## Bava Batra Daf 68b

###### Bava Batra 68b:1
[Bava Batra 68b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:1)

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.

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


###### Bava Batra 68b:2
[Bava Batra 68b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 68b:3
[Bava Batra 68b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:3)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 68b:4
[Bava Batra 68b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 68b:5
[Bava Batra 68b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:5)

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!

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


###### Bava Batra 68b:6
[Bava Batra 68b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:6)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 68b:7
[Bava Batra 68b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:7)

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!

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


###### Bava Batra 68b:8
[Bava Batra 68b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 68b:9
[Bava Batra 68b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:9)

**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.

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


###### Bava Batra 68b:10
[Bava Batra 68b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/68b:10)

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.

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