## Bava Batra Daf 61b

###### Bava Batra 61b:1
[Bava Batra 61b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:1)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצַר לֵיהּ מִצְרֵי אַבָּרַאי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:2
[Bava Batra 61b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:2)

כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:3
[Bava Batra 61b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:3)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 61b:4
[Bava Batra 61b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:5
[Bava Batra 61b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:5)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִקְעָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:6
[Bava Batra 61b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:6)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 61b:7
[Bava Batra 61b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:8
[Bava Batra 61b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:8)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, אֲבָל בִּקְעָה – דְּכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:9
[Bava Batra 61b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:9)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּקְעָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּיִת – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מְצַר לֵיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:10
[Bava Batra 61b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:11
[Bava Batra 61b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 61b:12
[Bava Batra 61b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/61b:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**