Study Bava Metzia folio 102B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And this incident came to court before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before R' Yosei, and they said: The two expressions have contradictory implications, and it is uncertain which expression should be followed. Therefore, the landlord and the renter should divide the intercalary month between them,
Talmud: The Talmud asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the Mishnah’s initial ruling? The Talmud explains: The latter clause is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: But if the landlord said to the renter that the rent would be: 12 gold dinars per year, a gold dinar per month, and then
Rav said: If I had been there, as a judge, I would have given the entire month to the landlord and ruled that the renter must pay for it. Rav understood that the statement defining the rent should be understood based on the final expression used, i.e., a gold dinar per month.
The Talmud asks: What is Rav teaching us? Could he be teaching that when a statement consists of two expressions with contradictory implications one should attend only to the last statement?
But didn’t Rav already say that one time before, as Rav Huna said with regard to a case in which a seller fixed the price for an item using two different expressions that indicate different amounts and the buyer agreed and took the item: They say in the study hall of Rav that if the seller said: An