## Bava Batra Daf 166b

###### Bava Batra 166b:1
[Bava Batra 166b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:1)

וְעָמְדוּ קִינִּין בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם בְּרִבְעָתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna concludes: **And** as a result, the price of the **nests stood that day at one-quarter** of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased. It is clear in the mishna that the term *dinarei* indicates a higher value than the term *dinarin*.


###### Bava Batra 166b:2
[Bava Batra 166b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:2)

כָּתוּב מִלְּמַעְלָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִלְמַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן – בְּאוֹת אַחַת; אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If it is **written** in the document **above** that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below it is written two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred and below one hundred, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 11:4): Information concerning what is written **below may be learned from** what is written **above** if the lower text is missing **one letter, but not** if it is missing **two letters.** In that case, in the event of a discrepancy between information written above and information written below, the document is not valid.


###### Bava Batra 166b:3
[Bava Batra 166b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:3)

כְּגוֹן ״חָנָן״ מֵ״חֲנָנִי״ וְ״עָנָן״ מֵ״עֲנָנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For example,** if the name of one party is written as **Ḥanan** below and Ḥanani above, it may be derived **from** the word **Ḥanani** written above that the party is named Ḥanani. **And** similarly, if a name is written **Anan** below, it may be learned **from** the name **Anani** written above that the party is named Anani.


###### Bava Batra 166b:4
[Bava Batra 166b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:4)

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת דְּלָא – דִּלְמָא מִיתְרְמֵי שֵׁם בֶּן אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ פַּלְגֵיהּ דִּשְׁמָא; אִי הָכִי, אוֹת אַחַת נָמֵי – דִּלְמָא מִיתְרְמֵי שֵׁם בֶּן שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ פַּלְגֵיהּ דִּשְׁמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **two letters** missing, that the *baraita* teaches **that** the name written below **cannot** be corrected from the name written above? The Gemara suggests: It is out of concern that **perhaps** it will **occur** by chance that there is **a four-letter name, and** the omission of two letters **would be half of the name,** and for this reason the Sages extended this concern to all cases where two letters are missing. The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the same could be said when **one letter** is missing **as well,** as **perhaps** it will **occur** by chance that there is **a two-letter name, and** the omission of one letter **would be half of the name.**


###### Bava Batra 166b:5
[Bava Batra 166b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:5)

אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דִּלְמָא מִיתְרְמֵי שֵׁם בֶּן שָׁלֹשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ רוּבָּא דִשְׁמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather, this is the reason** that when **two letters** are missing the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above: The concern is that **perhaps** it will **occur** by chance that there is **a three-letter name, and** the omission of two letters **would be a majority of the name.** The Sages applied this concern to all cases where two letters are missing.


###### Bava Batra 166b:6
[Bava Batra 166b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי – ״סֵפֶל״ מִלְּמַעְלָה וְ״קֵפֶל״ מִלְּמַטָּה – הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss discrepancies between the information written above and below in a document. **Rav Pappa said:** It is **obvious to me** that if a document states **above** that one owes **a *sefel*,** a type of cup, **and below** it states ***kefel*,** a type of garment, **everything is determined by the** information written **below.** In this case there is not a missing letter at the bottom but an altered letter. Therefore, the information written below is not corrected from the information written above.


###### Bava Batra 166b:7
[Bava Batra 166b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:7)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: ״קֵפֶל״ מִלְּמַעְלָה וְ״סֵפֶל״ מִלְּמַטָּה, מַאי – מִי חָיְישִׁינַן לִזְבוּב, אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What** if it is stated ***kefel* above and *sefel* below?** The difference between the two words is that the former begins with *kuf*, whereas the latter begins with *samekh*. The orthographical difference between these two letters is a single stroke that extends downward, as the omission of the extension of this stroke would change *kuf* into *samekh*. Rav Pappa’s dilemma is: **Are we concerned for** the possibility that **a fly** landed on the stroke of the *kuf*, removing the ink and changing it into *samekh*? **Or** are we **not** concerned with this possibility? The Gemara comments: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Batra 166b:8
[Bava Batra 166b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166b:8)

הָהוּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בֵּיהּ: ״שֵׁית מְאָה וְזוּזָא״, שַׁלְחֵהּ רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: שֵׁית מְאָה אִיסְתֵּירֵי וְזוּזָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא שֵׁית מְאָה פְּרִיטֵי וְזוּזָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּל פְּרִיטֵי, דְּלָא כָּתְבִי בִּשְׁטָרָא – דַּאֲסוֹכֵי מַסְכַּן לְהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** document **in which it was written** that the amount due was **six hundred and a dinar,** without specifying to which denomination the six hundred amount referred. **Rav Sherevya sent** this question **before Abaye:** Does the holder of the document collect **six hundred *istira* and a dinar?** *Istira* is another name for a *sela*, which equals four dinars. **Or** is he **perhaps** entitled to collect only **six hundred *perutot* and a dinar,** a *peruta* being a small fraction of a dinar? Abaye **said to him: Remove** the possibility of six hundred ***perutot*, since** people **do not write** large numbers of *perutot* **in a document, as they** instead **combine them** into larger denominations