is in fact worth ninety dinars, and the one who says it is worth twenty sela, which is equivalent to eighty dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, i.e., too low, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead, i.e., too high. Therefore, the average of these two assessments is followed.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and ten dinars, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is ten dinars behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equivalent to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is ten dinars ahead. If so, the average of these two assessments, one hundred and ten dinars, should be followed. The Gemara replies: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them takes the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

The baraita teaches that Aḥerim say that an appraisal is performed of the sum between the two most extreme assessments and then divided by three. This sum is then added to the lowest assessment. The Gemara explains this opinion: Aḥerim hold that this land is in fact worth ninety-three and one-third dinars. The one who says it is worth twenty sela, the equivalent of eighty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, that assessor should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and six and two-thirds dinars. And the reason that he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth eighty dinars. Therefore, he lowers the sum of his assessment to one hundred dinars.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, say that this land is in fact worth one hundred and thirteen dinars and one-third, and the one who says it is worth one hundred dinars errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third behind, and the one who says it is worth thirty sela, which is equal to one hundred and twenty dinars, errs with an assessment that is thirteen dinars and one-third ahead. By right, he should have said more, i.e., quoted a higher sum, since according to this calculation, he should have said it is worth one hundred and twenty-six dinars and two-thirds. And the reason he did not do so is that he thinks as follows: It is enough that I add this much above and beyond the assessment of my colleague who says it is worth one hundred dinars. The Gemara answers: In any event, grasp the first two assessments in your hand, as neither of them take the assessment beyond the sum of one hundred dinars.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, who say that the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments is calculated and then divided by three, and this sum is then added to the lowest assessment. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reason of Aḥerim; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion? The judges of the Diaspora taught a baraita that accords with the opinion of Aḥerim in the previously cited baraita: An appraisal is performed to determine the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments and then that sum is divided by three and added to the lowest assessment. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the judges of the Diaspora. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reasoning of the judges of the Diaspora; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion?

MISHNA: If one says to another: I am selling you half a field, without specifying which half he is selling, an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, and the buyer takes half of the seller’s field. If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. And he accepts upon himself to provide the space for the fence between the two halves of the field out of his own property. He also accepts to provide out of his own property the space for the larger ditch and the smaller ditch, which are meant to keep animals out of the field. And how wide is the larger ditch? Six handbreadths. And how wide is the smaller ditch? Three handbreadths.

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When one sells half of his field to another person, the buyer takes the leaner part of the field, the part that is of lower quality. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that in such a case an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, which indicates that the buyer and the seller are given similar parcels of land? How then can you say that the buyer takes the leaner part? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in a sarcastic manner: While you were eating dates in Babylonia and neglecting your studies, we explained the matter based on the latter clause of the mishna, which proves that my understanding is correct.

As the latter clause teaches: If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. If taken literally, this passage gives rise to a difficulty: Why is an assessment made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them? In any case, didn’t he say to him that he is selling him the southern half? Let the seller give the buyer the southern half of the field. Why is an assessment necessary? Rather, it must be that the matter is more complicated than it seems, and the mishna is referring to money. That is to say, the buyer takes the southern half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field. Here too, in the first case, the mishna is referring to money: The buyer takes the leaner half, but the seller must reimburse him with money for the difference in value between the two halves of the field.

§ The mishna teaches that the buyer accepts upon himself to provide out of his own property the space for the fence between the two halves of the field and for the larger and smaller ditches. A Sage taught in a baraita: The larger ditch is dug on the outside, while the smaller ditch is dug on the inside, closer to the field. Both this and that are dug behind the fence,