Bava Kamma

and there appeared claimants [questioning the vendor's title], so long as Simeon had not yet taken possession of it he might withdraw; but after he had taken possession of it he could no longer withdraw. What is the reason for that? — Because the vendor may say to him: 'You have agreed to accept a bag tied up with knots.'  From what moment [in this case] is possession considered to be taken? — From the moment he sets his foot upon the landmarks [of the purchased field]. This applies only to a purchase without a warranty. But if there is a warranty the law is otherwise. Some, however, say: Even if there is a warranty the same law applies, as the vendor may still say to him: 'Produce the distress warrant  against you and I will indemnify you.' R. Huna said: [The payment for damages is] either with money or with the best of the estate.  R. Nahman objected to R. Huna [from the Baraitha]: He should return  shows that payment in kind is included, even with bran?  — This deals with a case where nothing else is available. If nothing else is available, is it not obvious? — You might have thought that we tell him to go and take the trouble to sell [the bran] and tender the plaintiff ready money. It is therefore made known to us [that this is not the case.]. R. Assi said: Money is on a par with land. What is the legal bearing of this remark? If to tell us what is best, is this not practically what R. Huna said?  It may, however, refer to two heirs  who divided an inheritance, one taking the land and the other the money. If then a creditor  came and distrained on the land, the aggrieved heir could come forward and share the money with his brother. But is this not self-evident? Is the one a son [to the deceased] and the other one not a son? There are some who argue [quite the reverse]: The one brother may say to the other, 'I have taken the money on the understanding that if it be stolen I should not be reimbursed by you, and you also took the land on the understanding that if it be distrained on there should be no restitution to you out of anything belonging to me.' It  will therefore refer to two heirs  who divided lands among themselves after which a creditor  came along and distrained on the portion of one of them.  But has not R. Assi already once enunciated this law? For it was stated;  [In the case of] heirs who divided [the land of the inheritance among themselves], if a creditor  came along and distrained on the portion of one of them, Rab said: The original apportionment becomes null and void. Samuel said: The portion is waived; but R. Assi said: The portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money.  Rab, who said that the partition becomes null and void, maintains that heirs, even after having shared, remain  co-heirs;  Samuel, who said that the portion is waived, maintains that heirs, after having shared, stand to each other in the relationship of vendees, each being in the position of a purchaser without a warranty [of indemnity];  R. Assi, who said that the portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money, is in doubt as to whether heirs, after having shared, still remain co-heirs  or stand in the relationship of vendees;  and on account of that [doubt] there must be refunded a quarter in land or a quarter in money.  What then is the meaning of 'Money is on a par with land'?  — In respect of being counted as 'best'. But if so, is not this practically what R. Huna said? — Read 'And so also said R. Assi …' R. Zera said on behalf of R. Huna: For [the performance of] a commandment one should go up to a third. A third of what?