Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: In the case of a pit situated between the trees, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that it divides between the trees, and therefore the owner of the trees does not acquire the ground? Similarly, in the case of a stream of water, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that it divides between the trees? With regard to the public thoroughfare that divides between trees, what is the halakha? Finally, in the case of a line of palm trees, what is the halakha? No answer is found for these problems, and the Gemara states that the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

Hillel raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If a cedar grew between the three trees that one bought, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: If it grew, then it emerged in his domain, as he already owns the ground, and therefore it is obvious that the cedar belongs to him. Rather, the dilemma is as follows: If, when one bought three trees, there already was a cedar between them, what is the halakha? Is it considered a division between the three trees? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Since he bought the trees, he has thereby acquired the cedar and acquired the land between them.

The Gemara asks: In what manner must the three trees be positioned for the buyer to acquire the ground between them? Rav says: They may be planted in a straight line, and Shmuel says: They must be planted in the form of a tripod. The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that the trees may be positioned in a straight line, all the more so one acquires the ground when the trees are planted in the form a tripod. But according to the one who says they must be positioned in a tripod, the buyer acquires the ground only in this case; but if the trees were planted in a straight line, he does not acquire the ground. What is the reason? It is because when the trees are planted in the form of a straight line one can sow between them, and therefore the seller would not relinquish his right to the ground between the trees.

Rav Hamnuna objects to this: And according to the one who says that the trees must be planted in the form of a tripod, what is the reason that one who buys the trees acquires the ground? Is it that one cannot sow between the trees? But if that is so, in a case where he sold him three Roman thorny shrubs, where one cannot sow between them, so too would he say that the purchaser has ownership of the ground? The other Sage said to Rav Hamnuna: Those Roman shrubs are not significant, as they are merely shrubs and not trees, and therefore the ground is not acquired when one purchases them. By contrast, these trees are important.

MISHNA: One who sells the head of a large domesticated animal has not sold along with it the forelegs, as each part is considered important in its own right. All the more so, if one sold the forelegs he has not sold the head. Similarly, if one sold the windpipe and the lungs he has not sold the liver, despite the fact that they are sometimes attached, and if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs. But in the case of small domesticated animals, if one sold the head he has sold the forelegs, although if one sold the legs he has not sold the head. Likewise, if one sold the windpipe and lungs he has sold the liver, but if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs.

There are four basic cases with regard to sellers and buyers. If the seller sold him wheat and said that the wheat was good, and it is found to be bad, the buyer, but not the seller, can renege on the sale. If the seller sold him what he thought was bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can renege on the sale but the buyer cannot. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither one of them can renege on the sale, as the condition of the sale was met.

If the seller sold reddish-brown wheat and it is found to be white, or white wheat and it is found to be reddish-brown, and similarly, if he sold olive wood and it is found to be wood of a sycamore, or he sold wood of a sycamore and it is found to be wood of an olive tree, or if the seller sold him wine and it is found to be vinegar, or vinegar and it is found to be wine, in all of these cases both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. Since the sale was for a different item than that which was delivered, the transaction can be nullified even if there was no mistake with regard to the price.

GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda says: If the seller sold him an item that was worth five dinars for six dinars, and the item became more expensive and its value stood at eight dinars, and the seller wished to return the money and cancel the sale because the item’s value had increased, who was exploited here? The buyer; therefore, the buyer, but not the seller, can renege on the sale, despite the fact that in such a situation the seller loses out. This is because