Bava Batra 68

בימות החמה ובימות הגשמים ולא בית כינוס העצים ואם אמר לו בית המרחץ וכל תשמישיו אני מוכר לך כולן מכורין

in the summer season or in the rainy season, nor has he sold him the storeroom for the wood. But if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you the bathhouse and all of its accompaniments, all these components are sold.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה בית הבד וכל תשמישיו אני מוכר לך הויא הנהו חנואתא אבראי דהוו שטחו בהו שומשמי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling you this olive press and all of its accompaniments. There were certain stores outside of the olive press, where, in addition to the ordinary services that these stores provided, sesame seeds would also be spread out to dry before they would be pressed for their oil. The seller and the buyer disagreed about whether these stores were included in the sale, and the buyer came before Rav Yosef, presenting him with his claim to ownership of the stores.

אמר ליה תנינא אם אמר בית המרחץ וכל תשמישיו אני מוכר לך הרי כולן מכורין אמר ליה אביי והא תני רבי חייא אין כולן מכורין אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן אי אמר ליה בית הבד וכל תשמישיו ואלין מצרנהא קני ואי לא לא קני:

Rav Yosef said to him: We learned in the previously cited baraita that if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you the bathhouse and all of its accompaniments, all these components are sold. Rav Yosef held that in this case too, the disputed stores were sold. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach in a baraita: They are not all sold? Rather, the issue should be resolved as Rav Ashi said: We consider the seller’s statement, and if he said to the buyer: I am selling you the olive press and all of its accompaniments, and these are its boundaries, and he included the area of the stores within those boundaries, the buyer has acquired those stores, but if the seller does not say this, he has not acquired them, as they are not actually part of the olive press.

מתני׳ המוכר את העיר מכר בתים בורות שיחין ומערות מרחצאות ושובכות בית הבדין ובית השלחין אבל לא את המטלטלין ובזמן שאמר לו היא וכל מה שבתוכה אפילו היו בה בהמה ועבדים הרי כולן מכורין רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המוכר את העיר מכר את הסנטר:

MISHNA: One who sells a city without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, the pits, the ditches and caves, the bathhouses and the dovecotes, and the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin, as will be explained in the Gemara, but he has not sold the movable property in the city. But when the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, all these entities are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar, the meaning of which will be explained in the Gemara.

גמ׳ אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי שמעת מינה עבדא כמטלטלא דמי דאי כמקרקע דמי ניזדבן אגב מתא ואלא מאי עבדא כמטלטלא דמי מאי אפילו

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Learn from the mishna that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, as if it is like that of land, the slave should be sold along with the city. Rav Ashi responded: Rather, what do you claim, that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property? If that is the case, what is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold? This is obvious, as the slaves should be treated no differently than the rest of the city’s movable property.

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאני בין מטלטלא דנייד ממטלטלא דלא נייד אפילו תימא עבדא כמקרקע דמי שאני בין מקרקע דנייד למקרקע דלא נייד:

Rather, what have you to say? You must explain that there is a difference between movable property that moves about by itself, such as slaves, and movable property that does not move about by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. In exactly the same manner, one can claim that even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, there is a difference between land that moves about by itself, i.e., slaves, and land that does not move about by itself.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המוכר את העיר מכר את הסנטר: מאי סנטר הכא תרגימו בר מחווניתא שמעון בן אבטולמוס אומר באגי מאן דאמר בר מחווניתא כל שכן באגי מאן דאמר באגי אבל בר מחווניתא לא מיזדבן

§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term santar? Here in Babylonia they interpreted it to mean the land registrar [bar maḥavanita] in charge of keeping track of property boundaries. Shimon ben Avtolemos disagrees and says that it is referring to the fields that surround the city. The Gemara comments: The one who says that santar means the land registrar understands that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, when one sells a city, all the more so are the fields that surround the city included in the sale. But the one who says that it means the fields that surround the city holds that the land registrar is not sold with the city.

תנן בית הבדים ובית השלחין סברוה מאי שלחין באגי דכתיב ושלח מים על פני חוצות בשלמא למאן דאמר בר מחווניתא אמר תנא קמא באגי מיזדבני בר מחווניתא לא מיזדבן ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר אפילו בר מחווניתא נמי מיזדבן אלא למאן דאמר באגי תנא קמא נמי הכי קאמר

The Gemara attempts to adduce proof in support of one of the opinions: We learned in the mishna here that the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin are sold along with the city. The Sages initially maintained: What is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to irrigated fields, fields that require additional irrigation to supplement the rain that they receive. As it is written: “Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [shole’aḥ] water upon the fields” (Job 5:10). Granted, according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, the first tanna of the mishna said that the fields that surround the city are sold with the city, but the land registrar is not sold, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the land registrar is sold. But according to the one who says that santar means fields, this is what the first tanna is saying as well. In what way, then, does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree with the first tanna?

מי סברת מאי שלחין באגי לא מאי שלחין גינונייתא שנאמר שלחיך פרדס רמונים אבל באגי לא מיזדבני ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר אפילו באגי נמי מזדבני

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that what is meant by shelaḥin is irrigated fields? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to gardens found within the city, as it is stated: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13). But the fields that surround the city are not sold. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the fields are sold as well. This is one version of the discussion.

איכא דאמרי סברוה מאי שלחין גינוניאתא בשלמא למאן דאמר באגי אמר תנא קמא גנונייתא מיזדבן באגי לא מיזדבני ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר אפילו באגי מיזדבני

Some say that the discussion took place as follows: The Sages initially assumed that what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to gardens found within the city. Granted, according to the one who said that santar means the fields that surround the city, the first tanna of the mishna said that the gardens found within the city are sold along with the city, but the fields that surround the city are not sold, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the fields that surround the city are sold.

אלא למאן דאמר בר מחווניתא אמר תנא קמא גינונייתא ומהדר ליה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בר מחווניתא מי סברת מאי שלחין גינונייתא לא מאי שלחין בגי דכתיב ושלח מים על פני חוצות אבל בר מחווניתא לא מזדבן ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר דאפילו בר מחווניתא נמי מזדבן

But according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, is it reasonable that the first tanna of the mishna said that the gardens within the city are included in the sale of the city, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel responded to him that the land registrar is included? How are the two connected? The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that what is meant by shelaḥin is gardens? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to the fields that surround the city, as it is written: “Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholeaḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). According to the first tanna, it is specifically the fields that are sold with the city, but the land registrar is not sold. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the land registrar is also sold.

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר סנטר אינו מכור אנקולמוס מכור מאי לאו מדאנקולמוס גברא סנטר נמי גברא מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The santar is not sold with the city, but the city scribe [ankolemus] is sold with it. What, is it not clear from the fact that the city scribe is a man that the santar is also a man? The Gemara rejects this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is, and santar means fields, and not the land registrar.

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא קתני סיפא אבל לא שייריה ולא בנותיה ולא חורשין המוקצין לה ולא ביברין של חיה ושל עופות ושל דגים ואמרינן מאי שייריה ביזלי מאי ביזלי אמר רבי אבא פיסקי בגי פיסקי בגי הוא דלא מזדבני הא בגי עצמן מזדבני

The Gemara asks: How can you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the fields surrounding the city are not sold along with it? But isn’t it taught in the latter clause of this baraita: But when one sells a city he has not sold its remnants, and not its daughters, i.e., the nearby rural villages, and not the woods that are set aside and designated for the city, and not the enclosures [beivarin] for animals, for birds, and for fish. And we said in explanation: What is meant by its remnants? Bizlei. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of bizlei? Rabbi Abba said: The strips of the fields that are separated from the main fields by a stretch that cannot be cultivated. From here, it may be inferred that it is the strips of the fields that are not sold with the city, but the fields themselves are sold with it.

איפוך רבי יהודה אומר סנטר מכור אנקולמוס אינו מכור

The Gemara suggests: Reverse the statement found in the baraita so that Rabbi Yehuda says that the santar, now understood to mean fields, is sold with the city, but the city scribe is not sold with it.

ומי מצית אמרת רבי יהודה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבירא ליה והא רבי יהודה כרבנן סבירא ליה דקתני סיפא אבל לא שייריה ולא בנותיה ואילו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל האמר מכר את העיר מכר בנותיה דתניא המוכר את העיר לא מכר את בנותיה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המוכר את העיר מכר בנותיה

The Gemara asks: How can you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, to the point that you adduce proof from the words of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in the latter clause of that same baraita: But when one sells a city he does not sell its remnants, and he does not sell its daughters, i.e., the nearby rural villages. Whereas with regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say that one who sold a city sold its daughters along with it, i.e., the nearby rural villages, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sells a city has not sold its daughters; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: One who sells a city has sold its daughters.

רבי יהודה סבר ליה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא:

The Gemara answers: This does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it may be suggested that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to one issue, that the fields that surround the city are included in the sale, and disagrees with him with regard to another issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda the nearby villages are not sold along with the city.

ולא ביברין של חיה ושל עופות ושל דגים: ורמינהי היו לה בנות אין נמכרות עמה היה לה חלק אחד בים וחלק אחד ביבשה ביברים של חיה ושל עופות ושל דגים הרי אלו נמכרים עמה

§ The baraita teaches: When one sells a city he has not sold, among other things, the enclosures for animals, for birds, and for fish. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: If the city has daughters, i.e., nearby villages, they are not sold along with it. If it has one part on the sea and one part on dry land, or if it has enclosures for animals, for birds, or for fish, these are all sold along with the city.

לא קשיא הא דנגיח קאיהי לגו והא דנגיח קאיהי לבר והא קא תני ולא את חורשין המוקצין לה אימא המוקצין הימנה:

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult, as a distinction can be made between different cases: Here, the one baraita addresses animal enclosures whose openings face inward, i.e., toward the city, and they are therefore considered a part of the city, whereas there, the other baraita addresses animal enclosures whose openings face outward, i.e., away from the city, and therefore they are not included in its sale. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the baraita teach: And he has not sold the woods that are set aside for the city, indicating that they face the city, and nevertheless they are not sold along with the city? The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be emended so that it reads instead: And he has not sold the woods that are set apart from the city, i.e., that are at a distance and do not face the city.

מתני׳ המוכר את השדה מכר את האבנים שהם לצרכה ואת הקנים שבכרם שהם לצרכו ואת התבואה שהיא מחוברת לקרקע ואת חיצת הקנים שהיא פחותה מבית רובע ואת השומירה שאינה עשויה בטיט ואת החרוב שאינו מורכב ואת בתולת השקמה

MISHNA: One who sells a field without specifying what is included in the sale has sold the stones in the field that are for its use, and the reeds in the vineyard that are for its use, and the produce that is still attached to the ground, and the cluster of reeds that occupy less than the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], and the watch station that is not plastered with clay, and the young carob tree that has not yet been grafted, and the untrimmed sycamore that is still young.

אבל לא מכר לא את האבנים שאינן לצרכה ולא את הקנים שבכרם שאינן לצרכו ולא את התבואה שהיא תלושה מן הקרקע בזמן שאמר לו היא וכל מה שבתוכה הרי כולן מכורין בין כך ובין כך לא מכר לא את חיצת הקנים שהיא בית רובע ולא את השומירה שהיא עשויה בטיט ולא את החרוב המורכב ולא את סדן השקמה:

But he has not sold along with the field the stones that are not designated for use in the field, and not the reeds in the vineyard that are not designated for its use, and not the produce that is already detached from the ground. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the field. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the field, he has not sold the cluster of reeds that occupy a beit rova or more, as they are considered a separate field, and he has not sold the watch station that is plastered with clay, and not the carob tree that has been grafted, and not the sycamore trunk. All of these entities are significant in their own right and have a status independent from that of the fields, and they are therefore not included in the sale of the field.