Study Bava Batra folio 105B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Rather, it must be that Shmuel actually meant to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him that one should attend to the latter expression. In fact, he is in agreement with the rabbis who maintain that two contradictory expressions create a case of uncert
Here too, in the case where the seller says that he is selling a kor of grain for 30 sela, each se’a for a sela, the buyer was seen as already being in possession of each se’a that was measured out to him, and therefore the seller cannot renege on the sale. It is for this reason that the buyer acqu
On a similar topic, Rav Huna says that they say in the school of Rav: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this item for an istera, 100 ma’a, an istera being a silver coin equal to 96 copper ma’a, it is assumed he meant 100 ma’a. And if the seller reversed the order and said that he
The Talmud asks: What new halakha is Rav teaching us? Is it that with regard to a statement comprised of contradictory expressions one should attend only to the last statement? Didn’t Rav already say this on another occasion? As Rav says: Had I been there as a judge when the ruling was issued with
The Talmud answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary to state both rulings, as the one cannot necessarily be inferred from the other. If this halakha with regard to the istera was stated and that halakha with regard to the intercalated month was not stated, I would say that when the seller uttered the