## Bava Batra Daf 70a

###### Bava Batra 70a:1
[Bava Batra 70a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:1)

וְדַיָּינֵי גוֹלָה אָמְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁהָעוֹל כּוֹבְשׁוֹ – לָא הָוֵי שִׁיּוּר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹל כּוֹבְשׁוֹ – הָוֵי שִׁיּוּר. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי – הָא בְּדִיקְלֵי, הָא בְּאִילָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But the judges of the exile,** Shmuel and Karna, **say: Any** tree **that is bent** back **by the yoke** of oxen as the animals plow the ground under the tree, and in this way the tree does not impede the plowing, **is not retained** by the seller, as it is not a significant tree. **Any** tree **that is not bent** back **by the yoke** of the oxen **is retained** by the seller and not included in the sale. The Gemara comments: **And** these *amora’im* **do not disagree** with regard to the *halakha*: **That** which Rav said, that the only trees that the seller retains for himself and excludes from the sale are those that must be climbed by means of a rope, was said **with regard to palm trees,** while **that** which the judges of the exile said, that the only trees that are retained are those that are not bent back by the yoke of the oxen, was said **with regard to** other types of **trees.**


###### Bava Batra 70a:2
[Bava Batra 70a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:2)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״חוּץ מֵחָרוּב פְּלוֹנִי״, ״חוּץ מִסַּדָּן פְּלוֹנִי״, מַהוּ? אוֹתוֹ חָרוּב הוּא דְּלָא קָנֵי, הָא שְׁאָר חָרוּבִים קָנֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a discussion related to the mishna’s ruling that a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk are not included in the sale of the field: **Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:** If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field **except for such and such** grafted **carob tree,** or **except for such and such** sycamore **trunk,** and there were other grafted carob trees or sycamore trunks in the field, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does the seller mean to say that **it is this carob tree that** the buyer **does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees, or perhaps** he means that **he also does not acquire the rest of the carob trees?** Rav Sheshet **said to him** in response: The buyer does **not acquire** any of them.


###### Bava Batra 70a:3
[Bava Batra 70a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״חוּץ מֵחָרוּב פְּלוֹנִי״, ״חוּץ מִסַּדָּן פְּלוֹנִי״ – לֹא קָנָה! מַאי, לָאו אוֹתוֹ חָרוּב הוּא דְּלֹא קָנָה, הָא שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין קָנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa **raised an objection to** Rav Sheshet from a *baraita* that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this field **except for such and such carob tree,** or **except for such and such** sycamore **trunk,** the buyer does **not acquire** it. **What, is it not** that **it is this carob tree that he does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees?**


###### Bava Batra 70a:4
[Bava Batra 70a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה. תֵּדַע – דְּאִילּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שָׂדִי מְכוּרָה לָךְ חוּץ מִשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית״ – הָהִיא הוּא דְּלָא קָנֵי, הָא אַחְרָנְיָיתָא קָנֵי?! אֶלָּא לָא קָנָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to him: No,** what this means is that **he does not acquire even the other carob trees. Know** that this is correct, **as if** a person selling a field **said to** the buyer: **My field is sold to you except for such and such field** that is adjacent to it, would you say that **it is** only **that** adjacent field **that he does not acquire, but he acquires** all **the other** fields owned by the seller? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field, not all of his fields. **Rather,** everyone would agree that the buyer does **not acquire** the other fields. Therefore, **here too,** the buyer does **not acquire** the other carob trees.


###### Bava Batra 70a:5
[Bava Batra 70a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״חוּץ מֵחֲצִי חָרוּב פְּלוֹנִי״, ״חוּץ מֵחֲצִי סַדָּן פְּלוֹנִי״, מַהוּ? שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין וַדַּאי לָא קָנֵי, הָא מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר בְּאוֹתוֹ חָרוּב – קָנֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר בְּאוֹתוֹ חָרוּב נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that the discussion took place as follows: **Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:** If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field **except for half of such and such carob tree,** or **except for half of such and such** sycamore **trunk, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Do we say that the buyer **certainly does not acquire the other carob trees, but he does acquire what remains from that carob tree** that was mentioned, that is, the half of the carob tree that the seller did not specifically retain for himself? **Or perhaps he does not acquire even what remains from that carob tree?** Rav Sheshet **said to him:** Even what remains from that carob tree the buyer does **not acquire.**


###### Bava Batra 70a:6
[Bava Batra 70a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״חוּץ מֵחֲצִי חָרוּב פְּלוֹנִי״, ״חוּץ מֵחֲצִי סַדָּן פְּלוֹנִי״ – שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין לֹא קָנָה. מַאי, לָאו שְׁאָר חָרוּבִין הוּא דְּלָא קָנָה, הָא מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר בְּאוֹתוֹ חָרוּב – קָנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa **raised an objection to** Rav Sheshet from a *baraita* that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field **except for half of such and such carob tree,** or **except for half of such and such** sycamore **trunk,** the buyer does **not acquire the other carob trees. What, is it not** that **it is the other carob trees that he does not acquire, but what remains of that carob tree he does acquire?**


###### Bava Batra 70a:7
[Bava Batra 70a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; אֲפִילּוּ מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר בְּאוֹתוֹ חָרוּב נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה. תֵּדַע, דְּאִילּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שָׂדִי מְכוּרָה לָךְ חוּץ מֵחֲצִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי״ – הָהוּא הוּא דְּלָא קָנָה, הָא אִידַּךְ קָנָה?! אֶלָּא לָא קָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי – לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to him: No,** what this means is that **he does not acquire even what remains of that carob tree. Know** that this is correct, **as if** a person selling a field **said to** the buyer: **My field is sold to you except for half of such and such field** that is adjacent to it, would you say that **it is** only **that** half of the field **that he does not acquire, but he acquires the other** half of the field? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field and nothing else. **Rather,** everyone would agree that the buyer does **not acquire** the other half of the field. Therefore, **here too,** the buyer does **not acquire** what remains of the carob tree.


###### Bava Batra 70a:8
[Bava Batra 70a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:8)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב עַמְרָם מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁטָר, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הֶחְזַרְתִּים לָךְ״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר ״נֶאֶנְסוּ״ – מְהֵימַן, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מְהֵימַן; אוֹ דִלְמָא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״שְׁטָרָךְ בִּידִי מַאי בָּעֵי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Amram raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda:** If one **deposits** certain items **with another** and receives **a document** signed by witnesses testifying that he deposited these items with this individual, **and** the bailee later **says to him: I returned** the items **to you,** but the document is still in the hands of the depositor, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say that since if** the bailee **wanted to** lie **he** could have **said** that the items **were taken** from him **under circumstances beyond his control,** and **he would have been deemed credible;** therefore **now too,** when he claims that he returned the items, **he is deemed credible as well? Or perhaps,** the one who deposited the items can **say to him:** If you returned the items, **what is your document doing in my possession?** Upon return of the deposit, you should have retrieved the document. Rav Ḥisda **said to him:** The bailee **is deemed credible.**


###### Bava Batra 70a:9
[Bava Batra 70a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/70a:9)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״שְׁטָרָךְ בִּידִי מַאי בָּעֵי״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, וְכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״נֶאֶנְסוּ״ – מִי מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״שְׁטָרָךְ בִּידִי מַאי בָּעֵי״?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Amram asked: **But let** the depositor **say to** the bailee: If you returned the items, **what is your document doing in my possession?** Rav Ḥisda **said to him: And according to your reasoning, if** the bailee had **said to him** that the items **were taken** from him **under circumstances beyond his control, would he be able to say to him: What is your document doing in my possession?** Since this claim could not have been stated had the bailee stated the alternative claim, it can also not be stated when the bailee claims that the items were returned. Rav Amram **said to him:**