When one sells a house, it does not include certain parts of the house, unless the seller specifies that the sale includes everything in the house. The Mishna lists the properties not included in the sale – the yetzia, for which the Gemara brings two possible definitions, an inner room used for storage, and a room with a parapet of ten handsbreadths. Rav Yosef quotes a braita that says there are two other synonyms for the word yetzia – tzela and ta – and sources from the Torah and tannaitic sources are brought to show where these words are used. Mar Zutra qualifies the yetzia exclusion to one where the yetzia was four cubits. Ravina questions this but Mar Zutra resolves the difficulty. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to add the case of the room if one could have derived the ruling for the storage room from the yetzia? It teaches that even if the seller designates a border, and the storage room is included in the border, if the seller says “house,” the room is not included. This accords with two statements of Rav Nachman that the Gemara proceeds to analyze and establish the circumstances of the cases. Why did Rav Nachman need to teach about both cases – why couldn’t we have derived one from the other? The Gemara mentions certain terms and explains what would be included in a sale if that particular term was used, such as ara, arata, zihara, and nichsei.
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Batra 61
הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת – לֹא מָכַר יָצִיעַ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא פְּתוּחָה לְתוֹכוֹ; וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלְּפָנִים הֵימֶנּוּ; וְלֹא אֶת הַגָּג – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרַת פֶּתַח, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים – אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.
MISHNA: One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״יָצִיעַ״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: אַפְּתָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַפְּתָא לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה – אֲבָל אַפְּתָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא.
GEMARA: What is a gallery? Here in Babylonia they interpreted this as referring to an attic [apta]. Rav Yosef said: It means a windowed structure [bidka ḥalila] attached to the main building. The Gemara notes that according to the one who says that an attic is not sold together with a house, all the more so is a windowed structure attached to the house not sold together with a house, as it is certainly considered a separate entity and not part of the main building. But according to the one who says that a gallery is a windowed structure attached to the house, it is only such a structure that is not included in the sale of the house, but an attic is sold together with a house.
תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – יָצִיעַ, צֵלָע, תָּא. יָצִיעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה חָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ״. צֵלָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַצְּלָעוֹת צֵלָע אֶל צֵלָע שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים פְּעָמִים״. תָּא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַתָּא קָנֶה אֶחָד אֹרֶךְ וְקָנֶה אֶחָד רֹחַב, וּבֵין הַתָּאִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, כּוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ״.
Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6). Additionally, it is called a cell, as it is written: “And the cell [vehata] was one reed long, and one reed wide; and the space between the cells was five cubits” (Ezekiel 40:7). And if you wish, say instead that it can be seen that a small structure attached to a building is called a cell from here, as was taught in the mishna (Middot 4:7): The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits wide, and the cell [vehata] in back of it was six cubits wide, and the wall of the cell was five cubits wide.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: וְהוּא דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
§ Relating to the mishna’s statement that a gallery is not included in the sale of a house, Mar Zutra said: And that is the halakha only when the gallery has an area of at least four by four cubits.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ עַד דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּתְנַן: לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא; הָכִי נָמֵי אִי הָווּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?
Ravina said to Mar Zutra: According to your opinion, that you say a gallery is not excluded from the sale of a house unless it is at least four by four cubits in size, there is a difficulty. As if that is so, then with regard to the exclusion of a pit or a cistern from the sale of a house, about which we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house has sold neither the pit nor the cistern, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house; so too, should we say that only if they have an area of at least four by four cubits, yes, they are excluded from the sale of the house, but if not, no, they are not excluded? This is difficult, as a pit is not four cubits wide, and consequently, it would never be excluded.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – הָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד, וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד; הָכָא – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא; אִי הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חֲשִׁיב, וְאִי לָא – לָא חֲשִׁיב.
Mar Zutra responded: How can these cases be compared? There, in that mishna, this, the excavations, have a discrete use, to store water, and they cannot possibly be used as living quarters, and that, the house, has a discrete use, to serve as living quarters, and so they are considered separate entities even if the excavation is not four cubits wide. But here, in the case of a gallery, both this, the gallery, and that, the house, have the same use, and so if the gallery is at least four by four cubits it is deemed significant and considered a separate entity, but if it is not four by four cubits, it is not deemed significant in its own right, but simply another part of the house.
וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנּוּ. הַשְׁתָּא יָצִיעַ לָא מִיזְדַּבַּן, חֶדֶר מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The mishna teaches that one who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from it. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna taught that a gallery is not sold along with the house, is it necessary to teach that a room behind the house is not included in such a sale?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצַר לֵיהּ מִצְרֵי אַבָּרַאי –
No, this ruling is necessary to teach that the room behind the house is excluded from the sale of the house even if the seller delineated the boundaries of the house for the buyer in the bill of sale by listing places outside the room, e.g., noting the houses that border the property being sold. Even though this might suggest that the room is included in the sale, the mishna teaches that it is not.
כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a residence to another in a large building [bira] containing several residences, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large building, he did not sell him the entire building, but rather he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what he was selling; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the specific residence subject to the transaction.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ וּלְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – בַּיִת זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּירָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דִּלְבִירָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בַּיִת״? כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
With regard to Rav Naḥman’s statement, the Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a residence a residence, and a building a building, and they always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious that he did not intend to sell him the entire building but merely enlarged upon the boundaries for him, as he sold him a residence and did not sell him a large building. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call a building a residence. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire building, since he delineated the external boundaries of the large building?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא קָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ לְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִירָה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב: ״וְלָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where most of the people call a residence a residence, and a building they call a building, but there are also some people who call a building a residence. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the building’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire building, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire building, he would have written in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but if he did not write this clause, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִקְעָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
And in a similar fashion, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a field to another in a large expanse of fields, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large expanse of fields he did not sell him the entire expanse of fields; rather, he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what was being sold; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the particular field he was selling.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְשָׂדֶה ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – שָׂדֶה זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּקְעָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! וְאֶלָּא דִּלְבִקְעָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״? כּוּלָּהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a field a field, and an expanse of fields an expanse of fields, and always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious the he did not intend to sell him the entire expanse of fields, as he sold him a field and did not sell him an expanse of fields. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call an expanse of fields a field. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire expanse of fields, since he delineated the external boundaries of the expanse of fields?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא דִּלְשָׂדֶה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִקְעָה קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינֵי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where there are some people who call a field a field, and an expanse of fields they call an expanse of fields, but there are also some people who call an expanse of fields a field. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the expanse’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire expanse, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire expanse, he would have written for him in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but since he did not write this clause for him, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, אֲבָל בִּקְעָה – דְּכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ;
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for Rav Naḥman to teach the halakha in both cases, even though the two rulings appear to be the same. As had he taught us the halakha only in the case of the residence, that he did not sell him the entire building even if he delineated the building’s external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that this, the residence, has a discrete use, separate from that of the rest of the building, and that, the building, has a discrete use. But as for an expanse of fields, all of which has a single use, since it can be sown with grain in its entirety, say that the seller sold him the entire expanse.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּקְעָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּיִת – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מְצַר לֵיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ; צְרִיכָא.
And had Rav Naḥman taught us the halakha only in the case of an expanse of fields, that he did not sell him the entire expanse even if he delineated its external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that the seller had no way to delineate the particular field’s boundaries, since all of the fields are similar, and they all belong to the seller. But as for a residence, with regard to which the seller had a way to delineate its borders, through the use of descriptive terms that would isolate it from the rest of the building, but he did not delineate them, I might say that he sold him the entire building. Therefore, it was necessary to mention both cases explicitly.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל (בַּר שִׁילַת) מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבְּנִי לֵיהּ מִידֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, כְּמַאן? כְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said in the name of Abaye: One who sells something to another must write for him in the bill of sale: I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale. In accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Rabba bar Avuh says that even when the seller delineates the boundaries of what he is selling, he does not necessarily mean to sell everything included within those boundaries. Inserting this clause in the bill of sale removes uncertainties that could lead to conflict.
הָהוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָא דְּבֵי חִיָּיא מְזַבֵּנְנָא לָךְ״. הֲוַאי לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אַרְעָתָא דַּהֲוָה מִתְקַרְיָן ״דְּבֵי חִיָּיא״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲדָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תַּרְתֵּי לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to another: I am selling you land of the house of Ḥiyya, but there were two plots of land that were called that of the house of Ḥiyya, and the Sages deliberated as to whether both were included in this sale or only one. Rav Ashi said: He said to him that he was selling him one plot of land, and he did not say to him that he was selling him two plots of land, as he employed a singular term. Therefore, only one is included in the sale.
וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָתָא״ סְתָמָא – מִיעוּט אַרְעָתָא שְׁתַּיִם. וְאִי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כֹּל אַרְעָתָא״ – כֹּל אַרְעָתָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, לְבַר מִבּוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיהֲרָא״ – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי בוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי, לְבַר מִבָּתֵּי וְעַבְדֵי.
And if he said to him: I am selling you fields, without specifying how many, the minimum number of fields that would justify being called fields in the plural is two, and therefore the seller has to give the buyer only two of his fields, even if he owns many fields. And if he said to him: I am selling you all of my fields, what he means is that he is selling him all the fields that he owns, excluding his orchards [bustanei] and vineyards. And if he said to him: I am selling you my landed property, what he means is that he is selling him even his orchards and vineyards, but excluding his houses and Canaanite slaves.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Minnesota, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Ontario, Canada
Bava Batra 61
הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת – לֹא מָכַר יָצִיעַ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא פְּתוּחָה לְתוֹכוֹ; וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלְּפָנִים הֵימֶנּוּ; וְלֹא אֶת הַגָּג – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרַת פֶּתַח, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים – אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.
MISHNA: One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״יָצִיעַ״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: אַפְּתָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַפְּתָא לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה – אֲבָל אַפְּתָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא.
GEMARA: What is a gallery? Here in Babylonia they interpreted this as referring to an attic [apta]. Rav Yosef said: It means a windowed structure [bidka ḥalila] attached to the main building. The Gemara notes that according to the one who says that an attic is not sold together with a house, all the more so is a windowed structure attached to the house not sold together with a house, as it is certainly considered a separate entity and not part of the main building. But according to the one who says that a gallery is a windowed structure attached to the house, it is only such a structure that is not included in the sale of the house, but an attic is sold together with a house.
תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – יָצִיעַ, צֵלָע, תָּא. יָצִיעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה חָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ״. צֵלָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַצְּלָעוֹת צֵלָע אֶל צֵלָע שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים פְּעָמִים״. תָּא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַתָּא קָנֶה אֶחָד אֹרֶךְ וְקָנֶה אֶחָד רֹחַב, וּבֵין הַתָּאִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, כּוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ״.
Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6). Additionally, it is called a cell, as it is written: “And the cell [vehata] was one reed long, and one reed wide; and the space between the cells was five cubits” (Ezekiel 40:7). And if you wish, say instead that it can be seen that a small structure attached to a building is called a cell from here, as was taught in the mishna (Middot 4:7): The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits wide, and the cell [vehata] in back of it was six cubits wide, and the wall of the cell was five cubits wide.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: וְהוּא דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
§ Relating to the mishna’s statement that a gallery is not included in the sale of a house, Mar Zutra said: And that is the halakha only when the gallery has an area of at least four by four cubits.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ עַד דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּתְנַן: לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא; הָכִי נָמֵי אִי הָווּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?
Ravina said to Mar Zutra: According to your opinion, that you say a gallery is not excluded from the sale of a house unless it is at least four by four cubits in size, there is a difficulty. As if that is so, then with regard to the exclusion of a pit or a cistern from the sale of a house, about which we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house has sold neither the pit nor the cistern, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house; so too, should we say that only if they have an area of at least four by four cubits, yes, they are excluded from the sale of the house, but if not, no, they are not excluded? This is difficult, as a pit is not four cubits wide, and consequently, it would never be excluded.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – הָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד, וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד; הָכָא – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא; אִי הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חֲשִׁיב, וְאִי לָא – לָא חֲשִׁיב.
Mar Zutra responded: How can these cases be compared? There, in that mishna, this, the excavations, have a discrete use, to store water, and they cannot possibly be used as living quarters, and that, the house, has a discrete use, to serve as living quarters, and so they are considered separate entities even if the excavation is not four cubits wide. But here, in the case of a gallery, both this, the gallery, and that, the house, have the same use, and so if the gallery is at least four by four cubits it is deemed significant and considered a separate entity, but if it is not four by four cubits, it is not deemed significant in its own right, but simply another part of the house.
וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנּוּ. הַשְׁתָּא יָצִיעַ לָא מִיזְדַּבַּן, חֶדֶר מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The mishna teaches that one who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from it. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna taught that a gallery is not sold along with the house, is it necessary to teach that a room behind the house is not included in such a sale?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצַר לֵיהּ מִצְרֵי אַבָּרַאי –
No, this ruling is necessary to teach that the room behind the house is excluded from the sale of the house even if the seller delineated the boundaries of the house for the buyer in the bill of sale by listing places outside the room, e.g., noting the houses that border the property being sold. Even though this might suggest that the room is included in the sale, the mishna teaches that it is not.
כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a residence to another in a large building [bira] containing several residences, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large building, he did not sell him the entire building, but rather he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what he was selling; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the specific residence subject to the transaction.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ וּלְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – בַּיִת זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּירָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דִּלְבִירָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בַּיִת״? כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
With regard to Rav Naḥman’s statement, the Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a residence a residence, and a building a building, and they always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious that he did not intend to sell him the entire building but merely enlarged upon the boundaries for him, as he sold him a residence and did not sell him a large building. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call a building a residence. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire building, since he delineated the external boundaries of the large building?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא קָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ לְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִירָה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב: ״וְלָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where most of the people call a residence a residence, and a building they call a building, but there are also some people who call a building a residence. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the building’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire building, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire building, he would have written in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but if he did not write this clause, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִקְעָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
And in a similar fashion, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a field to another in a large expanse of fields, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large expanse of fields he did not sell him the entire expanse of fields; rather, he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what was being sold; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the particular field he was selling.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְשָׂדֶה ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – שָׂדֶה זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּקְעָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! וְאֶלָּא דִּלְבִקְעָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״? כּוּלָּהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a field a field, and an expanse of fields an expanse of fields, and always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious the he did not intend to sell him the entire expanse of fields, as he sold him a field and did not sell him an expanse of fields. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call an expanse of fields a field. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire expanse of fields, since he delineated the external boundaries of the expanse of fields?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא דִּלְשָׂדֶה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִקְעָה קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינֵי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where there are some people who call a field a field, and an expanse of fields they call an expanse of fields, but there are also some people who call an expanse of fields a field. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the expanse’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire expanse, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire expanse, he would have written for him in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but since he did not write this clause for him, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, אֲבָל בִּקְעָה – דְּכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ;
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for Rav Naḥman to teach the halakha in both cases, even though the two rulings appear to be the same. As had he taught us the halakha only in the case of the residence, that he did not sell him the entire building even if he delineated the building’s external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that this, the residence, has a discrete use, separate from that of the rest of the building, and that, the building, has a discrete use. But as for an expanse of fields, all of which has a single use, since it can be sown with grain in its entirety, say that the seller sold him the entire expanse.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּקְעָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּיִת – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מְצַר לֵיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ; צְרִיכָא.
And had Rav Naḥman taught us the halakha only in the case of an expanse of fields, that he did not sell him the entire expanse even if he delineated its external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that the seller had no way to delineate the particular field’s boundaries, since all of the fields are similar, and they all belong to the seller. But as for a residence, with regard to which the seller had a way to delineate its borders, through the use of descriptive terms that would isolate it from the rest of the building, but he did not delineate them, I might say that he sold him the entire building. Therefore, it was necessary to mention both cases explicitly.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל (בַּר שִׁילַת) מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבְּנִי לֵיהּ מִידֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, כְּמַאן? כְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said in the name of Abaye: One who sells something to another must write for him in the bill of sale: I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale. In accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Rabba bar Avuh says that even when the seller delineates the boundaries of what he is selling, he does not necessarily mean to sell everything included within those boundaries. Inserting this clause in the bill of sale removes uncertainties that could lead to conflict.
הָהוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָא דְּבֵי חִיָּיא מְזַבֵּנְנָא לָךְ״. הֲוַאי לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אַרְעָתָא דַּהֲוָה מִתְקַרְיָן ״דְּבֵי חִיָּיא״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲדָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תַּרְתֵּי לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to another: I am selling you land of the house of Ḥiyya, but there were two plots of land that were called that of the house of Ḥiyya, and the Sages deliberated as to whether both were included in this sale or only one. Rav Ashi said: He said to him that he was selling him one plot of land, and he did not say to him that he was selling him two plots of land, as he employed a singular term. Therefore, only one is included in the sale.
וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָתָא״ סְתָמָא – מִיעוּט אַרְעָתָא שְׁתַּיִם. וְאִי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כֹּל אַרְעָתָא״ – כֹּל אַרְעָתָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, לְבַר מִבּוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיהֲרָא״ – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי בוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי, לְבַר מִבָּתֵּי וְעַבְדֵי.
And if he said to him: I am selling you fields, without specifying how many, the minimum number of fields that would justify being called fields in the plural is two, and therefore the seller has to give the buyer only two of his fields, even if he owns many fields. And if he said to him: I am selling you all of my fields, what he means is that he is selling him all the fields that he owns, excluding his orchards [bustanei] and vineyards. And if he said to him: I am selling you my landed property, what he means is that he is selling him even his orchards and vineyards, but excluding his houses and Canaanite slaves.
