Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 31, 2017 | 讚壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 68

One who sells a city – what is included? 聽Are slaves considered like land or movable property? 聽Can we derive an answer to that question from the mishna? 聽The mishna mentioned beit hashlachin – what is its definition? 聽Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel talked about a santar – what is its definition? 聽One who sells a field what other items are and are not included in the sale?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讬谞讜住 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛讜讬讗 讛谞讛讜 讞谞讜讗转讗 讗讘专讗讬 讚讛讜讜 砖讟讞讜 讘讛讜 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讜讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬

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鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: They are not all sold? Rather, the issue should be resolved as Rav Ashi said: We consider the seller鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘转讬诐 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讘讛 讘讛诪讛 讜注讘讚讬诐 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专

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 hashela岣n, 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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 讻诪拽专拽注 讚诪讬 谞讬讝讚讘谉 讗讙讘 诪转讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜

GEMARA: Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 movable property.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注 讚诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪拽专拽注 讚谞讬讬讚 诇诪拽专拽注 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专 诪讗讬 住谞讟专 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讗讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讗讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 讗讘诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉

搂 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 ma岣vanita] 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.

转谞谉 讘讬转 讛讘讚讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讗讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讗讙讬 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

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 hashela岣n are sold along with the city. The Sages initially maintained: What is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to irrigated fields, fields that require additional irrigation to supplement the rain that they receive. As it is written: 鈥淲ho gives rain upon the earth and sends [shole鈥檃岣] water upon the fields鈥 (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?

诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诇讞讬讱 驻专讚住 专诪讜谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙讬 谞诪讬 诪讝讚讘谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that what is meant by shela岣n is irrigated fields? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to gardens found within the city, as it is stated: 鈥淵our shoots [shela岣yikh] are an orchard of pomegranates鈥 (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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讗转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙谞讜谞讬讬转讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙讬 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬

Some say that the discussion took place as follows: The Sages initially assumed that what is meant by shela岣n? 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转 讗讘诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪讝讚讘谉

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 shela岣n is gardens? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to the fields that surround the city, as it is written: 鈥淲ho gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholea岣] waters upon the fields鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住谞讟专 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 诪讻讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 讙讘专讗 住谞讟专 谞诪讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讬讬专讬讛 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讛 讜诇讗 讞讜专砖讬谉 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专讬讛 讘讬讝诇讬 诪讗讬 讘讬讝诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 驻讬住拽讬 讘讙讬 驻讬住拽讬 讘讙讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谞讬 讛讗 讘讙讬 注爪诪谉 诪讝讚讘谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住谞讟专 诪讻讜专 讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讬讬专讬讛 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘谞讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讘谞讜转讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘谞讜转讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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.

讜诇讗 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讜转 注诪讛 讛讬讛 诇讛 讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘讬诐 讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘讬讘砖讛 讘讬讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞诪讻专讬诐 注诪讛

搂 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚谞讙讬讞 拽讗讬讛讬 诇讙讜 讜讛讗 讚谞讙讬讞 拽讗讬讛讬 诇讘专 讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗转 讞讜专砖讬谉 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖讛诐 诇爪专讻讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 砖讛诐 诇爪专讻讜 讜讗转 讛转讘讜讗讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讞讜讘专转 诇拽专拽注 讜讗转 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘讬转 专讜讘注 讜讗转 讛砖讜诪讬专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讟讬讟 讜讗转 讛讞专讜讘 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讻讘 讜讗转 讘转讜诇转 讛砖拽诪讛

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.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪专讻讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪专讻讜 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讘讜讗讛 砖讛讬讗 转诇讜砖讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讘讬转 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜诪讬专讛 砖讛讬讗 注砖讜讬讛 讘讟讬讟 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜诇讗 讗转 住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 68

讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讻讬谞讜住 讛注爪讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛讜讬讗 讛谞讛讜 讞谞讜讗转讗 讗讘专讗讬 讚讛讜讜 砖讟讞讜 讘讛讜 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 讜讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬

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鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: They are not all sold? Rather, the issue should be resolved as Rav Ashi said: We consider the seller鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘转讬诐 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讘讛 讘讛诪讛 讜注讘讚讬诐 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专

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 hashela岣n, 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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 讻诪拽专拽注 讚诪讬 谞讬讝讚讘谉 讗讙讘 诪转讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜

GEMARA: Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 movable property.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注 讚诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪拽专拽注 讚谞讬讬讚 诇诪拽专拽注 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专 诪讗讬 住谞讟专 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讗讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讗讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 讗讘诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉

搂 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 ma岣vanita] 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.

转谞谉 讘讬转 讛讘讚讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讗讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘讗讙讬 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

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 hashela岣n are sold along with the city. The Sages initially maintained: What is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to irrigated fields, fields that require additional irrigation to supplement the rain that they receive. As it is written: 鈥淲ho gives rain upon the earth and sends [shole鈥檃岣] water upon the fields鈥 (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?

诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诇讞讬讱 驻专讚住 专诪讜谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙讬 谞诪讬 诪讝讚讘谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that what is meant by shela岣n is irrigated fields? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to gardens found within the city, as it is stated: 鈥淵our shoots [shela岣yikh] are an orchard of pomegranates鈥 (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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讗转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗讙讬 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙谞讜谞讬讬转讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讘讗讙讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讙讬 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬

Some say that the discussion took place as follows: The Sages initially assumed that what is meant by shela岣n? 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讙讬谞讜谞讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞讬谉 讘讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转 讗讘诇 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘专 诪讞讜讜谞讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪讝讚讘谉

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 shela岣n is gardens? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shela岣n? This is referring to the fields that surround the city, as it is written: 鈥淲ho gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholea岣] waters upon the fields鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住谞讟专 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专 讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 诪讻讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 讙讘专讗 住谞讟专 谞诪讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讬讬专讬讛 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讛 讜诇讗 讞讜专砖讬谉 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专讬讛 讘讬讝诇讬 诪讗讬 讘讬讝诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 驻讬住拽讬 讘讙讬 驻讬住拽讬 讘讙讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谞讬 讛讗 讘讙讬 注爪诪谉 诪讝讚讘谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住谞讟专 诪讻讜专 讗谞拽讜诇诪讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讬讬专讬讛 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘谞讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讘谞讜转讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘谞讜转讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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.

讜诇讗 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讜转 注诪讛 讛讬讛 诇讛 讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘讬诐 讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘讬讘砖讛 讘讬讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讬讛 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞诪讻专讬诐 注诪讛

搂 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚谞讙讬讞 拽讗讬讛讬 诇讙讜 讜讛讗 讚谞讙讬讞 拽讗讬讛讬 诇讘专 讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗转 讞讜专砖讬谉 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讛诪讜拽爪讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖讛诐 诇爪专讻讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 砖讛诐 诇爪专讻讜 讜讗转 讛转讘讜讗讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讞讜讘专转 诇拽专拽注 讜讗转 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘讬转 专讜讘注 讜讗转 讛砖讜诪讬专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 讘讟讬讟 讜讗转 讛讞专讜讘 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讻讘 讜讗转 讘转讜诇转 讛砖拽诪讛

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.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪专讻讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪专讻讜 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讘讜讗讛 砖讛讬讗 转诇讜砖讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讘讬转 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜诪讬专讛 砖讛讬讗 注砖讜讬讛 讘讟讬讟 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜诇讗 讗转 住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛

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.

Scroll To Top