## Bava Batra Daf 83b

###### Bava Batra 83b:1
[Bava Batra 83b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:1)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בּוֹר, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַהוּ? רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלֵי מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** In the case of **a pit** situated between the trees, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to the possibility **that it divides** between the trees, and therefore the owner of the trees does not acquire the ground? Similarly, in the case of **a stream of water, what is** the *halakha* with regard to the possibility **that it divides** between the trees? With regard to the **public thoroughfare** that divides between trees, **what is** the *halakha*? Finally, in the case of **a line of palm trees, what is** the *halakha*? No answer is found for these problems, and the Gemara states that the dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Batra 83b:2
[Bava Batra 83b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:2)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ הִלֵּל מֵרַבִּי: עָלָה אֶרֶז בֵּינֵיהֶן, מַהוּ? ״עָלָה״?! בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִידֵיהּ נְפַק! אֶלָּא ״הָיָה אֶרֶז בֵּינֵיהֶן, מַהוּ?״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָנָה וְקָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Hillel raises a dilemma before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: If **a cedar grew between** the three trees that one bought, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara asks: If it **grew,** then it **emerged in his domain,** as he already owns the ground, and therefore it is obvious that the cedar belongs to him. **Rather,** the dilemma is as follows: If, when one bought three trees, **there** already **was a cedar between them, what is** the *halakha*? Is it considered a division between the three trees? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him:** Since he bought the trees, **he** has thereby **acquired** the cedar **and acquired** the land between them.


###### Bava Batra 83b:3
[Bava Batra 83b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:3)

כֵּיצַד הֵן עוֹמְדִים? רַב אָמַר: כְּשׁוּרָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כַּחֲצוּבָא. מַאן דְּאָמַר כְּשׁוּרָה – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן כַּחֲצוּבָא; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר כַּחֲצוּבָא – אֲבָל כְּשׁוּרָה לָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיזְדְּרַע בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what manner** must the three trees be **positioned** for the buyer to acquire the ground between them? **Rav says:** They may be planted **in a straight line, and Shmuel says:** They must be planted **in** the form of **a tripod.** The Gemara notes: According to **the one who says** that the trees may be positioned **in a straight line, all the more so** one acquires the ground when the trees are planted **in** the form of **a tripod. But** according to **the one who says** they must be positioned **in a tripod,** the buyer acquires the ground only in this case; **but** if the trees were planted **in a straight line,** he does **not** acquire the ground. **What is the reason?** It is **because** when the trees are planted in the form of a straight line **one can sow between them,** and therefore the seller would not relinquish his right to the ground between the trees.


###### Bava Batra 83b:4
[Bava Batra 83b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר כַּחֲצוּבָא, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּלָא מִיזְדְּרַע בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, זַבֵּין לֵיהּ תְּלָת הִיגֵי רוֹמָיָיתָא, דְּלָא מִיזְדְּרַע בֵּינְתַיְיהוּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע?! אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָנָךְ לָא חֲשִׁיבִי, הָנָךְ חֲשִׁיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna objects to this: And according to the one who says** that the trees must be planted **in** the form of **a tripod, what is the reason** that one who buys the trees acquires the ground? Is it **that one cannot sow between** the trees? **But if that is so,** in a case where **he sold him three Roman thorny shrubs, where one cannot sow between them, so too** would he say **that** the purchaser **has** ownership of the **ground?** The other Sage **said to** Rav Hamnuna: **Those** Roman shrubs **are not significant,** as they are merely shrubs and not trees, and therefore the ground is not acquired when one purchases them. By contrast, **these** trees **are important.**


###### Bava Batra 83b:5
[Bava Batra 83b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹכֵר רֹאשׁ בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הָרַגְלַיִם, מָכַר אֶת הָרַגְלַיִם – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הָרֹאשׁ. מָכַר אֶת הַקָּנֶה – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הַכָּבֵד, מָכַר אֶת הַכָּבֵד – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הַקָּנֶה. אֲבָל בְּדַקָּה; מָכַר אֶת הָרֹאשׁ – מָכַר אֶת הָרַגְלַיִם, מָכַר אֶת הָרַגְלַיִם – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הָרֹאשׁ. מָכַר אֶת הַקָּנֶה – מָכַר אֶת הַכָּבֵד, מָכַר אֶת הַכָּבֵד – לֹא מָכַר אֶת הַקָּנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who sells the head** of **a large domesticated animal has not sold** along with it **the forelegs,** as each part is considered important in its own right. All the more so, if one **sold the forelegs he has not sold the head.** Similarly, if one **sold the windpipe** and the lungs **he has not sold the liver,** despite the fact that they are sometimes attached, and if he **sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe** and lungs. **But in** the case of **small** domesticated animals, if one **sold the head he has sold the forelegs,** although if one **sold the legs he has not sold the head.** Likewise, if one **sold the windpipe** and lungs **he has sold the liver,** but if he **sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe** and lungs.


###### Bava Batra 83b:6
[Bava Batra 83b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:6)

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בַּמּוֹכְרִין: מָכַר לוֹ חִטִּין יָפוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ רָעוֹת – הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. רָעוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת – מוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. רָעוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ רָעוֹת; יָפוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת – אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There are **four** basic **cases with regard to sellers** and buyers. If the seller **sold him wheat** and said that the wheat was **good, and it is found** to be **bad, the buyer,** but not the seller, **can renege on** the sale. If the seller sold him what he thought was **bad** wheat **and it is found** to be **good, the seller can renege on** the sale but the buyer cannot. If he sold **bad** wheat **and it is found** to be **bad,** or **good** wheat **and it is found** to be **good, neither one of them can renege on** the sale, as the condition of the sale was met.


###### Bava Batra 83b:7
[Bava Batra 83b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:7)

שְׁחַמְתִּית וְנִמְצֵאת לְבָנָה, לְבָנָה וְנִמְצֵאת שְׁחַמְתִּית; עֵצִים שֶׁל זַיִת וְנִמְצְאוּ שֶׁל שִׁקְמָה, שֶׁל שִׁקְמָה וְנִמְצְאוּ שֶׁל זַיִת; יַיִן וְנִמְצָא חוֹמֶץ, חוֹמֶץ וְנִמְצָא יַיִן – שְׁנֵיהֶם יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the seller sold **reddish-brown** wheat **and it is found** to be **white,** or **white** wheat **and it is found** to be **reddish-brown,** and similarly, if he sold **olive wood and it is found** to be wood **of a sycamore,** or he sold wood **of a sycamore and it is found** to be wood **of an olive** tree, or if the seller sold him **wine and it is found** to be **vinegar,** or **vinegar and it is found** to be **wine,** in all of these cases **both** the seller and the buyer **can renege on** the sale. Since the sale was for a different item than that which was delivered, the transaction can be nullified even if there was no mistake with regard to the price.


###### Bava Batra 83b:8
[Bava Batra 83b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/83b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה חָמֵשׁ – בְּשֵׁשׁ, וְהוּקַר וְעָמַד עַל שְׁמֹנֶה, מִי נִתְאַנָּה? לוֹקֵחַ. לוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, וְלֹא מוֹכֵר; מִשּׁוּם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ḥisda says:** If the seller **sold him** an item that was **worth five** dinars **for six** dinars, **and** the item **became more expensive and** its value **stood at eight** dinars, and the seller wished to return the money and cancel the sale because the item’s value had increased, **who was exploited** here? **The buyer;** therefore, **the buyer, but not the seller, can renege on** the sale, despite the fact that in such a situation the seller loses out. This is **because**