According to Tosafot, the case of the second braisa that rules that the Baal Chov obtains ziboris, is such that it has a idis that he didn't sell.
If that is the case, why does the braisa mention only 2 lands and not all the 3 lands?
Daniel Schindlower, Santiago, Chile
Let us say that the person who has to pay is called Reuven. Reuven's fields are of a higher quality than most people's. He has three kinds of fields:
(a) Land which is better than what the world calls "Idis." It is "Idei Idis" -- top top quality;
(b) Land which the world calls "Idis" but which Reuven calls "Beinonis" because on his personal scale it is average land;
(c) Land which the world calls "Beinonis" but which Reuven calls "Ziboris" because it is the worst land that he owns.
The Beraisa does not mention land of type (a) because both Beraisos maintain "b'Shel Olam Hen Shamin" -- we follow the standards of the world, not the standards of Reuven (as Tosfos writes at the end of this paragraph), and therefore if Reuven pays the person he damaged (Nizakin) with land of type (b), this means he has paid with land which the world calls "Idis," which is sufficient. It is not necessary for him to pay with land of type (a), because the quality of this land is greater than expected.
According to the second Beraisa, the Ba'al Chov receives "Ziboris," land of type (c), which is sufficient because the world calls it "Beinonis" and both Beraisos maintain that we follow the standards of the world.
Therefore, it is sufficient for the Beraisa to mention only two kinds of lands, because from these lands the people who are owed money receive what they deserve, so it is not necessary for the Beraisa to mention the very highest quality of land which Reuven possesses.
Kol Tuv and Hatzlachah Rabah,
Dovid Bloom