There, in the case of the sale of land, the reason the buyer may keep the extra land when it is less than the acceptable limit is that the seller said to him: I am selling you this piece of land whether it is slightly less or slightly more than a beit kor, i.e., he agrees to accept a small deviation from the stated area. But while an extra quarter-kav area per beit se’a is not significant, and therefore the seller is willing to forgo it, more than a quarter-kav area per beit se’a is significant, and the seller is not willing to forgo any of it. Consequently, all of the extra land must be returned. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna’s ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepts this possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities is greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

The Gemara explains why more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se’a of land is significant: The reason is that since all those extra areas of land are fit to combine together to form an area in which one could sow nine kav of seed, the extra land is a significant plot of land in its own right, and therefore it must all be returned. The land that was sold was stated to be a beit kor, which is thirty beit se’a. If the area of the extra land was of a proportion somewhat more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se’a of land, then thirty such areas would collectively be about equal to an area required to sow nine kav.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna’s ruling from a baraita: The halakha of price exploitation is that if the disparity is less than one-sixth of the value of the merchandise, the merchandise is acquired immediately and the sum of the exploitation need not be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, then the transaction is nullified. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the entire sum of the exploitation.

The Gemara explains the proof: Why, in the case where the disparity is precisely one-sixth, is the entire sum of the exploitation returned? Instead, let him return only a small amount of the exploitation until the difference is less than one-sixth. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the fact that he must return the entire sum that when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna’s ruling.

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of exploitation, the seller initially said to the buyer that he would sell the merchandise for a sum equal to its value. Any price difference should be unacceptable. But a disparity of less than one-sixth is not recognizable in a sale worth one hundred dinars, and a person will forgo it. By contrast, a disparity of one-sixth is considered significant, and a person will not forgo it. Consequently, the entire sum of the exploitation must be returned. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, it is a mistaken transaction and the transaction is nullified. By contrast, in the case of Rav Huna’s ruling, the buyer is aware that it is normal to have a certain proportion of impurities mixed in and accepted that possibility from the outset. Accordingly, even if the proportion of impurities was greater than the acceptable limit, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities above the acceptable limit.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna’s ruling from a baraita: When one receives a field from another under a contract to plant trees in it, then this field owner accepts upon himself that there may be ten deficient trees per every hundred trees planted, as he is aware that not every tree planted will necessarily flourish. If the number of deficient trees is more than this, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to replace all of those trees, and not only the number of trees above the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna’s ruling.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: There is no proof from this case, because any time there are more than this number of deficient trees, the overall area that contains the deficient trees is of a size equivalent to a whole field. Therefore, the contractor is comparable to one who comes to plant a whole field from the outset, who has not fulfilled his remit if he plants only a few trees; rather, he must plant the entire area. But in the case of Rav Huna’s ruling, the impurities never constitute an independent unit; consequently, it might be sufficient if the seller takes back only the quantity of impurities that is above the acceptable limit.

§ The mishna teaches: When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, one accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the sale? If one said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, with-out specification of which cellar he meant, it is difficult, as the Gemara will soon explain. And if he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult.

The Gemara elaborates: If he said to him: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, it is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita: If one said to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, i.e., the buyer does not have to accept any quantity of souring wine. If he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he may give him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of the quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour. If he said: I am selling to you this particular cellar, without mentioning the word: Wine, then even if everything he gives him is wine that had turned into vinegar, it has come to the buyer and the sale is valid. The mishna’s ruling that the buyer must accept that up to ten percent of the wine might be souring does not accord with any of the rulings of the baraita.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna concerns a case when he said to the buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, without specification of which cellar he was selling. And emend the baraita and teach the following qualification in the first clause of the baraita: And the buyer accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased.

The Gemara challenges this addition: But if he sold the buyer a wine cellar without specification of which one he was selling, does the buyer accept upon himself any souring wine at all? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One who sells a barrel of wine to another must give him wine that is all of good quality? The Gemara answers: A barrel is different, because the wine inside is all one body of wine of the same quality.

The Gemara once again challenges the addition: But didn’t Rav Zevid teach a baraita of the school of Rabbi Oshaya: If one says to a buyer: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality? Similarly, if he said: I am selling to you this particular wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten souring barrels per hundred barrels.