|
Perek 7 continues the discussion about the “understandings that are implicit” when transactions are made, and how these implicit understandings can shift based upon the exact verbiage used by the seller when sealing the transaction.
Mishna 1 examines what is implicitly understood when “x” sells “y” a field of a particular square footage. While every field will have some depressions and some protruding stones in it, if those depressions or stones hit certain dimensions they are understood to not be included in the square footage of the field, and the seller must provide area to compensate for those dips or stones. This is true unless the seller specifically uses the modifier “approximately” before mentioning the square footage.
Mishna 2 discusses further the sale of a field that came with the modifier “approximately”. As long as the discrepancy between the stated square footage and the actual square footage is no more than 4% (translating the Mishna’s terms into percentages), the “approximately” modifier covers. If it exceeds 4% in either direction then either the seller or the buyer (depending on in whose favor the 4+% discrepancy) needs to restore the difference. If it is the buyer who is restoring the difference to the seller, then the seller has the option of taking the difference in cash if the amount of land is too small to be meaningful for agricultural purposes. The last point the Mishna makes (though the language is a little convoluted) is that in the instances of 4+% discrepancy, the amount that gets restored is the entire discrepancy, not just the portion that exceeds 4%.
Mishnayot 3 and 4 lay down some more details in terms of what certain expressions used by the seller legally imply. Interestingly, when a seller says that he is selling half (or some other fraction) of a field, it is assumed that he is NOT intending to sell the best half of the field, rather the less-than-best half. The onus of specificity is upon the buyer in this regard.
| 
