Explanation #3 (cont.): He said to him as follows. [The rental] is 12 gold coins for the year. Because rental is paid only at the end, he needed to stipulate that he must pay at the end of every month one Dinar of the 12 gold coins that he is liable for the year.

Support: We can explain like this also in Bava Metzi'a (102b).

Observation: We need all three teachings of Rav:

The case of Istira, we could say that it is not because the latter expression is primary, rather, because Perushei Ka Mefaresh, like Rashi explained;

Also from the case of a landlord, we cannot learn that the latter expression is primary, for we could say that Perushei Ka Mefaresh, like the Rashbam explained, or because he holds like Rav Nachman, that land stands in its owner's Chazakah;

Therefore, we need the case of a Kor for 30, each Se'ah for a Sela, that he acquires each Se'ah [once it is measured out].

Observation: We could not learn from that teaching alone, for one might have thought that it is because he is Tafis (holding it), and even if he said them oppositely (each Se'ah for a Sela, a Kor for 30), like Shmuel. Therefore, we need all three teachings.

Question (Ri): If so, how do we know that Rav holds that the latter expression is primary? (We can reject the proof from each teaching!)

Answer: These rejections are not primary. (Really, the reason for all of them is because the latter expression is primary.)

Explanation: Similarly, we need Shmuel's three teachings;

From the case in which Shmuel establishes that he came in the middle of the month, one might have thought like R. Aba rejected above, that Perushei Ka Mefaresh, but normally, the latter expression is primary;

From the case in which he acquires each Se'ah [once it is measured out], one might have thought that it is because the latter expression is primary, like according to Rav. Therefore, he needed to teach "but Chachamim say, we follow the smaller expression", and [Shmuel said] this (is Ben Nanas' opinion), but [Shmuel] does not hold like it;

The case in which he came in the middle of the month, he needed to teach to explain the Mishnah;

The case of acquiring each Se'ah [once it is measured out], he needed to teach that his Tefisah is Tefisah;

From the case of the landlord, we cannot learn Tefisah, for one might have thought that it is because he admitted to him.

Alternative text: However, Seforim in which the text says "less than a sixth, the sale stands", Rav Yehudah explains that the deficiency was up to a sixth, but not including a sixth, even though it was not taught "Ad (until)"?

Support: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (51b). "How much can a Sela lack, and Ona'ah does not apply?" the Gemara wanted to explain this "until how much."

Question: According to this text, it is difficult, for it says in the Gemara "Rav Huna explains as follows. Less than a sixth, and a sixth itself, the sale stands." The Mishnah is explicitly like him! (What is his Chidush?)

Question: Granted, Rav Yehudah, who said that a sixth is like more than a sixth, it is fine that the Mishnah did not teach that for a sixth, he deducts, for I would have thought that more than a sixth, the sale is Batel;

However, according to Rav Huna, who says that a sixth is like less than a sixth, it should teach that for a sixth, the sale stands, and all the more so for less than a sixth!

Answer: It mentioned this to give the reason for the matter. Less than a sixth is obvious (it is pardoned), and he says that automatically, a sixth is like less than a sixth.

Observation: Now that we say so, [also] according to Rav Yehudah, we can answer the Seifa like this.

Explanation: It means as follows. Rav Huna can say to you "rather, than challenge me, support me from what it taught 'the sale stands', which connotes that a sixth is like less than a sixth!"

Rather, this that it taught "like the estimation of judges" is not because it is like more than a sixth. Rather, it is like the estimation of judges regarding a sixth;

Just like there, the Shi'ur there, so is the Shi'ur here. This teaches that the Shi'ur is not a Rova per Se'ah, like when he said "be it less or more."

Rav Yehudah, who challenged Rav Huna from it, he understands that it teaches as follows. If he gave too little, up to a sixth, or gave too much, up to a sixth, this is like the estimation of judges, and the sale stands;

Also in the estimation of judges, up to a sixth the sale stands, but a sixth and more than a sixth, the sale is not valid.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He gives to each a third, and they divide.

Inference: He connotes that they divide without a lottery.

Question: Why should he be worse [than them]? They received through a lottery, and they give to him what they want, without a lottery! He can tell them "I appraise [your portions] for you expensively, like property of Bar Meryon"!

We hold like Rav Yosef above (12b), and even through a lottery, [the brother who came now] does not cast with each individually, rather, with both of them together, so he will get a portion in one place!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rather, they give parts of their portions, e.g. if there are three fields, and each took a field and the third they divided, and when their brother comes they cast a lottery on all three fields. Whichever one it falls on, he gets it;

Regarding this, the division is not Batel. If the third field falls to his portion, the first [brothers] merited their portions like they had initially;

Even if [the third] received a field that belonged to one of them, they do not divide the entire remainder. Rather, the third field, which [initially] each had half of it, will be like initially, and the second field they divide.

Pesak: The same applies to three [partners] that two of them went and divided. I.e. when each received a field, and the third remained, when the third comes, they cast a lottery on everything, and if the remaining field falls to his portion, the first merit their portions;

This is unlike the Rashbam explained, that the [initial] division helps totally even for the third, even though they divided without his Da'as (knowledge or consent).

Support (Rashbam, for himself): (We find that Rav Safra divided without his partner Isur. As long as he divided in front of Beis Din, the division stands.)

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. There he divided Metaltelim. Regarding land, there can be adamancy about directions, so one cannot divide without knowledge of his friend, like we say in Kesuvos (100a) "orphans who came to divide their father's property..."

Inference: It connotes there that if not for concern for the power of Beis Din, even if they did not err, when [the orphans] matured, they would be able to protest about the directions.

Here, the power of Beis Din does not apply. If one divided without his friend's Da'as, why can't he protest?

Defense #1 (of Rashbam): According to the Ri, who explains there that they select [for each orphan] a nice portion without a lottery, this is not difficult at all for the Rashbam. If not for concern for the power of Beis Din, [the division] would not help without a lottery;

However, with a lottery it helps. Even without concern for the power of Beis Din, they divide.

Defense #2 (of Rashbam): And even according to R. Tam, who explains [that they select for each orphan] through a lottery, we can say that there, surely since the orphans are minors, and none of them demand to divide, if not for concern for the power of Beis Din, they could protest;

However, if one of them is an adult, and demands to divide, like here, even without the power of Beis Din, they divide.