and he gave him even the slightest amount less that what was stipulated, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price of the field and return money to the buyer. If he gave him even the slightest amount more than what was stipulated, the buyer must return the difference to the seller. The reason that even the slightest difference in value must be returned is that the seller specified that he was selling land measured precisely with a rope. But had he sold the land without further specification, it would be like he sold it saying that it is a beit kor more or less.

The Gemara rejects this argument by proposing another, completely opposite proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And if the seller said to the buyer that he is selling him a beit kor of land more or less, then even if he gave him one-quarter of a kav per se’a less than what was stipulated, or he gave him one-quarter of a kav per se’a more than what was stipulated, it is his and the sale is valid. One can infer: The reason that the sale is valid is that he specified that he was selling a beit kor of land more or less. But had he sold the land without further specification, it would be like he sold it saying that he was selling the land measured precisely with a rope. Rather, since the mishna can be interpreted in two opposite ways, no inference is to be learned from the mishna.

The Gemara tries to present another proof: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of earth the size of a beit kor; or he said to him: I am selling you a plot of earth about the size of a beit kor; or he said to him: I am selling you a beit kor more or less; then even if he gave him one-quarter of a kav per se’a less than what was stipulated, or he gave him one-quarter of a kav per se’a more than what was stipulated, it is his and the sale is valid. One can infer: Apparently, selling a beit kor of land without further specification is also like selling it more or less. The Gemara rejects this proof: There, the tanna is explaining his statement, which should be understood as follows: When is the phrase a beit kor treated like the phrase about the size of a beit kor? In a case where the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a beit kor more or less.

Rav Ashi objects to this: If that is so, then why do I need to repeat the words: I am selling you, three times? The fact that the baraita repeats these words in each clause indicates that it is discussing three separate sale transactions, and not that the three clauses are all referring to one case. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the baraita that selling a beit kor of land without further specification is like selling it more or less? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

§ With regard to a buyer who received too much land and now must compensate the seller, the mishna teaches: What does he return to him? He pays him money, and if the seller so wishes, the buyer returns the surplus land to him, because the Sages said that the buyer pays money in order to enhance the power of the seller. In other words, the Sages allowed the seller to choose whether to take back the surplus land or to demand payment for it from the buyer, even though this effectively forces the buyer to purchase the surplus land from him. The Gemara asks: Is it correct that we say that the seller’s power should be enhanced, and that we do not say that the buyer’s power should be enhanced?

But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: If the seller gave the buyer seven and a half kav per kor less than what was stipulated, which is the equivalent of a quarter-kav per se’a, as a kor is equal to thirty se’a, or he gave him seven and a half kav per kor more than what was stipulated, it is his and the sale is valid. If the difference is greater than that amount, the court compels the seller to sell and the buyer to buy the difference. This indicates that we also say that the buyer’s power should be enhanced, since if the buyer so wishes, the seller is compelled to sell him land and accept payment for it.

The Gemara replies: There, the baraita is not discussing a case where the buyer wishes to acquire the surplus land, but rather with a case where the land was initially, at the time of the sale, expensive, but now it is cheap, and the seller wants the buyer to pay him for the surplus land according to the initial higher rate. In this case, we say to the seller, in the name of the buyer: If you wish to give me land and receive money, give me the land according to the current, cheaper rate. This is what the baraita is referring to when it states that the seller is compelled to sell.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When he gives him money in payment for the surplus land, he gives it to him according to the rate at which he had bought the rest of the land from him? The Gemara replies: There the baraita is referring to a case where the land was initially cheap but now it is expensive. If, in such a case, the seller wants the buyer to pay him for the surplus land, he is compelled to sell it to him according to the cheap rate from the time of the original sale.

§ The mishna teaches: As, if the surplus in the field was an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed, and in a garden an area required for the sowing of a half-kav of seed, or, according to the Rabbi Akiva, an area required for the sowing of a quarter-kav of seed, the buyer can return the surplus land to the seller, and the seller cannot demand payment in money. Rav Huna says: The halakha that was stated in the mishna, that a surplus in the size of an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed can be returned to the seller, applies even in a large valley which measures several kor. If the surplus is a significant plot of land equal in size to an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed, the buyer can return it to the seller, even if it is less than one-quarter of a kav per se’a, i.e., less than one twenty-fourth the size of the field that was sold.

And Rav Naḥman says: He calculates seven and a half kav for each and every kor, which is equivalent to one-quarter of a kav per se’a. As long as the surplus does not exceed that ratio, he is not required to return it, even if the surplus is greater than the area required for the sowing of nine kav.