Talmud - Bava Batra 62a בבא בתרא ס״ב א׳

And if he said to him: I am selling you my property, it means that he is selling him even his houses and his Canaanite slaves.

§ The Gemara continues its examination of the concept of delineating boundaries in a wide manner, and considers the following case: If in the bill of sale the seller delineated one boundary line on one side of the field long, and the other boundary line on the opposite side of the field he delineated short, Rav said: The buyer acquires only a width of land corresponding to the short border, as it is assumed that the short boundary line delineates the actual size of the field that was sold to him, while the long boundary line was merely intended to point to the field under discussion. That is to say, the seller delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, but did not intend to include everything found within those boundaries in the sale.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But let him also acquire the triangular plot [rosh tor] bounded by the diagonal line connecting the end of the short border and the end of the long border. Rav was silent and did not respond.

And Rav concedes that where there is a boundary line defined by the fields of Reuven and Shimon on one side of the field being sold, and a boundary line defined by the fields of Levi and Yehuda on the other side, and in the bill of sale the seller describes the field being sold as bordered by the fields of Reuven and Shimon on one side but mentions only the field of Levi on the other side, since had he intended to sell only half the field he should have written for the buyer in the bill of sale that the field is bordered by the field of Reuven on the one side, which is opposite that of Levi on the other, or by the field of Shimon on the one side, which is opposite that of Yehuda on the other, but he did not write that for him, one can conclude from it that he is telling him that he is selling him not only the area between the fields of Reuven and Levi, but also the triangular plot bounded by the diagonal line connecting the end of Shimon’s field to the end of Levi’s field.

The Gemara continues: If the field being sold is bounded by the fields of Reuven on the east and the west, and it is bounded by the fields of Shimon on the north and the south, it is not enough to designate the field for the buyer as the field between the fields of Reuven and Shimon, but it is necessary to write for him in the bill of sale that the field is bounded by the fields of Reuven on two sides, and it is bounded by the fields of Shimon on two sides. Otherwise, all that the buyer acquires is a triangular plot bounded by one of Reuven’s fields and one of Shimon’s fields, and the boundary is the diagonal line connecting the end of Reuven’s field to the end of Shimon’s field.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the seller defined for the buyer only the corners of the field being sold, what is the halakha? Does this mean that he is selling him only the corners of the field or the entire field marked by those corners? A second dilemma was also raised: If he defined the boundaries of the field in a shape resembling the Greek letter gamma [gam], or the English letter L, noting the boundaries on two adjacent sides that meet at a right angle, what is the halakha? Does this mean that he is selling him the entire field, or only the triangular plot marked by those boundaries and the diagonal line running from the end of one to the end of the other?

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaBatra 62a examines property sale contracts, focusing on how mismatched boundary descriptions determine the exact size of land actually transferred to the buyer.