Today's Daf Yomi
April 3, 2017 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)
Bava Batra 71
When someone sells – do they sell with a good eye or a bad eye? 聽What is included on the sale of a field according to each opinion of this argument? 聽How is a gift, children dividing an inheritance field, someone who consecrates his property to the Temple different from a sale? 聽How are each different from each other?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
讗讬驻讻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛
learned the reverse, that is to say, according to our version of the baraita, it is the judges of the exile who maintain that the claimant collects only half the sum, which corresponds to the halakha taught by Rava.
诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 讘讬谉 讞专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讬砖讜讘讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱
MISHNA: In continuation of the previous mishna (68b) discussing one who sells a field, the mishna teaches that even if he says that he is selling it and everything that is in it, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one who sells, sells generously; therefore, whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, and it is presumed that the seller did not retain for himself the right to the path that he requires to access his property. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as it is assumed that since the seller withholds these items for himself, he also reserves a path to reach them.
讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱
And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling the field apart from these things, i.e., the cistern and the winepress, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since these items would have been excluded from the sale even if he had said nothing, it is assumed that he also meant to reserve for himself the right to access them. But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.
讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讻讜 讘讻讜诇讛 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘砖讚讛 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讻讜诇讛
In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Similarly, with regard to brothers who divide their father鈥檚 estate among themselves, when they each acquire a field as part of their inheritance, they acquire all of it, including the items that would be excluded from a sale. So too, with regard to one who takes possession of the property of a convert, when he takes possession of a field, he takes possession of all of it.
讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜讗转 住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛
One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛 驻讬专砖 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讝讛 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In what way is a sale different from a gift, and in what way is a gift different from a sale? Why does the mishna distinguish between the two with regard to what is retained by the prior owner? Yehuda ben Nekosa explained before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The difference between the cases is that this one, the seller, specified that certain items were not included in the sale, and that one, the donor, did not specify.
讛讗讬 讝讛 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讝讛 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇驻专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇驻专砖
The Gemara asks: How can it be suggested that this one specified and that one did not specify, when in fact this one did not specify, and that one did not specify, as in neither case did the prior owner specify what items he was reserving for himself? Rather, the difference is that this one, the buyer, should have specified that those items that are not integral parts of the field are nevertheless included in the sale, and since he neglected to do so, he suffers the loss. But in the case of a gift, that one, the recipient, should not have specified what was included in the gift, as it would have been inappropriate for him to act in this manner.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讘讬转讗 讚诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讙讜诇驻讬 讗砖转讻讞 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛
It is related that there was a certain person who said to others: Give to so-and-so my house containing 100 barrels [gulfei] as a gift. It was found that there was a house in his possession that contained 120 barrels. Mar Zutra said: The owner said to him that he was giving him a house containing 100 barrels, and he did not say to him that he was giving him a house containing 120 barrels. Therefore, the recipient receives only the portion of the house that holds 100 barrels, and not the rest of the house.
专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘
Rav Ashi said: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna here: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it. Apparently, one who gives a gift gives generously. Here too, then, say that one who gives a gift gives generously, even if he is not always precise in his wording. Therefore, it should be assumed that the donor intended to give the recipient the entire house, which contains more than 100 barrels.
讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛拽讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽专拽注 诪讻专 拽专拽注 讜砖讬讬专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 诇驻谞讬讜 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讘讗专注讗 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谞讜转 讚拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讘讗专注讗
搂 The mishna teaches: One who consecrates a field, has consecrated all of it. Rav Huna said: Even though the Rabbis said: If one buys two trees in the field of another, he does not acquire any of the land but acquires only the trees, and if he sells land to another, and he retains two trees for himself, he also retains the land around those trees, that does not always apply. Rav Huna elaborates: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who sells, sells generously and does not retain anything for himself, this does not always apply, as this statement applies only with regard to a pit and a cistern, which do not weaken the land, and therefore the seller feels no need to protect himself from the potential claims of the buyer. But with regard to trees, which do weaken the land, as they draw water and nutrients from the soil,
讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 注拽讜专 讗讬诇谞讱 砖拽讜诇 讜讝讬诇
if it is so that the prior owner did not retain some of the land for himself, let the buyer say to him: Uproot your trees, take them, and go, as the trees draw water and nutrients from the soil, causing damage to the buyer鈥檚 land. Therefore, the seller must have retained for himself the land needed for these trees.
转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜谞拽讬谉 诪砖讚讛 讛拽讚砖
The Gemara raises an objection: We learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk. And it is taught with regard to this in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that it is specifically the carob tree and the sycamore trunk that are consecrated? Since they draw their nutrients from a consecrated field, the owner must have had in mind to consecrate them as well, as otherwise his trees would be nurtured from consecrated property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专 讻讬 拽讗 讬谞拽讬 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 讬谞拽讬
And if it enters your mind, as Rav Huna claims, that when the seller retains certain trees for himself, he also retains the land around them so that they will be nurtured from soil that belongs to him, what is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling? When these trees draw their nutrients, they draw their nutrients from the ground that the consecrator had retained for himself that still belongs to him, not from consecrated property.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉
The Gemara answers: The assumption that Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is true according to everyone must be reconsidered. Rather, Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who consecrates his field does not retain for himself the land around the trees, holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva, one who sells, sells generously, and there is no presumption that he retained some item or right for himself unless this was stated explicitly. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon rules that one who consecrates his field has also consecrated the carob trees, as otherwise they would draw nutrients from consecrated land. And Rav Huna, who says that when a seller retains trees for himself he also retains the land around them, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one who sells, sells sparingly.
讻专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 谞驻诇讬 讛讚专 砖转讬诇 诇讛讜
The Gemara asks: If Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then isn鈥檛 his statement obvious? What novel idea is he adding? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is that while one might have thought that the prior owner retains a right to the land only for the sake of trees that were there, this is not the case. Rather, he retains absolute ownership of the land, and therefore, if the trees fall or die he can plant them again.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 71
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗讬驻讻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛
learned the reverse, that is to say, according to our version of the baraita, it is the judges of the exile who maintain that the claimant collects only half the sum, which corresponds to the halakha taught by Rava.
诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 讘讬谉 讞专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讬砖讜讘讬谉 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱
MISHNA: In continuation of the previous mishna (68b) discussing one who sells a field, the mishna teaches that even if he says that he is selling it and everything that is in it, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one who sells, sells generously; therefore, whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, and it is presumed that the seller did not retain for himself the right to the path that he requires to access his property. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as it is assumed that since the seller withholds these items for himself, he also reserves a path to reach them.
讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱
And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling the field apart from these things, i.e., the cistern and the winepress, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since these items would have been excluded from the sale even if he had said nothing, it is assumed that he also meant to reserve for himself the right to access them. But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller鈥檚 domain.
讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讻讜 讘讻讜诇讛 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘砖讚讛 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讻讜诇讛
In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Similarly, with regard to brothers who divide their father鈥檚 estate among themselves, when they each acquire a field as part of their inheritance, they acquire all of it, including the items that would be excluded from a sale. So too, with regard to one who takes possession of the property of a convert, when he takes possession of a field, he takes possession of all of it.
讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜讗转 住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛
One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛 驻讬专砖 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讝讛 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In what way is a sale different from a gift, and in what way is a gift different from a sale? Why does the mishna distinguish between the two with regard to what is retained by the prior owner? Yehuda ben Nekosa explained before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The difference between the cases is that this one, the seller, specified that certain items were not included in the sale, and that one, the donor, did not specify.
讛讗讬 讝讛 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 驻讬专砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讝讛 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇驻专砖 讜讝讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇驻专砖
The Gemara asks: How can it be suggested that this one specified and that one did not specify, when in fact this one did not specify, and that one did not specify, as in neither case did the prior owner specify what items he was reserving for himself? Rather, the difference is that this one, the buyer, should have specified that those items that are not integral parts of the field are nevertheless included in the sale, and since he neglected to do so, he suffers the loss. But in the case of a gift, that one, the recipient, should not have specified what was included in the gift, as it would have been inappropriate for him to act in this manner.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讘讬转讗 讚诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讙讜诇驻讬 讗砖转讻讞 讚讛讜讛 诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛
It is related that there was a certain person who said to others: Give to so-and-so my house containing 100 barrels [gulfei] as a gift. It was found that there was a house in his possession that contained 120 barrels. Mar Zutra said: The owner said to him that he was giving him a house containing 100 barrels, and he did not say to him that he was giving him a house containing 120 barrels. Therefore, the recipient receives only the portion of the house that holds 100 barrels, and not the rest of the house.
专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘
Rav Ashi said: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna here: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it. Apparently, one who gives a gift gives generously. Here too, then, say that one who gives a gift gives generously, even if he is not always precise in his wording. Therefore, it should be assumed that the donor intended to give the recipient the entire house, which contains more than 100 barrels.
讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛拽讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽专拽注 诪讻专 拽专拽注 讜砖讬讬专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 诇驻谞讬讜 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讘讗专注讗 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谞讜转 讚拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讘讗专注讗
搂 The mishna teaches: One who consecrates a field, has consecrated all of it. Rav Huna said: Even though the Rabbis said: If one buys two trees in the field of another, he does not acquire any of the land but acquires only the trees, and if he sells land to another, and he retains two trees for himself, he also retains the land around those trees, that does not always apply. Rav Huna elaborates: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who sells, sells generously and does not retain anything for himself, this does not always apply, as this statement applies only with regard to a pit and a cistern, which do not weaken the land, and therefore the seller feels no need to protect himself from the potential claims of the buyer. But with regard to trees, which do weaken the land, as they draw water and nutrients from the soil,
讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 注拽讜专 讗讬诇谞讱 砖拽讜诇 讜讝讬诇
if it is so that the prior owner did not retain some of the land for himself, let the buyer say to him: Uproot your trees, take them, and go, as the trees draw water and nutrients from the soil, causing damage to the buyer鈥檚 land. Therefore, the seller must have retained for himself the land needed for these trees.
转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜谞拽讬谉 诪砖讚讛 讛拽讚砖
The Gemara raises an objection: We learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk. And it is taught with regard to this in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that it is specifically the carob tree and the sycamore trunk that are consecrated? Since they draw their nutrients from a consecrated field, the owner must have had in mind to consecrate them as well, as otherwise his trees would be nurtured from consecrated property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专 讻讬 拽讗 讬谞拽讬 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 讬谞拽讬
And if it enters your mind, as Rav Huna claims, that when the seller retains certain trees for himself, he also retains the land around them so that they will be nurtured from soil that belongs to him, what is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling? When these trees draw their nutrients, they draw their nutrients from the ground that the consecrator had retained for himself that still belongs to him, not from consecrated property.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉
The Gemara answers: The assumption that Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is true according to everyone must be reconsidered. Rather, Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who consecrates his field does not retain for himself the land around the trees, holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva, one who sells, sells generously, and there is no presumption that he retained some item or right for himself unless this was stated explicitly. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon rules that one who consecrates his field has also consecrated the carob trees, as otherwise they would draw nutrients from consecrated land. And Rav Huna, who says that when a seller retains trees for himself he also retains the land around them, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one who sells, sells sparingly.
讻专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 谞驻诇讬 讛讚专 砖转讬诇 诇讛讜
The Gemara asks: If Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then isn鈥檛 his statement obvious? What novel idea is he adding? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is that while one might have thought that the prior owner retains a right to the land only for the sake of trees that were there, this is not the case. Rather, he retains absolute ownership of the land, and therefore, if the trees fall or die he can plant them again.
