Bava Batra 68a — the Talmud in English

In either case,

even if he said to him: “It and everything within it I sell to you,”

he did not sell him the pools supplying it with water ![](pamud.bmp "

for the bathhouse,

whether ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location")

whether

in the summer, when the water in the pool is scant,

or in the rainy season,

when the water in the pool is abundant, because it might have been reasonable to say that in the summer, since the water is scant, it is subordinate to the bathhouse.

And he did not

include in the sale of the bathhouse

the house of the gathering of the wood,

that is, neither the room in which wood for heating the bathhouse is stored, nor the wood, because just as the wood is not considered among the appurtenances of the bathhouse, since it serves him also in his house, so too the room in which the wood is stored is not among the appurtenances of the bathhouse.

And if he said to him: “The bathhouse and all its appurtenances I sell to you”—

this wording comes to include that he also sells the water pools and the wood stores, which partly serve the bathhouse, and therefore

all of them are sold.

There was one who said to his fellow: “The olive press and all its appurtenances I sell to you.”

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

which were there at the olive press: those shops outside which, in addition to their primary use for selling bread and wine, were used to spread sesame in them to dry it, before oil would be extracted from it at the olive press. The seller and the buyer disputed concerning them, whether these shops were included in the sale of the olive press or not.

He came before Rav Yosef, who said to him:

Rav Yosef

taught:

we learned:

“If he said: ‘The bathhouse and all its appurtenances I sell to you,’

behold, all of them are sold.”

Both the wood storehouse and the water pool, which partly serve the bathhouse, are sold together with the bathhouse. And it is explained in the Mishna that if the seller said that he was selling all the appurtenances of the house, even things that partly serve the house that he sold are included in the sale. If so, here too, since he said to him, “All its appurtenances I sell to you,” he included these shops, which partly serve the olive press, in the sale of the olive press.

Abbaye said

to Rav Yosef:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

and taught

Rabbi Hiyya

in a beraita:

“Not all of them are sold!”

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

Rather, Rav Ashi said,

the two beraitot should be reconciled as follows:

We see:

we observe:

if he said to him,

the seller to the buyer:

“The olive press and all its appurtenances

are sold to you,

and these are its boundaries,”

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

acquire

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

But if not,

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

he does not acquire

these shops, since their use is not designated only for the olive press.

It is explained here in the Gemara that if the seller said to the buyer that he was selling “everything within it,” but did not say that he was selling “all its appurtenances,” he did not include those things that only partly serve the house that he sold. And although they are included within the boundaries that he specified to him in the sale, we interpret that he specified the boundaries generously, and did not intend to include them in the sale.

But if the seller said to the buyer that he was also selling “all its appurtenances,” and he also specified its boundaries, and within the boundaries that he specified there were those things that partly serve the house that he sold, they are included in the sale, since they serve, to some extent, the house that he sold, and they are also located within the boundaries that he specified in the sale.

Mishna:

One who sells the city—

he has sold the houses

in the city, and all the more so the courtyards, which are the principal part of the city, and likewise

pits, ditches, and caves,

in which water is stored, and likewise

bathhouses,

bathhouse buildings,

and dovecotes

of pigeons, and likewise

the olive presses

for pressing oil,

and irrigated fields—

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

But he did not

include in the sale of the city

the

things

movable

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

And when he said to him,

the seller to the buyer:

“It and everything within it

I sell to you”—

even if there were cattle and slaves in it,

which are movable things that walk, and all the more so other movable things, such as wheat, barley, silver, and gold,

behold, all of them are sold

as part of the city.

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

he has sold the santar,

the guardian of the city , and although he did not sell the movable things in the city, nevertheless he sold this one, since it is needed by the city.

Gemara:

Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: You may learn from it,

it follows from the words of the Mishna: from the fact that it is written in the first part that he did not sell the movable things together with the city, and in the latter part it is written that if he said he was selling everything within it, then the slaves are sold; it follows that in the first part, where he did not sell the movable things, he also did not sell the slaves, for

a slave is considered like movable property,

a slave is considered like a movable object in the language of people .

For if he is considered like land,

if he is considered like land, then

he should be sold along with the city,

he should be sold together with 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 like movable property; if so,

what

is the meaning in the Mishna that he sold

even

cattle and slaves? What novelty is there in a slave more than in the rest of the movable property?

Rather, what can you say? There is a difference

there is a difference

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

and it might have been possible to say that only movable property that does not move is included in the sale, but not movable property that moves. For this reason the Mishna stated that even cattle 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 from the Mishna that a slave is considered like movable property can be rejected, for

even if you say

you say that

a slave is considered like land,

here, in the case of one who sells the city,

it is different,

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

between land that moves

that is, a slave,

and land that does not move,

for the seller of the city has in mind only things fixed in the city and called by the name of the city. But a slave, even if he is considered like land, nevertheless, since he can leave the city, is not included in the city.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

he has sold the santar.

And we inquire about it:

What

is the meaning of

“santar”?

Here they explained:

here in Babylonia they explained that it is

a son of the boundary-marker—

a slave expert in the boundaries of the city, in the division of the boundaries of the fields, and in matters of the taxes applying to each part of the city, and it is impossible to maintain the life of the city without this slave being within it.

Shimon ben Avtulmus

says:

the meaning of santar is

fields,

fields surrounding the city .

The one who says

that the meaning of santar is

“a son of the boundary-marker,” all the more so, fields

the fields, which 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 the son of the boundary-marker is not sold

he is not sold together with the city, since he moves and is not subordinate to being sold along with the city.

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

“The olive presses and the irrigated fields”

are sold together with the city.

They assumed

at first they assumed in explanation:

What

is the meaning of

“irrigated fields”? Fields—

fields, and they are called irrigated fields because

it is written [

Job 5:6]:

“And sends water upon the face of the open places.”

And this verse speaks of rain, and therefore the fields are called irrigated fields since they require rain.

And accordingly it can be proved that the meaning of santar is a slave expert in the boundaries of the city.

For

granted, according to the one who says

that the meaning of santar is

“a son of the boundary-marker,”

the dispute in the Mishna is understandable.

The first tanna said: Fields

[irrigated fields

are sold

together with the city, whereas

“a son of the boundary-marker,”

according to the first tanna,

is not sold,

he is not sold since he is movable property.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Even

the santar, whose meaning is

“a son of the boundary-marker,”

a slave expert in 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 that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mentioned 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 also said precisely this!

that the irrigated fields are sold together with the city.

And it is proven that the meaning of santar is a slave expert in the boundaries of the city, and not fields surrounding the city.

And we reject the proof:

Do you think that “irrigated fields” means

do you think that the meaning of “irrigated fields” is

“fields,”

irrigated fields?

No.

That is not the intention 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 entire year.

And accordingly, it is possible to explain in the Mishna that the meaning of santar is fields surrounding the city.

And thus the words of the Mishna are explained: the first tanna maintains that only the [irrigated fields whose meaning is] gardens are included in the sale of the city, but not fields [fields], since the gardens belong to the city more than the fields do, because a garden is also made for walking in it, as in a house.

But fields—

fields, which do not belong so much to the city—

are not sold,

they are not sold with the city.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Even fields,

fields surrounding the city,

are also sold.

There are those who say

that they brought proof from our Mishna to the opposite conclusion:

They assumed

at first they assumed in explanation:

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

gardens within the city and adjacent to it.

And accordingly they wished to prove that the meaning of santar is fields surrounding the city.

For

granted, according to the one who says

that the meaning of santar is

“fields,”

the dispute in the Mishna is understandable.

The first tanna said

that the irrigated fields, that is,

gardens, are sold,

the gardens are sold together with the city, whereas

fields—

fields, according to the first tanna,

are not sold,

since the gardens belong to the city more than the fields do, because a garden is also made for walking in it, as in a house, unlike the fields.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Even

the santar, whose meaning is

fields,

fields surrounding the city,

are sold.