Bava Batra 166 I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

The rabbis continue to discuss interpretations of ambiguous statements that are written in documents.  How should that lack of specificity be understood?  Examples include one who says that they have a vague amount of money and whether that amount refers to gold, silver, or other coins.  

One of these interpretations uses the proof text of Leah who did not know which offering she should bring after five miscarriage.  If she only brings a korban, which is two birds, she is permitted to partake of terumah. She is told to bring the rest of her offering.  A second part of this example tells of two birds for sale for "dinari of gold" in Jerusalem.  The price of those birds is artificially dropped to dinari.  It was determined that Leah should bring one korban only.  The price of the birds dropped further to a quarter of a silver dinar.

The Gemara turns to discrepancies within a document.  What if the top of a document says chanani and the bottom says chanan?  Should we learn from this; consider the discrepancy to be intentional?  Or do we assume that the document is void because the intended meaning could be completely different from our interpretation?  The rabbis use the examples of words and letters which can be easily changed and misinterpreted?

And what about an expression in a document that is ambiguous?  The example is a document that states "600 and a zuz".  Does this mean 600 sela'im and a zuz or perhaps 600 perutot and a zuz?  The rabbis consider the reasons that each of these interpretations might be faulty.   At the end of their deliberations, the rabbis decide that in these cases the document's owner receives the lowest possible amount.