In a case where Reuven and Shimon divided their inheritance, and their father's creditor came and claimed Reuven's portion, Rav says 'Batlah Machlokes', and Shmuel says 'Viter'. Rav's ruling is based on the S'vara that brothers are Yorshin - in that each one receives his own portion, in which case the obligation to pay their father's debts rests equally on each one of them. Consequently, in the event that the creditor takes from one of them, the original division becomes invalid, and they are obligated to redistribute the property.

The basis for Shmuel's ruling is that - brothers are (not Yorshin, but) Lekuchos (purchasers), and Lekuchos without Achrayus, as if they had bought the exclusive rights to their respective portions from each other. Consequently, the one is not responsible for the other.

Shmuel considers them Lekuchos without Achrayus because, he assumes, each brother does not want his portion to be Meshubad to his brother either. His own ruling 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer' (which teaches us that we insert Achrayos in a Shtar, even if it was not stipulated) he confines to a Shtar Mecher, where the purchaser paid for the field, and doesn't want his money to go 'down the drain'.

Seeing as the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yesh B'reirah' (Rav) or 'Ein Bereirah' (Shmuel), the other ramifications of this Machlokes are whether they need to redistribute the property after each Yovel (Shmuel) or not (Rav).

Rav Asi, who is not sure whether brothers are considered Yorshin or Lekuchos - authorizes Reuven to reclaim a quarter of Shimon's field (half his claim), either in land or in cash ...

... because, Shimon can claim, that is the choice he would have had had the creditor claimed his debt from him.

Alternatively, we might interpret Rav Asi's Safek to be - whether brothers are Yorshin, in which case Shimon must pay Reuven half the field in Karka, or Lekuchos with Achrayus, in which case, he may pay in cash.

Consequently, 'Revi'a be'Karka, u'Revi'a be'Ma'os' means - a quarter of each (to accommodate both opinions).

We reject this latter explanation however on the grounds that - usually, in a triple Machlokes of this nature, the third opinion's doubts are basically a compromise between the opinions of the first two disputants and is not a third opinion (see also Tosfos DH 've'Rav'), in which case when Levi says Lekuchos, he means Lekuchos without Achrayus (like Shmuel).

In the above cases (where after they divided their father's property, a third brother arrived from overseas, or their father's creditor claimed his debt from one of them), Rav Papa rules 'Mekamtzin'. He considers brothers who inherit to be - Yorshin (like Rav, even though Rav holds 'Batlah Machlokes').

We rule like Ameimar - who follows the opinion of Rav in its entirety.

Included in Ameimar's ruling is the case where - the brothers erred and included in the division a field which their father had stolen.

In the event that the father's creditor claims only half of one of the brother's portion, the Din will be 'Batlah Machlokes' (just as it is there where he claimed the whole field).

The Beraisa discusses a case where the three members of Beis-Din differ in their assessment of the property - of Yesomim with the intention of selling a field in order to feed the Almanah and her daughters (e.g. the mother and sisters of the Yesomim).

If two out of the three Dayaninm assess a field at a Manah, and the third Dayan assesses it at two Manah, or vice-versa - we follow the majority opinion.

The source for this ruling is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Acharei Rabim Lehatos".

According to the Tana Kama, if one Dayan gives the value as a Manah, the second as twenty Sela'im and the third as thirty Sela'im, the field is sold at a Manah, which contains ...

... twenty-five Sela'im and ...

... a hundred Dinarim.

The Tana Kama's reason is because on the one hand, the lowest assessor and the middle assessor agree that the price is not more than a Manah, and on the other, the highest assessor agrees with the middle assessor that the price is not less than a Manah, turning both the one who says more and the one who says less into a minority opinion.

If, according to the Tana Kama, the highest assessment is twenty-eight Sela'im (and not thirty) - the Din will remain the same, and the field will be sold for a Manah.

The basis for Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok's opinion, that the field is sold for ninety Dinrim is that - we take the average between the two lowest assessments and assume that each one erred by ten Dinrim.

We object to this reasoning however. on the grounds that - if that were so why would we not take the average between the two higher assessments and say that the field is really worth a hundred and ten Dinrim, and each one erred by ten Dinrim.

We overrule this objection however - by applying the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta' (whenever there is a Safek concerning two amounts, we adopt the lower amount, which is inevitably included in the higher one). Consequently here, where everyone agrees that the field is worth somewhere in the vicinity of a Manah, either a little more or a little less, we rather assume a little less.

Still in the same Beraisa, when Acherim says 'Osin Shuma beinehen u'Meshalshin', he means that - since three assessors argue over a margin of error that spans forty Din'rim (between eighty and a hundred and twenty Dinrim), we divide the discrepancy into three (thirteen and a third Dinrim) and add it on to the lowest figure, to sell the field at ninety-three and a third Dinrim.

Following the same pattern as Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, Acherim assumes that the two lower assessors will err by thirteen and a third Dinarim. He did not price the field at a hundred and six and two thirds Dinrim (thirteen and a third Dinarim more that the real price) - because he did not want to differ too much with the lower assessor (settling for a nice round Manah).

We object to this however, (as we objected to Rebbi b'Rebbi Tzadok) inasmuch as we ought then to assume the field to be worth a hundred and thirteen and a third Dinarim, and the middle assessor erred by thirteen and a third Dinrim; and it is the higher assessor who really ought to have added thirteen and a third Dinrim more than the real price (and settles for thirty Sela'im).

We overrule this objection however, in the same way as we overruled the previous one - by applying the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta ... '.

The Tana Kama argues with the other two Tana'im in that he prefers to render one of the assessors correct, even if it means widening the margin of error between each of the other two assessors.

Rav Ashi objected when Rav Huna ruled like Acherim - because, if his reasoning is not logical, how can we rule like him.

Rav Ashi would have ruled like - the Tana Kama.

Rav Ashi made the same comment with regard to Rav Huna ruling like Daynei Golah (Shmuel and Karna), who in turn, ruled like Acherim.

We do not query the fact that Rav Huna issued two identical rulings - because it is obvious that Rav Huna really only issued one ruling, only we assume a. that he would have ruled the same with regard to the other, and b. that Rav Ashi's objection would apply there too.

Our Mishnah discusses a case where Reuven sells Shimon half a field. He is obligated to build a wall around Shimon's newly-acquired property, and to build a Charitz - a ditch, and a ben Charitz - a small ditch he digs in front of the large one.

The sizes of the two ditchesz are - six and three Tefachim wide respectively.

The Tana teaches us this Halachah particularly in the case of where he sold him half a field - because in a case where he sold a whole one, he sells it as is, and there is nothing to add.

When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that the purchaser receives the weakest part of the field, he means that the owner has the choice of giving him his half from whichever part of the field he chooses ...

... because with anything that is not clearly specified, the purchaser always has the underhand.

And from the statement in the Mishnah 'Meshamnin beinehen', Rebbi Chiya bar Aba extrapolated - that the seller is obligated to give the purchaser literally half the field.

Rebbi Yochanan introduced his reply with the words 'a'de'Achlas Kafneyasa be'Bavel ... ' meaning that - the questioner had spent too much time in Bavel (from where he came) eating dates and general self-indulgence, instead of studying Torah diligently.

Rebbi Yochanan did not answer his question directly, but quoted him the Seifa of our Mishnah, which concludes 've'Notel Chetzyah be'Darom', a proof that the MIsshnah cannot be taken literally ...

... because if we were to take the Mishnah ('Chetzyah be'Darom') literally, (in the way that Rebi Chiya bar Aba larned in the Reisha) what sense would 'Meshamnin beineihen' make?

He therefore explained ...

... 'Chetzyah she'ba'Darom' in the Seifa - to mean li'Demei (to the value of, but not literally), ahd the same will apply to ...

... 'Chatzi Sadeh' in the Reisha.

... and 'Meshamnin beinehen' means that - they assess between them as to where he will receive it, which in practical terms, means that the onus lies on the claimant to prove that he has a right to the better-quality land.

The purpose of ...

... the ditches is to stop wild animals from entering the field.

... the ben Charitz is to prevent them from jumping into the ditch (which is wide enough for them to jump into, move to the back and take a running jump into the field).

... the Charitz is to prevent them from simply jumping over the ben Charitz into the field.

The distance between the ben Charitz and the Charitz is one Tefach.