And if after this calculation there is still a surplus in excess of a quarter-kav per se’a, equal in size to an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed, the entire surplus must be returned.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman: The mishna teaches that if the surplus in the field was an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed, the buyer returns the land to the seller. Isn’t this the halakha even in a case where he sold him a field measuring two kor? This would seem to indicate that even if the surplus does not exceed a quarter-kav per se’a, as a quarter-kav per se’a in a field of two kor is fifteen kav, the sole determining factor is whether or not the surplus is equal in size to an area required for the sowing of nine kav. Rav Naḥman rejects this argument: No, the case in the mishna is specifically where he sold him a field measuring one kor.

Rava raised a further objection to Rav Naḥman: We learned in the continuation of the mishna that if the surplus in a garden was an area required for the sowing of a half-kav of seed, the buyer returns the land to the seller. Isn’t this the halakha even in a case where he sold him a garden measuring two se’a? Once again, this would seem to indicate that the surplus is returned to the seller, provided that it is equal in size to the minimum measure of a garden, even if the surplus does not exceed one-half of a kav per two se’a, which is equivalent to one-quarter of a kav per se’a. Rav Naḥman rejects this argument as well: No, the case in the mishna is where he sold him a garden measuring a se’a, so that the surplus is proportionately twice as large.

Rava raised yet another objection to Rav Naḥman from the next clause in the mishna, which states: Or, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, if the surplus in the garden was an area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed, the buyer returns the land to the seller. What, isn’t this the halakha even in a case where he sold him a garden measuring a se’a? In that case, the surplus does not exceed one-quarter of a kav per se’a, and nevertheless the surplus is returned to the seller, provided that it is equal in size to the minimum measure of a garden. Rav Naḥman also rejects this argument: No, the case in the mishna is where he sold him a garden measuring a half-se’a, so that the surplus is proportionately twice as large.

The mishna teaches that in the case of a field, the buyer can return the land itself if the surplus was an area required for the sowing of nine kav of seed, and in the case of a garden, if the surplus was an area required for the sowing of a half-kav of seed. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one sold a field and it turned out that the plot was larger than had been stipulated, but before the buyer returned the surplus, the plot was turned into a garden, or if it was initially a garden and it was turned into a field (see 11a), what is the halakha? Is the surplus governed by the halakhot applying to a field or by those applying to a garden? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved, as no answer has been found.

A Sage taught in a baraita: If the field being sold was adjacent to another field belonging to the seller, then even if the surplus was of a minimal amount, the buyer can return the land itself to the seller, and the seller cannot demand payment in money. This is because the seller loses nothing when he receives a small tract of land, as he can cultivate it along with his adjoining field.

Rav Ashi raises a set of dilemmas: With regard to a pit between the surplus in the sold field and the adjoining field belonging to the seller, what is the halakha: Should the pit be considered an interposition between the two fields? With regard to a water channel between the two fields, what is the halakha: Should the water channel be considered an interposition? With regard to the public thoroughfare, what is the halakha: Should the public thoroughfare be considered an interposition? With regard to a row of palm trees, what is the halakha: Should a row of palm trees be considered an interposition? The Gemara states: All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

§ The mishna teaches that if the surplus is greater than a quarter-kav per se’a, it is not only the quarter-kav that the buyer returns; rather, he returns all of the surplus. Since he is already required to make a refund, the refund must be made in the precise amount. The Gemara raises a question: Isn’t it the opposite [kelappei layya]? The buyer is required to return the surplus even when the quarters of a kav remain in his possession. Ravin bar Rav Naḥman taught the mishna as follows: Not only must the buyer return the extra land that is beyond the limit of a quarter-kav area per beit se’a, but he must also return to him every one of the extra quarter-kav areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a beit kor. When he is required to return the surplus, he returns not only the surplus, but also all the quarter-kav areas over and above what had originally been stipulated to be included in the sale.

MISHNA: If the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size measured precisely with a rope more or less, thereby attaching to the sale two contradictory stipulations; in this case, the words: More or less, nullify the words: Measured precisely with a rope. Accordingly, if the surplus did not exceed a quarter-kav per se’a, the sale is valid as is. Similarly, if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size more or less measured precisely with a rope,