Bava Batra 65a — the Talmud in English

It was stated: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

The halakha is in accordance with the words of the Sages,

for the seller sells with an ungenerous eye.

And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

for the seller sells with a generous eye.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to Rav Huna:

How can you say in the name of Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the words of the Sages,

when many times—

and yet, many times—

I said before Rav that the halakha—

I said before Rav that the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, and he said nothing to me—

nothing at all!

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rav Yirmeya:

How did you learn it?

How did you repeat the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages before Rav?

He said to him,

Rav Yirmeya:

I learned it the opposite way,

I repeated the dispute such that Rabbi Akiva holds that he sells with an ungenerous eye, and the Sages hold that he sells with a generous eye—that is, the opposite of the manner in which Rav Huna taught it.

Rav Huna said to him: Since you repeated their dispute in this manner,

that is why he said nothing to you,

when you said to him that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, since according to the manner in which you taught it to him, the halakha is that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say

that Rav and Shmuel, who disputed whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva or whether the halakha is in accordance with the Sages,

follow their own reasoning—

that is, the reasoning of their statements emerges, and it is clarified that this is their position from another place—

For we find elsewhere that Rav holds that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye, and Shmuel holds that the seller sells with a generous eye.

As Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: Brothers who divided

two fields that their father left them, and the fields were one within the other, and their father was accustomed to enter the inner field through the outer field,

do not have a way of passage from one to the other,

the brother who received the inner field cannot demand that the brother who received the outer field allow him to enter through his field, as their father used to do.

For according to Shmuel, the brothers are considered complete partners in the entire inheritance, and when they divide the inheritance, they sell to one another their common share that each had in the portion that each received. And when the brother who received the inner field sold his share in the outer field to his brother, he sold with a generous eye, and did not leave for himself a way and passage through the outer field that he sold.

Nor do they have ladders from one to the other,

if one of the brothers received a courtyard and a house, and his brother took the upper story, the brother who took the upper story cannot place a ladder in his brother’s courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story.

Nor do they have windows from one to the other

if the brothers divided two houses, one may build a wall opposite his brother’s window, and the latter cannot object to the blocking of his light.

Nor do they have a water channel from one to the other,

if the brothers divided their father’s fields, and one of the fields was adjacent to the water channel, and their father was accustomed to divert the water through one field to the second field, the brother who took the field distant from the water cannot lead water from the river through his brother’s field.

And be careful with them, for they are established halakhot!

That is, this is the halakha.

And this is Shmuel according to his reasoning, for he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says that the seller sells with a generous eye. And for the same reason he ruled concerning the brothers who sold each other their portions of the inheritance: they did not retain for themselves rights in the portion that they sold, since they sold with a generous eye.

And Rav said: They do have them!

And one brother can compel his brother to give him a way through his field, or compel him not to darken his dwelling; and he can compel him to allow him to place a ladder in his courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story; and likewise he compels him to allow him to convey water through his field.

And Rav follows his own reasoning, that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye, and the brother retained for himself, in the division that he sold to his brother, everything that he needs for the portion that he received, such as passage and light.

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: The dispute of Rav and Shmuel here, concerning a sale, is not exactly like their dispute above, concerning an inheritance, and one cannot derive one dispute from the other:

And for that reason

it is necessary,

Rav and Shmuel needed to state their dispute both concerning a sale and concerning an inheritance, because

if they had informed us

of their dispute only

in that case,

concerning an inheritance, we would have said that only

in that case Rav said

that the brother sells with an ungenerous eye and retains for himself in his brother’s portion everything that he needs for his own portion,

because he says to him

his brother:

I wish to dwell in it just as my fathers dwelt in it,

I wish to dwell in my portion that I inherited, in the same manner in which my fathers dwelt in it, for they had a way and had the right to use all the things.

Know

that this claim that the brother makes is a good one,

as it is written: [ [A0068]]Psalms 45:17]:

“In place of your fathers shall be your sons.”

“In place of your fathers shall be your sons.”

Therefore, there is reasoning to say that he retains in the portion that he sells everything that he needs for his own portion, since he is interested in having the ability to use his inherited portion exactly in the same manner in which his father used it.

But in this case,

in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, concerning a sale that is not an inheritance—

say that he agrees with him

Rav

with Shmuel,

that he sells with a generous eye and does not retain for himself things needed for his portion.

And if it was stated in this case,

and if the dispute of Rav and Shmuel had been stated only here, concerning a sale, we would have said that only

in this case Shmuel said

that the seller sells with a generous eye.

But in this case,

concerning an inheritance—

say that he agrees with Rav

that the brother sells with an ungenerous eye, since he has the claim that he wishes to dwell in his portion as his fathers dwelt in it. Therefore

it is necessary

for the Gemara to inform us of the dispute of Rav and Shmuel both here, concerning a sale, and above, concerning an inheritance.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna:

Is the

law in accordance with us,

with us—with Shmuel, who holds that the seller sells with a generous eye [for Rav Naḥman was Shmuel’s student],

or is the law in accordance with you,

with you—with Rav, who holds that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye [for Rav Huna was Rav’s student]?

He said to him,

Rav Huna:

The law is in accordance with you—

the law is in accordance with you, with Shmuel, who holds like Rabbi Akiva, that the seller sells with a generous eye. Because

you are close to the gate of the Exilarch, where judges are found -

for you are close to the gate of the Exilarch, where judges are present, and for that reason you are more expert in monetary law, since Rav Naḥman [Shmuel’s student] was the son-in-law of the prince, and was present in the place of the judges and saw every day the cases of how the judges adjudicated.

It was stated: Two houses

that were

one within the other,

and the passage from the inner house to the public domain is through the outer house: if he gave

both of them

at once to two different people

in a sale,

or if he gave

both of them as a gift

to two people—

they do not have a way of passage from one to the other,

and the owner of the inner house has no passage through the outer house, for just as the seller sold and gave with a generous eye to the inner recipient, so he also sold and gave with a generous eye to the outer recipient.

And even according to the Rabbis, he is not considered to sell and give with an ungenerous eye to the inner recipient except when he sells the inner house and retains the outer house for himself. But when he sells both the inner house and the outer house, everyone agrees that to this one he sold the entire inner house and to that one he sold the entire outer house, and the owner of the inner house has no right whatsoever in the outer house, for he does not give generously to one at the expense of the other.

All the more so

if he gave a

outer house as a gift and the inner one in a sale,

for he certainly does not sell to the purchaser with a generous eye at the expense of the recipient of the gift.

And if he gave the

outer house in a sale, and the inner one

gave

as a gift—

they initially thought

to learn from here that

they do not have a way of passage from one to the other,

for since he gives both houses, he does not give generously to one at the expense of the other.

But it is not so!

For

did we not learn

below [71a]:

In what case are these words stated,

that the Rabbis dispute and hold that the purchaser must purchase a way from the seller, but the seller need not purchase a way from the purchaser, because the seller sells with an ungenerous eye? This is specifically

with regard to a seller, but with regard to one who gives a gift

the Rabbis agree that with a generous eye he

gives all of it,

and he also gives the way.

Evidently,

according to the Rabbis, who hold that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye, nevertheless they agree that

one who gives a gift—

gives with a generous eye.

Here too,

here, concerning one who sells the outer house and gives the inner house as a gift,

one who gives a gift—

gives with a generous eye,

and not only according to the Rabbis, who hold that the seller sells with an ungenerous eye, according to whom he certainly sells with an ungenerous eye for the benefit of the recipient of the gift, but even according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that the seller sells with a generous eye, nevertheless one who gives a gift gives with an even more generous eye. Therefore, the recipient of the gift has passage through the outer house, for by the fact that he gave one of them as a gift, it is evident that the giver desires the benefit of the recipient of the gift more than that of the purchaser.

Mishna:

One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale of the house: all the fixed furnishings of the house are sold together with the house, whereas movable property is not sold.

And for that reason

he sold the door,

for it is fixed in the house,

but not the key,

for it is a movable object.

And likewise

he sold the fixed mortar

that is attached to the ground,

but not the

mortar

that is movable.

And likewise

he sold the itztarubil—

the wooden frame around the millstones, and it serves so that the flour will not scatter, since it is fixed and is not moved from its place,

but not the kallet—

the hopper into which the grain is poured in order to grind it, and it is not sold together with the house, since it is movable,

nor the oven nor the stove,

for they are movable.