the value of a beit kor and not an actual beit kor. And some say that this is specifically when they do not exceed four kabin, for this phrasing only avails so that its law is like that of less than ten tefachim.

And all these laws that have been explained apply when the buyer is not standing within the field, but if he is in the field and knows that he is selling him this beit kor, he accepts however many boulders there may be, even though he did not say to him, "I am selling you this beit kor." For since he knew that he was selling him this beit kor, why do we need his statement [Sma]? For even if it is entirely missing from the measurement seven and a half kabin, he has acquired it in such a case, as will be explained, and all the more so that he accepts boulders, for this is like one who said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth, whether less or more," which will be explained.

If he said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth," and the buyer is not standing within it, if it is missing any amount from the measurement—if he said to him that its measurement is such and such cubits, the sale is void, for anything involving measurement, even a minute deficiency, voids the sale, as was written in siman 232. And if he did not say to him that its measurement is such and such, but rather stated "a beit kor" without specification, as long as it is not deficient more than one-twenty-fourth of the total—which is a quarter-kav per beit se'ah, and for a kor it is seven and a half kavim—the sale is not void and he does not deduct from the price, for with such a small deficiency the name "beit kor" is not removed from it. And if it is missing more, its law is as in "whether less or more," which will be explained. And if he said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth, measured with a rope," if it is deficient even a minute amount, he shall deduct from the price, and if it is more by any amount, he shall add to the price, for this phrasing implies that it should be exact, as they measure with a rope. Nevertheless, its law is not like one who said to him that its measurement is such and such cubits where the sale is void; rather, the sale stands and he subtracts or adds to the price [ibid.]. And if he said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth, whether less or more," its law is also like an unspecified beit kor: if it is deficient one-twenty-fourth or exceeds by one-twenty-fourth, it has reached him; beyond that, he shall make an accounting with him for all the quarters that were deficient or exceeded. And anything deficient from a beit kor, he shall deduct from the price, for once it comes to an accounting, he accounts for everything; for as long as it does not come to an accounting, it is a waiver, but when it comes to an accounting that is not included in the waiver, we require that he make an accounting for everything, as in ona'ah which will be explained in siman 229. And some say that regarding an unspecified beit kor when he is not standing within it, its law is not like "whether less or more," but rather when it is deficient even a kav he must complete it for him, and even through a deduction he is not obligated to accept it against his will, for he can say, "I desire a complete beit kor" [thus is in the Rosh, and the words of the Tur are precise, and that which the Sma wrote in subsection 27 requires further study, and the words of Tosafot 104 must be explained like the words of the Rosh]. And specifically when he said, "this beit kor of earth," its law is like "whether less or more" even when he is not standing within it, since he shows it to him from a distance, he understands and accepts. And the first opinion is the view of the Rif and the Rambam [and the difficulty of Tosafot was answered by the Nimukei Yosef there, and the Rema, who emended the word "this" upon the words of the author, did so because he holds thus in the law and did not wish to be lengthy; and examine this carefully].

Some say that this which has been explained—that if it is missing more than the measure, he shall make an accounting and the sale stands—this is specifically when it is at least called a beit kor in the language of people. But if the deficit is so great that in the language of people it is not called a beit kor at all, the sale is void. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this which has been explained is specifically when he has no more land; but if he sold him a beit kor from his fields, he gives him a full beit kor even when he said "whether less or more" [and this is the resolution of the Nimukei Yosef that we wrote, and therefore the Levush omitted it, and the Sma wondered about him in vain, and in law it could be so even according to the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh, and delve into this].

When there is more than one twenty-fourth, such that the buyer must return everything to the seller as has been explained, what does he return to him, money or land? Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that if the total surplus does not reach the measure of a field as explained in siman 171, which is nine kabin in a field and a half-kab in a garden, our sages, of blessed memory, gave the power of preference to the seller, that he has the ability to compel the buyer to purchase it since for himself there is no measure here, and the price is according to what he bought from him if the price has not changed from the day of the purchase. But when the price has changed, whether from expensive to cheap or from cheap to expensive, he cannot compel him to receive it except at the cheaper rate. For since we improve the power of the seller, that the choice is in his hand either to take it for himself or to compel the buyer to receive it, it is the law that regarding the price there should be power of preference for the buyer to receive it at the cheaper rate if the price has changed. And if the entire addition reaches the measure of a field, such as nine kabin in a field and a half-kab in a garden, they do not compel the buyer to buy, and he may return the land to him, and there is no need for an appraisal when the price has changed since he is returning the land to him. And the seller can receive land even when it does not reach the measure, as I wrote, for our sages, of blessed memory, spoke of improving his power so that he can compel the buyer, and not to weaken his power. And according to this opinion, they calculate for the measure of a field all the surplus, both the rova for every se'ah and the remainder. For when there is no measure of a field, we improve the power of the seller regarding compulsion and the power of the buyer regarding the price, and when there is the measure of a field, there is no compulsion here at all, and if the buyer wants the land, the seller can ask for as much as he wishes. And furthermore, our sages, of blessed memory, said that even when there is no measure of a field or garden, if the seller had another field or garden adjacent to this addition, he cannot compel the buyer to receive the land, since he has the ability to join them to his field and his garden. And this is the opinion of most of our teachers, and our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly.

But the opinion of the Rambam is not so, for he holds that regarding the measure of a field or a garden, one does not calculate the quarters at all. And even though one must return the quarters as well when there is more, nevertheless, since without the addition the quarters would have remained with the buyer, therefore in the calculation of the measure of a field, one only calculates the addition beyond the quarters—if they contain the measure of a field. When there is no measure in the addition, even though there is a measure in the total, nevertheless its law is as if there is no measure. Furthermore, the Rambam, of blessed memory, holds that when there is no measure, the seller compels the buyer to accept the land according to the price at the time of the sale. When there is a measure in the addition, we enhance the power of the seller regarding the price and the power of the buyer regarding the return, in that he has the ability to return money or land; but regarding the price, the seller's power is always enhanced. How so? If the buyer returns money, he returns it to him according to the time of high prices, whether the price changed from high to low or vice versa. And if he returns land to him, he returns it to him according to the time of low prices when the price has changed. And if the seller has an adjacent field, then even when there is no measure, we do not compel the buyer to accept land, and the choice is in his hand to do what he wishes. So it appears to me regarding the opinion of the Rambam, whose words we shall transcribe. And the reason for all this appears to me to be that since when there is no measure we compel the buyer to accept the land, it is automatically as if it were sold to him long ago, and therefore the price is according to the time of the sale, whether it increased in value since then or decreased. But when there is a measure, where the Sages gave the buyer enhanced power regarding the return—that if he wishes to return land to him, he may return it—and nevertheless he has the authority to accept the land against the will of the seller, and the Sages did not want to give authority to the seller to receive the land against the will of the buyer, for perhaps the buyer would suffer a loss in this when they take part of the field from him, as he would require extra guarding and the like. Therefore, the Sages gave him the enhanced power to accept the land if he wishes. And since they gave him the enhanced power regarding the return, it follows that regarding the price they gave the enhanced power to the seller. And if the buyer accepts the land and returns money to him, he pays according to the time of high prices since he takes it from him against his will; and when he returns the land to him, he returns it to him according to the time of low prices in every case, for if we were to say that he should return it according to the time of high prices, he would always choose what is good for him and bad for the seller, and this is not just. [And with this, that which is written in Bava Batra 104a is settled: "to enhance the power of the seller and the buyer," for there is enhancement for both of them—for this one in the price and for this one in the return. And that which is written there, "if you give me land," its meaning is the buyer to the seller. And the commentators on the Rambam understood that for him as well, if the seller wishes to take the land, the authority is in his hand, and they wondered about him; but according to our words it is settled. And this is what we learned in the Mishnah: "What does he return to him? Money. And if he wished, he returns land to him." And why did they say "he returns money"? To enhance the power of the seller. And it means to say that the return is at the discretion of the buyer, and the enhancement of the seller's power is regarding the price, as is explained in the Gemara. And he retracted his commentary on the Mishnah, as is known in many places. And that which is written in the Gemara is settled: "We compel the seller to sell and the buyer to buy," according to its plain meaning—that we compel the seller to sell the land when the buyer wants it, and the buyer to buy according to the rate of the high prices.]

This is the wording of the Rambam there, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, copied his words in section 9: And what does he return to him? If the surplus was less than nine kavim, he returns to him money according to the time of the sale, to strengthen the hand of the seller [so that he can compel the buyer]. And if the surplus was adjacent to another field of the seller, he returns to him that surplus of land, for he can join it to the rest of his fields and loses nothing. If the surplus was more than nine kavim, they give [meaning, they measure] a rova for every single se'ah, and the remainder beyond the rova-measures, if there is nine kavim in it, he gives all the rova-measures in their entirety with the surplus from the land, and he gives it to him according to the time he took it from him. In what case does this apply? When it was cheap at the time of the sale and became expensive at the time of returning the surplus [and when he returns money, it is obvious that he gives according to the time of high price, for now is the taking]. But if it was expensive and became cheap, they say to the buyer: If you wish to give him the value of the entire surplus, give him money according to the sale; and if you wish to give him land, give him according to what it is worth now [and it is explicit that the choice is in the hand of the buyer]. And the law of a half-kav in a garden is like the law of nine kavim in a field, that if there remained in a garden less than a half-kav beyond the rova-measures, he only returns to him money; if there remained a half-kav, he returns to him all the rova-measures with the surplus in money [as I wrote regarding a field] or land according to the time of the cheap price of the time of return. Thus far his words.

If it was a field at the time of sale and there was in the surplus slightly more than half a kav and two se'in he sold him, and in this the hand of the seller is on the top as has been explained, and it became a garden, for example that a spring emerged in it before the buyer took possession of the surplus and it stood in the law of the law of return, or the opposite, that it was a garden at the time of sale and it was in the law of return and the spring dried up and it became a field, behold this is a doubt whether he calculates for him according to the law that was at the time of the sale or as it is now; and the buyer is called in this law the possessor and returns to the seller what he wishes [Sma]:

One who says to his fellow two phrasings that contradict one another, such as if he said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth, measured with a rope, whether less or more," or "whether less or more, measured with a rope," it is a legal doubt whether we seize the first phrasing or the final phrasing. The seller is the possessor, and we follow his benefit according to the lesser of the phrasings; if there is a surplus of even any amount, he returns it to the seller, and if it is diminished by up to a quarter-kav per seah, it reaches him. Even when the buyer has not yet given money and the seller claims the surplus from him, nevertheless the seller is called the possessor, for land remains in the possession of its owners [Tur]. And there are those who say that if he has not yet given money, he is called the possessor [Ra'avad] if the seller wants him to take the small surplus and give money for it; but if he wants to withhold the land for himself, certainly it is in his possession [Shach]. And it is possible that the first opinion also agrees with this and there is no dispute here.

If he said to him, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth as it is within its marks and boundaries," and he stood within it, or if he said to him, "this beit kor" [Sma], as there is a redundancy of language in this, for without "its marks and boundaries" it would be like "whether less or more" as has been explained; therefore, he added by saying "within its marks and boundaries" that even if it is less by a sixth or more by a sixth, it belongs to him. For when he said these expressions, his intention was a beit kor however it may be. Beyond a sixth, the name "beit kor" does not apply to it, and he shall deduct all the deficiency from the money, and the sale is not voided. And similarly, if it exceeded more than a sixth, he shall give him money or land, everything according to the remainder. If that which remains in the field is less than nine kabin, or in a garden less than half a kav, and it was not adjacent to another field or garden of the seller, he returns money to him according to the price of the sale that he bought.

One who sells a field to his fellow and says to him its markers and its boundaries, and the buyer knows it and the boundaries and was already accustomed to it, even if he said to him, "it contains in its measurement two hundred cubits," and there were only found one hundred and fifty or much less than this, ibid., he has acquired it and there is no ona'ah here, for behold he knew it and he reasoned and accepted. And as for what he said to him, "two hundred," he can justify his words that his intention was that it is worth as much as another field that contains in its measurement two hundred. And some say that it must be, in any event, a better field than another field. And some say that this is not necessary, for he said this to praise his sale. And even if he did not know its quality, whether it is good or not, for if he knew its quality, even the first opinion would not disagree on this.

One who says to his fellow, "I am selling you this certain beit kor," and its name is such, that it is called "this certain beit kor," even if its measurement is only a letekh, which is half a kor, he has acquired it, for he only sold him the place called "beit kor." The seller must bring proof that it is called "beit kor" by the majority of people in this place. And even if there is less than a letekh, he has acquired it [it appears to me, and the proof is from a vineyard and an orchard].

And so, one who says to his fellow, "The vineyard of mine that is in such-and-such a place I am selling to you," even if there are no vines in it, he has acquired it; and specifically when the majority of people call it by that name, "vineyard." And so, one who says to his fellow, "This orchard I am selling to you," even if there are no pomegranates in it, he has acquired it when the majority of people call it an "orchard," for he sold him nothing but the name, since they call it such. And so too anything similar to this. And it appears to me that this is specifically when this is known to the buyer, but when it is not known to him, you have no greater ona'ah than this. Furthermore, it appears to me that according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, which will be explained in siman 321, this is only when the seller said this phrasing to the buyer, for he sold him only the name that they call it; but when the buyer said it to the seller, it is a matter of insistence, and if the matter is not precisely according to what he said, the transaction is void [and so it appears from Bava Metzia 104a according to the resolution of Shmuel for one who rules like him, and examine this carefully].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that all these matters apply in a place where there is no custom, but in a place where there is a custom, follow the custom and the language of the majority of the people of the place, for custom is a great principle in commerce. This has already been explained in siman 214 and 215. Regarding a majority without a custom, the one in possession can say, "I am from the minority" [it appears to me].

One who says to his fellow, "I am selling you half a field," and did not specify which half, they appraise how much the entire field is worth, and he gives him from the poorest quality within it that which is worth half the value of the entire field; for perhaps his intention was for half its value and not for half its measurement, and the hand of the seller is on the top, and he gives him much ziborit and leaves for himself a little idit. And if it is known according to the customary language that his intention was for half its measurement, he measures for him half the field that he desires and gives it to him [it appears to me]. And it has already been explained in siman 214 that regarding land we do not say "the money provides information." And so too if he said to him, "I am selling you its half in the south," they appraise for him the value of all of it and he gives him in its south like half of all the value, for it is possible his intention was to sell on the southern side according to the value of half of the entire field. And there are those who say that they see how much its half in the south is worth and he gives him from the worst in the field, for perhaps that which he said, "its half in the south," refers to the appraisal [Rashbam, Rabbeinu Chananel, and the Tur]. And in the Shulchan Aruch only the first opinion was brought. And it appears to me that in this also we follow the benefit of the seller who is the muchezak, for if its half in the south is worth more than half the field in total, such as if its half in the north is worse than that in the south, he gives to him according to the first opinion; and if the half in the south is worse, he gives to him according to the "there are those who say," for certainly the language bears both interpretations and we must judge in this to the benefit of the muchezak. Furthermore, it appears to me that in all the matters in this section, the seller is not called muchezak when he has not yet received the money according to the "there are those who say" in section 14, and he cannot force the buyer to accept the worst quality, and he can cancel the transaction.

When one sells to his fellow a portion of his field and they must construct a fence between them, the buyer takes it upon himself to provide from his portion the place for the fence, and behind the fence adjacent to it a small trench three tefachim wide, and outside of it one large trench six tefachim wide, and between the two trenches a width of a tefach. All of this is so that the marten—which is a small animal that eats and destroys the produce—will not jump over. It was their custom to make two trenches, one large and one small, for with the large one alone it is not sufficient because the animal would stand inside the trench and jump, and with the small one alone it is not sufficient because since it is narrow, it would stand on its edge and jump [end of chapter 1 of Bava Batra]. The reason that this pertains to the buyer we explained in siman 158, section 4, regarding the fence that he must construct at his own expense, and so it is implied in the Yerushalmi. And some say that the seller gives space from his portion to make all of these therein, for one who ordinarily sells half a field sells him all its needs [Rashbam]. However, when he sold him the entire field, what more shall he give him [ibid.]? Therefore, even when the seller has other land on this side, he does not need to give him space [Sma]. Regarding the fence, it depends on the custom as I wrote there, and in a place where one must construct a fence, the buyer shall construct it at his own expense. In the case of half a field, it appears to me that according to this view, both of them must construct the fence in a place where it is customary to fence.

Reuven, who had a field in partnership with Shimon and sold it to Levi, and did not specify how much of it he sold to him, but rather wrote to him, "The half that I have in the field I have sold to you," he has acquired the entire half. But if he wrote to him, "Half of the field that I have," he has only acquired a quarter, for this implies half of that which I have; for the name "field" applies even to a portion of a field, which is not the case regarding a house, as has been written in siman 214, section 18. And even though regarding a house this phrasing also implies half of the entire house, as is explained there, nevertheless, regarding a field where he only acquired a quarter, the reason is not because the seller is the possessor, for if so, when the buyer has not yet given money and says that he sold him half of the entire field, we would not be able to compel him, and it does not appear so from the Shas and the poskim. Rather, certainly regarding a field, this phrasing only implies a quarter, for if not so, he should have written "the half that I have in the field," and regarding a house it is not relevant to be so precise because it is impossible to interpret it in any other way [it appears to me].

If he had a large valley within which were many fields, and each one is divided by its own boundary, and he was standing in one of the fields and said to his fellow, "I am selling you a field," even though he delineated for him the boundaries of the valley, nevertheless he only acquired the one field in which he was standing, and we say that he merely expanded the boundaries for him. This is specifically when the majority of people do not call a valley "field" but rather "valley," and they call a single field "field." And even though a minority also call a valley "field," we do not concern ourselves with the minority. However, if the majority also call a valley "field," and similarly, if even only a minority call it "field" but he wrote to him, "and I have not reserved anything in this sale," and he delineated for him the outer boundaries, he acquires the entire valley, as I wrote in siman 214, section 7, regarding a house in a large building, and there further laws pertaining to this were explained; see there. All this is when a boundary separates between field and field, but if no boundary separates, even if he did not delineate the outer boundaries for him, he acquires everything, for everything enclosed by one boundary is called one field, as will be explained. And the reason we do not say in this case "let us look according to the money" was explained there, for regarding land we do not say "the money provides notification."

One who says to his fellow, "The field of Reuven I am selling to you," and his intention is for a field that he bought from Reuven, and he had two fields that he bought from Reuven, or if he said to him, "The field called by such-and-such a name I am selling to you," and he had two fields called by such a name, he has only acquired the lesser of them, for "field" implies one and not two, and the holder of the document is at a disadvantage and the hand of the seller is on top. And one who says to his fellow, "The field of Reuven I am selling to you," and when the buyer comes to make use of it, the seller says to him, "This is not the field that belonged to Reuven, rather it is only called by its name thus, but it never belonged to Reuven," and he shows him another field that he clarifies belonged to Reuven and he bought it from him, and says that "this is the one I sold to you," it is upon the seller to clarify that this one which is called by the name "field of Reuven" never belonged to Reuven. And if he brings proof that it is so, then presumably he sold him the second one that he clarifies he bought from Reuven, even though it is not called "field of Reuven." But if he does not clarify so, he is not believed; and even though it is better than the second one, and always the hand of the buyer is at a disadvantage, nevertheless, since the second one is not called "field of Reuven" and the first one is called so, we say that he also bought that one from Reuven and sold that one to this person, and the buyer has merited it. And even when he clarifies, nevertheless, if the buyer clarifies that he did not know at all of the second field that he bought from Reuven, and it is clear that his intention was that he imagined he was selling him that which is called by the name of Reuven, he can cancel the sale [it appears to me]. And the principle of these words depends on the language of the speakers according to the custom of the land and its language.

One who says to his fellow, "I am selling you fields," he has acquired two fields, for the minimum of "fields" is two and no more, as the hand of the buyer is at a disadvantage. And if he said to him, "all fields," he has acquired all the fields that he has, even many, except for gardens and orchards which are not included in the category of "fields." And if he said to him, "I am selling you properties," even gardens and orchards are sold, but not houses and slaves. And if he said to him, "all properties," even houses and slaves and all the movable objects known to be his, and even the tefillin on his head, are included in the sale. And that which will be explained in siman 248, that movable objects are included in "my properties" even when he did not say "all my properties," that is regarding a gift, for one gives more generously than in a sale [Shach]. And specifically when he said "all my properties," but when he said "the properties of the house of so-and-so," and even if he said "all the properties of the house of so-and-so" [Tur], he did not sell him the movable objects that he bought from that person, but only the lands that he bought from him, because movable objects are not called by the name of the seller. And there are those who disagree when he says "all my properties" [Shach]. And so too, if he only bought movable objects from that person, of necessity he acquires the movable objects. And the term "land" includes houses as well; therefore, when he said "I am selling you all my lands," houses are also included. And when he said "lands," he acquires two lands that the seller wishes to give. And it has already been explained that the price does not provide evidence regarding land, whether for cheapness or for high cost, but regarding movable objects the price does provide evidence. However, regarding lands and movable objects together, the price is not proof, for one can attribute the deficiency of the price or its abundance to the lands [it appears to me]. And regarding the essence of this law, whether the price is proof regarding movable objects, it will be explained in siman 220, section 7, with the help of Heaven.