On today’s daf, we learn about a real estate transaction:
There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling you land of the house of Hiyya.
At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward statement. The seller declares their intent to sell and stipulates the particular piece of property that is being sold. But if this transaction was as straightforward as it seems, we probably wouldn’t be reading about it in the Talmud. And as it turns out, there is a complicating factor:
There were two plots of land that were called of the house of Hiyya.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
This is not the first time that the rabbis have deliberated over a case in which multiple things are referred to by the same name. Back on Yevamot 115, we learned about Yitzhak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, who died during a journey. When a message arrives to report his death, the rabbis ask:
Are we concerned about two men named Yitzhak or not?
Given that the messenger reports only the name of the deceased and brings no other evidence that the man whose death is being reported is the Yitzhak that we know, the question arises: Should we allow Yitzhak’s wife to remarry based upon the report? Or should we be concerned that the messenger is reporting on someone else with the same name and therefore we should not declare the man dead and allow his wife to remarry? Naturally, the rabbis disagree.
Abaye said: We are concerned. Rava said: We are not concerned.
On this matter, the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 17:18) ultimately rules that we allow the woman to remarry as long as we are not aware of another man living with the same name. This implies that if we do know of another man with the same name, there are grounds for concern, and additional information is required to confirm that the deceased is in fact the husband of the woman who wishes to remarry.
In the case on today’s daf, we are certain that there are two pieces of land that are referred to by the same name. So if we apply the same logic, we ought to be concerned. Which parcel is the seller referring to? Or perhaps they are agreeing to sell both parcels?
The matter is brought to Rav Ashi, who rules:
He said to him one. He did not say to him two.
According to Rav Ashi, it’s clear from the singular language of the seller’s statement — “the land of Hiyya,” not “the lands of Hiyya” — that only one piece of land was intended. But which one is it? Rav Ashi doesn’t say. But later commentators rule that if it’s not clear which of the properties is being sold, we default to the one of lesser value, as that is the one that the seller most likely intends to sell.
For the buyer’s sake, I hope this was all clarified before the sale went through. If it wasn’t, I would hope that Rav Ashi recognized how the seller’s imprecise language led to some legitimate confusion on the buyer’s part, and that he would void the sale as a result.
Read all of Bava Batra 61 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 25, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
