## Bava Batra Daf 71b

###### Bava Batra 71b:1
[Bava Batra 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/71b:1)

אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא שַׁיַּיר, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״עֲקוֹר אִילָנָךְ, שְׁקוֹל וְזִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s land. Therefore, the seller must have retained for himself the land needed for these trees.


###### Bava Batra 71b:2
[Bava Batra 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/71b:2)

תְּנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה – לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶלָּא חָרוּב הַמּוּרְכָּב, וְסַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: ״אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה טַעַם? הוֹאִיל וְיוֹנְקִין מִשְּׂדֵה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 71b:3
[Bava Batra 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/71b:3)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר, כִּי קָא יָנְקִי – מִדְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא יָנְקִי!

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


###### Bava Batra 71b:4
[Bava Batra 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/71b:4)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The assumption that Rav Huna’s 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.


###### Bava Batra 71b:5
[Bava Batra 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/71b:5)

כְּרַבָּנַן?! פְּשִׁיטָא! נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ – דְּאִי נָפְלִי, הָדַר שָׁתֵיל לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If Rav Huna’s statement is only **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** then isn’t 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.**