Bava Batra 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary;

there is no need to mention it, because he sold him the room only in order to teach us a novel point:

even though he delineated the outer boundaries for him,

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

in accordance with the statement of Rav Naḥman.

As Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

If one sells a house to another within a large building,

meaning, he sold him a “house,” a private residence, 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 residences of the people living in the “houses” of this building. The hall itself is not intended for residential use, but only for the passage and sitting of the residents of the houses in this building.

Thus,

even though he delineated the outer boundaries for him,

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 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; rather,

“he merely enlarged the boundaries for him.”

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

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances?

What situation was Rav Naḥman referring to?

If you say

that Rav Naḥman was speaking in a place

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

that is, 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

and not

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, you are forced to say that “he enlarged the boundaries for him.”

Rather,

perhaps you will resolve it by saying that the case is one

where they also call the bira a house,

that is, the bira has two names: bira and house.

This cannot be the resolution, because if so,

he sold him the entire thing.

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

No, it is necessary to state this case because the majority call a house “house” and a bira “bira,”

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

but there are also some who call the bira

“house,”

that is, there is a minority of people who also call the bira a house. Lest you say

that one might have thought,

he sold him the entire thing,

the entire bira, because once he enlarged the boundaries for him, he thereby revealed that he was among the minority who call the bira a house,

it teaches us

Rav Naḥman teaches us:

Since he should have written, “And I have retained nothing from this sale,”

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

and he did not write this, learn from it that he retained something.

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

And the same applies with regard to a room: Even though he delineated the outer boundaries for him, since he did not write, “And I have retained nothing from this sale,” we interpret his words to mean that he did not intend to sell him the room; rather, he merely enlarged the boundaries for him. The room is not sufficiently recognizable to the people of the city, and therefore he did not use it as a boundary. Instead, he used more recognizable boundaries that were farther away.

And Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: If one 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 delineated the outer boundaries for him,

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

he merely enlarged the boundaries for him.

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

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances?

What is the case?

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

and they do not call a valley a field, then

it is obvious

that he sold him only

a field,

whereas

a valley, he did not sell him!

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

Rather,

perhaps you will resolve it by saying

that they also call a valley “field.”

That is, a valley is called both valley and field. This cannot be said, because if so,

he sold him the entire thing!

He sold him the entire valley, since he delineated its outer boundaries for him.

And the Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary to state this case;

the case is one

where there are people who call a field “field” and a valley “valley,”

that is, there are people who call a field a field and a valley a valley, not a field,

and there are also people who call a valley

“field,”

that is, there are people who also call a valley a field.

Lest you say, he sold him the entire thing,

since he delineated the outer boundaries for him,

it teaches us: Since he should have written to him, “I have retained nothing for myself from this sale,”

since he should have written to him that he had retained nothing for himself from this sale,

and he did not write this to him, learn from it that he retained something.

And it is necessary

for Rav Naḥman to teach his statement both with regard to a house in a bira and with regard to a field in a valley.

For if he had taught us the case of a house, one might have said: This use is separate and that use is separate;

the use of the house is unlike the use of the bira: The house is intended for residence, whereas 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 with regard to a valley, where the entire area has one use,

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

say that he sold him the entire thing.

Since everything would be included in the sale of the field, it was necessary for him to teach us with regard to a valley that he sold only this field.

And if he had taught us the case of a valley,

I would have said that the reason he enlarged the boundaries for him was not because he intended to sell him everything, but

because he could not delineate the 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 people would not know which field he was discussing. Therefore, he enlarged the boundaries and wrote recognizable boundaries, such as Reuven’s field to the east and Shimon’s field to the west, and the like.

But with regard to a house,

where every house differs from the others in length, width, height, and wall thickness, and their distinctions are recognizable,

he could have delineated the boundaries for him

with boundaries close to this house,

but he did not delineate them for him,

it might have been said that

he sold him the entire thing,

that is, 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 whose opinion does

this statement accord,

the statement of Rav Mari

(son) [

daughter’s son

of the daughter of Shmuel,

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

(son of Shilat) in the name of Abaye,

who said in the name of Abaye:

One who sells something to another

—one who sells land to another—

must write to him: “I have retained nothing for myself from this sale!”

I have retained nothing for myself from this sale.

In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha.

He holds that one can claim, “I merely enlarged the boundaries for him.” To prevent him from making this claim, he must write, “I have retained nothing from this sale,” in which case he cannot claim that he merely enlarged the boundaries for him.

The Gemara cites an incident involving

a certain

man

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

the land that I purchased from Rabbi Ḥiyya [or that I purchased from a certain man named Ḥiyya,

I am selling to you,

and he did not specify which land or how many parcels of land.

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

that is, the seller had two parcels of land called “the house of Ḥiyya,” meaning that he had purchased them from Rabbi Ḥiyya [or from a certain man named Ḥiyya].

Rav Ashi said: If he said “land,” he referred to one parcel; he did not refer to two.

The singular term “land” indicates only one parcel. Therefore, he sold him only one of the two parcels called the house of Ḥiyya, and he may give him whichever one he chooses, since the seller has the advantage, as he is in possession.

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

then

the minimum indicated by “land” is two.

And he sold him both parcels of land.

And if he said to him “all the land,”

then

all the land that he possesses

he sold him,

except for orchards

other than gardens

and vineyards,

because gardens and vineyards are not included in the term “land.”

And if he said to him:

“I am selling you every

cultivated property,

this expression includes all cultivated lands, and therefore he sold him

even the orchards and vineyards, except for houses and slaves.

Houses and slaves are excluded, because they are not cultivated land.