- 1. If brothers who divide an estate are like heirs or purchasers
If brothers divided their father’s estate, and the father’s creditor collected his debt from one brother, Rav says: בטלה מחלוקת – the division is void, and the remaining estate is redivided. Shmuel says: ויתר – He has forgone his share and has no claim against his brother. Rav Assi says: נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות – He takes one-quarter of land from his brother, or his brother may give him the value of one-quarter of the field in money. Rav holds: האחין שחלקו יורשין הן – Brothers who divide an estate are considered heirs, and jointly owe the father’s debts. If it was collected from one, he must be compensated, as if he never received his share. Shmuel holds they are considered לקוחות – purchasers of their shares from one another, and additionally are like purchasers without guarantee of compensation, so whichever land was taken, that brother has no claim against the other. Rav Assi is uncertain whether they are like heirs or purchasers, so he may only demand half-compensation, which is a quarter of the other brother’s share. Additionally, he holds the brother may pay him with money instead of land. The halachah follows Rav.
- Assessing a property’s value when judges disagree in its appraisal
A Baraisa states that if three judges appraised orphans’ land, and one said it was worth a maneh (one hundred zuz), and two said it was worth two hundred, or if one said it was worth two hundred and two said one hundred, בטל יחיד במיעוטו – the single judge is nullified in its minority status, and we follow the majority appraisal. If one appraised it at a maneh (100 zuz), one said twenty סלעים (80 zuz), and one said thirty (120 zuz), there are three opinions: (1) The Tanna Kamma says נידון במנה – it is judged at a maneh’s value. He follows מילתא מציעא – the median opinion, because two-thirds of the judges say it is worth at least a maneh, and two-thirds say it is not worth more than a maneh. (2) Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Tzadok says it is valued at ninety, the midpoint between the lower two appraisals, reducing their errors to only ten. Although we could follow the midpoint between the two higher values (100 and 120), we choose the lower option, whose value it surely possesses. (3) “Others” say we calculate the difference between them and divide it in three, arriving at a value of 93 1/3, which the Gemara proceeds to explain.
- One who sells “half his field”
The next Mishnah states that if one says: חצי שדה אני מוכר לך – “I am selling you half of my field,” משמנין ביניהן – the quality is between them, ונוטל חצי שדהו – and [the buyer] takes half his field. If he says, “I am selling you its southern half,” the ruling is the same, but here, the buyer takes the field’s southern half. Rebbe Yochanan explained: לוקח נוטל כחוש שבו – the buyer takes the inferior half of [the field], and the seller keeps the superior half. The field is divided by its value (the inferior land being of greater size), and the seller can retain the superior (smaller) land. Rebbe Chiya bar Abba asked Rebbe Yochanan that the expression “the quality is between them” implies they receive equal shares of its quality land!? Rebbe Yochanan replied that the סיפא says that where the southern half was sold, “the quality is between them.” This cannot mean he receives half the superior land, since the southern half was specified. Rather, the Mishnah means לדמי – by value, i.e., the value of the southern half, which the seller gives him from anywhere in the field. The same applies in the רישא, based on half the total field’s value. Accordingly, “the quality is between them” means that the difference between their properties will be “quality,” i.e., the seller retains the superior land.