Bava Batra 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

In either case,

even if he said to him: “I am selling you the bathhouse and everything inside it,”

he has not sold him the pools that supply it with water

for the bathhouse,

whether

in the summer

when there is little water in the pool,

or in the rainy season

when there is much water in the pool, because one might have reasoned that in the summer, since there is little water, it is subordinate to the bathhouse.

And he did not

include in the sale of the bathhouse

the wood-storage house,

that is, neither the room in which wood for heating the bathhouse is stored, nor the wood itself. Just as the wood is not considered an implement serving the bathhouse, since it also serves him in his own house, so too the room in which the wood is stored is not an implement serving the bathhouse.

And if he said to him: “I am selling you the bathhouse and all its implements”—

this wording comes to include that he is also selling the water pools and the wood stores, which serve the bathhouse to some extent; therefore

they are all sold.

There was a certain man who said to another: “I am selling you the oil press and all its implements.”

There were certain shops outside it in which sesame was spread out,

there at the oil press. These were the shops outside the oil press which, in addition to their primary use for selling bread and wine, were used to spread sesame for drying before extracting oil from it at the oil press. The seller and the purchaser disputed whether these shops were included in the sale of the oil press or not.

He came before Rav Yosef, who said to him

Rav Yosef:

We learned

the following:

“If he said: ‘I am selling you the bathhouse and all its implements,’

they are all sold.”

The wood store and the water pool, which serve the bathhouse to some extent, are sold together with the bathhouse. It is apparent from the Mishna that if the seller says that he is selling all the implements of the house, even items that serve the house only in part are included in the sale. If so, here too, since he said to him, “I am selling you all its implements,” he included these shops, which serve the oil press to some extent, in the sale of the oil press.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

the following

Rabbi Hiyya

in a beraita:

“They are not all sold!”

Since they are not designated exclusively for the oil press, it follows that there is a dispute between the beraitot concerning this law.

Rather, Rav Ashi said

that the two beraitot can be reconciled as follows:

We see:

If we see that

if he said to him

the purchaser:

“The oil press and all its implements

are sold to you,

and these are its boundaries,”

and he included these shops within the boundaries of the oil press that he was selling to him—

he acquires

the shops as part of the sale of the oil press.

But if not,

if he did not include the shops within the boundaries of the oil press—

he does not acquire

these shops, since they are not used exclusively for the oil press.

It is explained here in the Gemara that if the seller says to the purchaser that he is selling “everything inside it,” but does not say that he is selling “all its implements,” he does not include those items that serve the house he sold only in part. Although they are included within the boundaries that he specified in the sale, we interpret his specification of the boundaries as generous, and he did not intend to include them in the sale.

But if the seller says to the purchaser that he is also selling “all its implements,” and he likewise specifies its boundaries, and within the boundaries he specified are items that serve the house he sold only in part, they are included in the sale, since they serve, to some extent, the house he sold and are also located within the boundaries he specified in the sale.

Mishna:

One who sells a city

has sold the houses

in the city, and all the more so the courtyards, which are the primary components of a city, as well as

cisterns, ditches, and caves,

in which water is stored, and likewise

bathhouses,

bathhouse structures,

and dovecotes

of pigeons, and likewise

oil presses

for producing oil,

and irrigated fields—

fields adjacent to the city and those within the city. Since they belong to the city, they are included in the sale of the city. They are called “irrigated fields” on account of the verse: “and sends water upon the open places” [Job 5:10], which speaks of rain, while the fields require rain.

But he did not

include in the sale of the city

the

items

that are movable property

within it, such as those enumerated in the case of one who sells a house, which are not included with the house.

And when he said to him

the seller to the purchaser:

“It and everything inside it”

I am selling you—

even if there were animals and slaves in it,

which are movable property that moves on its own, and certainly other movable property, such as wheat, barley, silver, and gold—

they are all sold

as part of the city.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city—

has sold the santar,

the city watchman, and although he did not sell the movable property in the city, nevertheless he sold this man, since he is needed by the city.

Gemara:

Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: You can learn from this,

it is implied by the words of the Mishna: In the first clause it says that he did not sell the movable property together with the city, while in the latter clause it says that if he said he was selling everything inside it, the slaves are sold. This implies that in the first clause, where he did not sell the movable property, he also did not sell the slaves, because

a slave is considered like movable property,

a slave is regarded, in ordinary human usage, as an item that is movable,

for if he is considered like real property,

if he is considered like land, then

he should be sold together with the city,

he should be sold as an adjunct to the city.

And we challenge this:

But rather, what

are you proving from the words of the Mishna?

A slave is considered like movable property;

the slave is considered movable property, so

what

is the meaning in the Mishna of the statement that he sold

even

animals and slaves? What novelty is there in a slave beyond that of other movable property?

Rather, what can you say? There is a distinction

there is a difference

between movable property that moves and movable property that does not move,

and one might have thought that only movable property that does not move is included in the sale, but not movable property that moves. Therefore the Mishna states that even animals and slaves, which are movable property that moves, are included in the sale—and all the more so movable property that does not move.

And accordingly, the proof that a slave is considered movable property can be rejected, because

even if you say

that

a slave is considered like real property,

he is considered so here, in the case of one who sells a city,

there is a difference,

and he is not included in the sale of the city, since a distinction must be made in the sale of a city

between real property that moves

that is, a slave,

and real property that does not move,

for the seller of a city has in mind only items fixed in the city and identified with the city. A slave, however, even if he is considered real property, nevertheless, since he can leave the city, he is not included with the city.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city—

has sold the santar.”

And we raised a question about it:

What

is the meaning of

“santar”?

Here, in Babylonia, they explained

that it is

a bar meḥavayata—

a slave familiar with the boundaries of the city, the division of the boundaries of the fields, and the tax matters applying to each part of the city. It is impossible to maintain the life of the city unless this slave is within it.

Shimon ben Avtulmos

says:

the meaning of santar is

fields,

fields surrounding the city.

The one who says

that the meaning of santar is

a bar meḥavayata, all the more so fields

the fields that do not move are sold together with the city.

But

the one who says

that the meaning of santar is

fields,

only the fields are included in the sale of the city,

but a bar meḥavayata is not sold

he is not sold together with the city, since he is mobile and is not subordinate to being sold as an adjunct to the city.

The Gemara attempts to bring proof and resolve this dispute from our Mishna:

We learned: “Oil presses and irrigated fields”

are sold with the city.

They initially assumed

that the interpretation was as follows:

What

is the meaning of

“irrigated fields”? Fields—

fields, and they are called irrigated fields because

it is written

[Job 5:10]:

“And sends water upon the open places.”

This verse speaks of rain; therefore the fields are called irrigated fields, since they require rain.

And accordingly, it can be proved that santar means a slave familiar with the boundaries of the city.

For

it is understandable according to the one who says

that the meaning of santar is

a bar meḥavayata,

the dispute in the Mishna is clear.

The first tanna said: Fields

irrigated fields

are sold

together with the city, whereas

a bar meḥavayata

according to the first tanna

is not sold,

since he is movable property.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that even

the santar, whose meaning is

a bar meḥavayata,

a slave familiar with the boundaries of the city,

is also sold,

since he is needed by the city.

But according to the one who says

that the santar stated by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel means

fields,

fields surrounding the city, it is difficult: What did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel come to add to the words of the first tanna? After all,

the first tanna is also saying precisely this!

that irrigated fields are sold together with the city.

It is thus proven that santar means a slave familiar with the boundaries of the city, and does not mean fields surrounding the city.

And we reject the proof:

Do you think that the meaning of “irrigated fields”

is, as you maintain,

fields,

irrigated fields?

No.

That is not the meaning of the Mishna. Rather,

what is the meaning of “irrigated fields”? Gardens.

Gardens within the city and adjacent to it, and they are called irrigated fields as

it is stated

[Song of Songs 4:13]:

“Your branches are an orchard of pomegranates,”

and “your branches” means gardens that send forth fruit throughout the year.

And accordingly, it is possible to interpret the Mishna as stating that santar means fields surrounding the city.

And the words of the Mishna are interpreted as follows: The first tanna maintains that only [the irrigated fields, whose meaning is] gardens are included in the sale of the city, but not fields [the surrounding fields], since gardens are more closely associated with the city than fields are, as a garden is also made for strolling in, like a house.

But fields—

fields, which are not so closely associated with the city,

are not sold,

are not sold with the city.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that even fields,

fields surrounding the city,

are also sold.

There are those who say

that they brought proof from our Mishna to the contrary:

They initially assumed

that the interpretation was as follows:

What is the meaning of “irrigated fields”? Gardens,

gardens within the city and adjacent to it.

And accordingly, they sought to prove that santar means fields surrounding the city.

For

it is understandable according to the one who says

that the meaning of santar is

fields,

the dispute in the Mishna is clear.

The first tanna said

that the irrigated fields, meaning

gardens, are sold,

the gardens are sold together with the city, whereas

fields

—fields, according to the first tanna—

are not sold,

since gardens are more closely associated with the city than fields are, as a garden is also made for strolling in, like a house, unlike fields.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that even

[the santar, whose meaning is]

fields,

fields surrounding the city,

are sold.