Study Bava Metzia folio 102B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ובא מעשה לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולפני רבי יוסי, ואמרו: יחלוקו את חדש העיבור.
And this incident came to court before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before R' Yosei, and they said: The two expressions have contradictory implications, and it is uncertain which expression should be followed. Therefore, the landlord and the renter should divide the intercalary month between them, i.e., the renter should pay half a gold dinar for it.
גמ׳ מעשה לסתור?! חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני: ואם אמר לו בשנים עשר זהובים לשנה מדינר זהב לחדש – יחלוקו. ומעשה נמי בציפורי באחד ששכר מרחץ מחבירו בשנים עשר זהובים לשנה מדינר זהב לחדש, ובא מעשה לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולפני רבי יוסי, ואמרו: יחלוקו את חדש העיבור.
Talmud: The Talmud asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the Mishnah’s initial ruling? The Talmud explains: The latter clause is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: But if the landlord said to the renter that the rent would be: 12 gold dinars per year, a gold dinar per month, and then the year was intercalated, the intercalary month should be divided between them. And in addition, an incident like this occurred in Tzippori involving one who rented a bathhouse from another, and they stated that the rent would be: 12 gold dinars per year, a gold dinar per month, and then the year was intercalated. And this incident came to court before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before R' Yosei, and they said: The landlord and the renter should divide the intercalary month between them.
אמר רב: אי הואי התם, הוה יהיבנא ליה כוליה למשכיר.
Rav said: If I had been there, as a judge, I would have given the entire month to the landlord and ruled that the renter must pay for it. Rav understood that the statement defining the rent should be understood based on the final expression used, i.e., a gold dinar per month.
מאי קא משמע לן? ״תפוס לשון אחרון״!
The Talmud asks: What is Rav teaching us? Could he be teaching that when a statement consists of two expressions with contradictory implications one should attend only to the last statement?