Bava Batra 68b

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּר מַחְווֹנִיתָא – אָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: גִּינוּנְיָיתָא; וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּר מַחְווֹנִיתָא?! מִי סָבְרַתְּ מַאי ״שְׁלָחִין״ – גִּינוּנְיָיתָא?! לָא; מַאי ״שְׁלָחִין״ – בָּגֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֹׁלֵחַ מַיִם עַל פְּנֵי חוּצוֹת״; אֲבָל בַּר מַחְווֹנִיתָא – לָא מִזְדַּבַּן. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּר מַחְווֹנִיתָא נָמֵי מִזְדַּבַּן.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סַנְטֵר אֵינוֹ מָכוּר, אַנְקוּלְמוּס מָכוּר. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּאַנְקוּלְמוּס גַּבְרָא, סַנְטֵר נָמֵי גַּבְרָא? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

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.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל לֹא שְׁיָירֶיהָ וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֶיהָ, וְלֹא חוֹרָשִׁין הַמּוּקְצִין לָהּ, וְלֹא בֵּיבָרִין שֶׁל חַיָּה וְשֶׁל עוֹפוֹת וְשֶׁל דָּגִים. וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי ״שְׁיָירֶיהָ״? בִּיזְלֵי. מַאי בִּיזְלֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: פִּיסְקֵי בָּגֵי. פִּיסְקֵי בָּגֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִזְדַּבְּנִי, הָא בָּגֵי עַצְמָן – מִזְדַּבְּנִי!

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.

אֵיפוֹךְ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סַנְטֵר – מָכוּר, אַנְקוּלְמוֹס – אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.

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.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל לֹא שְׁיָירֶיהָ וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֶיהָ. וְאִילּוּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָאָמַר: מָכַר אֶת הָעִיר – מָכַר בְּנוֹתֶיהָ! דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הָעִיר – לָא מָכַר אֶת בְּנוֹתֶיהָ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הָעִיר – מָכַר בְּנוֹתֶיהָ!

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.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

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.

וְלֹא בֵּיבָרִין שֶׁל חַיָּה וְשֶׁל עוֹפוֹת וְשֶׁל דָּגִים. וּרְמִינְהִי: הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנוֹת – אֵין נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ. הָיָה לָהּ חֵלֶק אֶחָד בַּיָּם וְחֵלֶק אֶחָד בַּיַּבָּשָׁה; בֵּיבָרִים שֶׁל חַיָּה וְשֶׁל עוֹפוֹת וְשֶׁל דָּגִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִמְכָּרִים עִמָּהּ!

§ 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.

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דִּנְגִיחַ קַאיְהִי לְגָו, וְהָא דִּנְגִיחַ קַאיְהִי לְבַר. וְהָא קָא תָנֵי: וְלֹא אֶת חוֹרָשִׁין הַמּוּקְצִין לָהּ! אֵימָא: הַמּוּקְצִין הֵימֶנָּה.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה – מָכַר אֶת הָאֲבָנִים שֶׁהֵם לְצׇרְכָּהּ, וְאֶת הַקָּנִים שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם שֶׁהֵם לְצׇרְכּוֹ, וְאֶת הַתְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִיא מְחוּבֶּרֶת לַקַּרְקַע, וְאֶת חִיצַת הַקָּנִים שֶׁהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבֵּית רוֹבַע, וְאֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה בְּטִיט, וְאֶת הֶחָרוּב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּרְכָּב, וְאֶת בְּתוּלַת הַשִּׁקְמָה.

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.

אֲבָל לֹא מָכַר לֹא אֶת הָאֲבָנִים שֶׁאֵינָן לְצׇרְכָּהּ, וְלֹא אֶת הַקָּנִים שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם שֶׁאֵינָן לְצׇרְכּוֹ, וְלֹא אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּשָׁה מִן הַקַּרְקַע. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: ״הִיא וְכׇל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ״ – הֲרֵי כּוּלָּן מְכוּרִין. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – לֹא מָכַר לֹא אֶת חִיצַת הַקָּנִים שֶׁהִיא בֵּית רוֹבַע, וְלֹא אֶת הַשּׁוֹמֵירָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשׂוּיָה בְּטִיט, וְלֹא אֶת הֶחָרוּב הַמּוּרְכָּב, וְלֹא אֶת סַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה.

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.