Bava Batra 61b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

It is not necessary [to say this],

for there is no need to mention it, since he sold him the room only in order to teach a novelty,

that even though he marked out for him the outer boundaries,

for he wrote for him in the deed “boundaries,” meaning that he marked out for him the boundaries of the house all around, outside the room. For example, he wrote: Reuven’s house is on the eastern side of the sold house, and Shimon’s house is on the western side of the sold house, and likewise to the north and south. The room is situated within these boundaries. Therefore, it might have been said that this room is included in the sale of the house. Therefore, the tanna comes to teach us that this is not so,

as [in the ruling of] Rav Naḥman.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

One who sells a house to another within a large building,

that is, he sold him a “house,” a private dwelling, within a large building called a bira. In the center of the bira [the building] there is a large central hall, from which there are entrances to the private dwellings of the people residing in the “houses” of this building. The hall itself is not intended for dwelling, but only for the passage and sitting of the people of the houses in this building.

Behold,

even though he marked out for him the outer boundaries,

for example, he was standing in one of the houses of the bira and said to him: “I am selling you this house!” And he wrote for him in the deed the boundaries of the house outside the bira. It might have been said that the entire bira is included in the sale of this house, since the entire bira belonged to him. Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so, but only:

“He broadened the boundaries for him.”

He intended to sell only this house, and not the entire bira; only, he “broadened” in the deed the boundaries of the house around it, but he sold only the house in which he was standing.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances?

In what circumstances did Rav Naḥman speak?

If you say

that Rav Naḥman spoke in a place

where they call a house “house,” and a bira “bira,”

where people call the house within the bira a house, while they call the bira itself a bira and not a house, then

it is obvious

that he sold him only

a house,

he sold

to him; he did not sell him a bira!

For he said to him, “I am selling you a house,” and the bira is not called a house. And as for the fact that he wrote the outer boundaries, necessarily he “broadened” the boundaries for him.

Rather,

perhaps you will wish to answer and say that the case is in a place

where they also call a bira a house,

for they call the bira both a house and a bira; that is, the bira has two names, bira and house.

It is impossible to answer in this way, for if so,

he sold him the whole of it.

He sold him the entire bira, since the bira is also called a house, and he broadened the boundaries for him. And the Gemara answers:

It is not necessary [to say this]; most call the house “house,” and the bira “bira,”

most people call the bira only “bira” and not house,

but there are also those who call a bira a house,

there is a minority of people who call a bira a house as well.

Lest you say,

you might have thought to say,

he sold him the whole of it,

he sold him the entire bira, since, by broadening the boundaries for him, he thereby revealed that he is among the minority who call a bira a house,

he teaches us

Rav Naḥman teaches us,

that since he should have written, “And I have left nothing before me in this sale,”

for if he had truly intended to sell the entire bira, he would have added in the deed: “And I have left nothing in this sale,”

and he did not write it, learn from this that he left over.

From the fact that he did not write this, it is proven that he did leave something over in his sale, and he sold only the house.

And the same applies concerning a room: even though he marked out the outer boundaries for him, since he did not write, “And I have left nothing before me in this sale,” we interpret his words as meaning that he did not intend to sell the room, but only broadened the boundaries for him. For the room is not so recognizable to the people of the city; therefore, he did not use it as a boundary, but used more recognizable boundaries, which are farther away.

And Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: One who sells

a field to another in a large valley,

which contains many fields, and he was standing in one of the fields and said to him, “I am selling you this field,”

even though he marked out the outer boundaries for him,

for he wrote for him boundaries on all four sides that were distant from this field, only

he broadened the boundaries for him.

And he intended to sell only this field and not the entire valley, despite the fact that the entire valley belonged to him.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances,

how is the case stated?

If you say that they call a field “field,” and a valley “valley,”

and they do not call a valley a field, then

it is obvious

that only

a field he sold to him,

whereas

a valley, he did not sell to him!

It is obvious that he sold him only the field and not the entire valley, since he used the term “field” for him, and a valley is not called a field.

But rather,

perhaps you will answer

that they also call a valley a field,

that a valley is called both a valley and a field. It is impossible to say this, for if so,

he sold him the whole of it!

He sold him the entire valley, since he marked out the outer boundaries for him.

And the Gemara answers:

It is not necessary [to say this];

the case is

that there are those who call a field “field,” and a valley “valley,”

there are people who call a field “field,” and a valley “valley” and not “field,”

and there are also those who call a valley

“field,”

and there are people who call a valley “field” as well.

Lest you say, he sold him the whole of it,

since he marked out the outer boundaries for him,

he teaches us that since he should have written for him, “I have left nothing before me in this sale,”

since he needed to write for him that he had left nothing before him in this sale,

and he did not write it for him, learn from this that he left something over.

And it is necessary.

Rav Naḥman needed to teach us his statement both concerning a house within a bira and concerning a field within a valley.

For had he taught us [this] concerning a house, [one might have said it is] because this usage is separate and that usage is separate,

the use of the house is unlike the use of the bira: the house is intended for dwelling, while the bira is intended only for passage and sitting. Therefore, the entire bira is not included in the sale of the house, since their uses are different.

But concerning a valley, where it is all one usage,

all the fields in the valley have the same use, since they are intended for plowing and sowing,

I would say that he sold him the whole of it,

that everything is included in the sale of the field. Therefore, he needed to teach us concerning a valley that he sold only this field.

And had he taught us [this] concerning a valley,

I would say that the reason he broadened the boundaries for him is not because he intended to sell everything, but

because he was unable to mark out boundaries for him,

he could not give boundaries close to the field, since the fields in the valley are not distinguishable from one another, and they would not know which field he was discussing. Therefore, he broadened the boundaries and wrote recognizable boundaries, such as Reuven’s field to the east and Shimon’s to the west, and the like.

But concerning a house,

since every house differs from the other in length, width, height, and thickness of the walls, and their distinctions from one another are recognizable,

he could have marked out boundaries for him

boundaries close to this house,

but he did not mark out boundaries for him,

there would have been room to say that

he sold him the whole of it,

that he sold him the entire bira. Therefore,

it is necessary.

Rav Naḥman needed to teach us that he sold him only the house.

In accordance with whom does this go,

with whose view does this statement accord,

that Rav Mari said

(son)

of the daughter

of Shmuel,

who was the son of Shmuel’s daughter, who had been taken captive by gentiles,

(son of Shilat) in the name of Abaye,

who said in the name of Abaye:

With regard to one who sells something to another,

one who sells land to another,

he must write for him: “I have left nothing before me in this sale!”

I have left nothing before me in this sale.

In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha.

He holds that one can claim, “I broadened the boundaries for him.” And in order that he should not be able to make this claim, he must write, “I have left nothing in this sale,” for then he cannot claim, “He broadened the boundaries for him.”

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to another: “The land of the house of Ḥiyya,

the land that I bought from Rabbi Ḥiyya [or that I bought from a man whose name was Ḥiyya],

I am selling to you,”

I am selling to you. And he did not specify which land or how many lands.

He had two plots of land that were called “of the house of Ḥiyya,”

the seller had two plots of land called “of the house of Ḥiyya,” meaning that he had bought them from Rabbi Ḥiyya [or from a man whose name was Ḥiyya].

Rav Ashi said: “One”—he said to him; “two”—he did not say to him.

The expression “land” implies only one plot of land. If so, he sold him only one of the two plots of land of the house of Ḥiyya, and he may give him whichever one he wishes, since the seller has the advantage, as he is the one in possession.

And if he said to him, “Lands,” without qualification,

then

the minimum of “lands” is two.

And he sold him two plots of land.

And if he said to him, “All the lands,”

then

all the lands that he possesses

he sold him,

except for orchards,

apart from gardens

and vineyards,

because gardens and vineyards are not included in the expression “lands.”

And if he said to him:

“All

cultivated land

I am selling to you,” this expression includes all cultivated lands, and therefore he sold him

even the land of gardens and vineyards. Except for houses and slaves.

Apart from houses and slaves, which are not included in the expression “cultivated land,” since they are not cultivated land.