Bava Batra 69a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

What

what are

stones that are for its needs?

Here they explained

here in Babylonia: they asked that these are

stones of the sheaves—

stones of the sheaves found in the field for drying, which they place upon these sheaves so that they will not scatter in the wind.

Ulla said:

These are

stones arranged

within the field

for a fence—

for the stones are arranged in the place of the fence, one beside the other, in the manner in which they arrange them for construction, except that they are not yet joined with mortar.

And we raise an objection against Ulla’s words:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

in a beraita, that even

stones piled for a fence

like a heap of stones, which are not arranged, are considered a fixed use of the field, to be sold with it. If so, how did Ulla explain in the Mishna that only stones arranged for a fence are considered a fixed use of the field, to be sold with it?

And we answer:

Teach—

one should have the beraita read: stones

arranged

for a fence, in accordance with Ulla’s words: only the arranged stones are included in the sale of the field, but piled stones that are not arranged are not considered a fixed use of the field, to be sold with it.

And we explain: what was brought earlier, that

here they explained

here in Babylonia explained that stones that are for the needs of the field are, namely,

stones of the sheaves—

stones that they place upon the sheaves so that they will not scatter in the wind—must be examined as to in what manner these stones are included in the sale of the field.

And one may say that

for Rabbi Meir—

who holds [below, 78b] that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed—here too he will hold that stones

that are prepared, even though they are not placed—

that are prepared and ready for guarding the bundles, even though they are not lying within the field; since they were prepared for the needs of the field, they are included in the sale of the field.

Whereas

for the Sages—

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard—here they will hold that the stones sold with the field

are

specifically

placed

within the field.

And according to Ulla, who said

that the intention of the Mishna is

stones arranged for a fence,

his words imply that he stated anonymously in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, because

for Rabbi Meir,

who holds that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed, if so, stones

that are prepared even though they are not arranged—

which are not arranged, but are prepared for the needs of this field’s fence—are included in the sale of the field.

But

for the Sages,

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard, according to their opinion the stones included in the sale of the field

are

specifically

those that he arranged—

for through this the stones acquire a substantial and fixed use in the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the reeds in the vineyard that are for its needs

are included in the sale of the field.

The plain meaning of “reeds” is those in the place where they grow, and therefore we ask:

Reeds

that grow in the ground,

what is their function?

What do they have to do with the vineyard?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said:

the intention of the Mishna is

reeds split

at their tops,

which they set beneath the vines,

so that the branches of the vines will lean upon them.

For Rabbi Meir—

who holds that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed—if so, here too he will hold that reeds

that are smoothed, even though they are not set in place—

which are smoothed and prepared for the needs of the vineyard, even though they are not yet fixed and stuck into the ground—are included in the sale of the vineyard.

But

for the Sages—

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard—here they will hold that the reeds included in the sale of the vineyard

are

specifically

those that he set in place,

which already stand and are fixed in their place.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the grain attached to the ground, etc.

We explain: the intention of the Mishna is not grain whose time to be harvested has not arrived, for in this there is no novelty: the grain is included in the sale, since the buyer will not allow the seller to let his produce ripen in the field that he bought. And this grain is not fit to be gathered now, at the time of the sale; if so, it is obvious that it is included in the sale, and the Mishna did not need to teach us this.

Rather, the Mishna comes to teach us regarding grain

even though its time to be harvested has arrived,

even though its time to be harvested has arrived, nevertheless, with regard to the sale, we do not say that everything destined to be harvested is considered as though it had been harvested. Rather, since it has not yet been harvested, its status is like land, and it is sold as part of the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the patch of reeds that is less than a quarter-kav area.

We explain: the Mishna comes to innovate that

even though they are thick,

even though they are large and thick, nevertheless, since their area is less than a quarter-kav, they are considered part of the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the guard’s hut—

the guard’s booth [made of reeds]

that is not made with mortar.

We explain: the Mishna is speaking of a guard’s booth that is not made with mortar

even though it is not fixed in the ground,

even though it is not fixed in the ground and it is possible to move it; nevertheless, since it is not made with mortar, it is not significant in its own right, and it is considered part of the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the unengrafted carob tree, and the unworked sycamore.

We explain:

even though they are thick,

even though they are large and thick, nevertheless they are still not sufficiently significant in their own right, and they are subordinate to the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

but he did not sell the stones that are not for its needs.

According to the explanation above, these are stones that one places upon the sheaves so that they will not scatter in the wind.

It should be explained that

for Rabbi Meir—

who holds that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed—here he will explain that these are stones

that are not prepared,

which are not prepared to be placed upon the sheaves, which do not serve the field at all, and therefore are not included in the sale of the field.

And likewise

for the Sages,

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard, here they will explain that these are stones

that are not placed,

which are not lying within the field, although they are prepared for this purpose; since they are not a fixed and significant use, they are not sold with the field.

And according to Ulla, who said

that the intention of the Mishna is

stones arranged for a fence.

If so,

for Rabbi Meir,

who holds [below, 78b] that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed, here he will hold that the intention is stones

that are not prepared,

which are not prepared for a fence, which do not serve the field at all, and therefore are not included in the sale of the field.

But

for the Sages,

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard, here they will hold that the intention is stones

that he did not arrange,

which are not arranged for a fence, although they are prepared for this purpose; since they are not a fixed and significant use, they are not sold with the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

and not the reeds in the vineyard that are not for its needs.

For Rabbi Meir,

who holds [below, 78b] that included in the sale of the vineyard are also all things necessary for its use, even though they are not so fixed, here it should be explained as referring to reeds

that are not smoothed,

and are not prepared at all for use; therefore they are not included in the sale of the vineyard.

But

for the Sages,

who hold that uses that are not so fixed are not sold with the vineyard, here it should be explained as referring to reeds

that are not set in place,

which do not stand in their place, and thereby are not considered a fixed and significant part of the vineyard; therefore they are not sold with the vineyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

and not the grain detached from the ground.

The Mishna comes to teach us that

even though it is needed

the grain

for the ground,

for it must be spread out in the field after harvesting, in order to ventilate the grain and dry it; nevertheless, it is not included in the sale of the field on account of this.

We learned in the Mishna:

and not the patch of reeds that is a quarter-kav area.

We explain: the Mishna comes to innovate that

even though they are thin,

even though the reeds are small and thin, nevertheless, since their area is greater than a quarter-kav, they are considered an independent domain and are not included in the sale of the field.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Not only the patch of reeds,

which is a significant thing and occupies an area of a quarter-kav in the ground, is considered an independent domain and is not included in the sale of the field,

but even a small bed of spices,

which does not have an area measuring a quarter-kav, since

it has a name of its own—

it is not sold with it,

with the field. And the same law applies to anything that has a name of its own; it was only regarding the patch of reeds that the Mishna explained that when they occupy an area of a quarter-kav, then they are significant as an independent domain.

Rav Pappa said:

to explain Rabbi Yohanan’s words: the reason that a small bed of spices is not sold with the field is that it establishes a name for itself,

and this—

that is specifically in a case

that they call

that they call

it “so-and-so’s roses”, “so-and-so’s bed of roses,”

and through this it establishes a name of its own.

We learned in the Mishna:

and not the guard’s hut made with mortar,

that is, a guard’s booth for gardens and orchards, which they make from reeds and the like, and place mortar over them from above.

We explain: the Mishna comes to innovate that

even though it is attached to the ground,

that the guard’s hut is attached to the ground, nevertheless, since it is plastered with mortar, it is no longer movable, and it has significance and a name of its own.

(And not the grafted carob tree, and not the trunk of the sycamore. And even though they are thin.)

Since the Mishna distinguished between a guard’s hut made with mortar and one not made with mortar, the Gemara raised a doubt

Rabbi Elazar asked: The frames of doorways,

the frames of the doorways [for they would place a wooden frame upon the walls of the doorway’s opening, like our lintels], which are not one unit with the building, but are attached and fixed in the doorway,

what is [their law]?

Are they included in the sale of the house or not?

And they explain the doubt:

Where they are joined with mortar,

in a manner that the frames are joined to the walls of the doorway with mortar,

you need not ask—

there is no need to be uncertain about the halakha—

for it is joined—

for they are properly joined and fixed, and are considered part of the house; it is obvious that they are included in the sale of the house.

When you must ask—

when there is a doubt—in a case

that they are held by pegs,

that they are held by small wooden pegs and can easily be dismantled from their place; in this manner there is a doubt,

what

is their law? Are they considered, through such an attachment, part of the house, to be included in its sale, or not?

The Gemara did not decide this doubt, and therefore

teyku—

let it stand in place until Elijah the Tishbite comes and decides it.

Rabbi Zeira asked:

If we assume that the frames of the doorways that are joined to the walls of the house with small wooden pegs are considered part of the house, to be included in its sale, there is still a doubt concerning

the frames of windows,

the frames of the windows, for perhaps specifically the frames of the doorways are considered part of the house, since they are intended to strengthen the doorway, whereas the frames of the windows are intended only for adornment.

Therefore there is a doubt concerning them:

what is [their law]? Do we say: They are made only for adornment,

do we say that since they are made for adornment, he does not sell them with the house,

or perhaps, since they are joined,

or perhaps, since they are joined to the walls of the window with wooden pegs,

they are joined,

they are considered joined and are included in the sale of the house?!

For this doubt no decision was found, and therefore

teyku—

let it stand in place until Elijah the Tishbite comes and decides it.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked:

Even if we assume that the frames of the windows joined to the walls of the window with wooden pegs are considered joined and part of the wall, there is still a doubt concerning

the frames of the legs of the bed,

pieces of wood that they would place beneath the legs of the bed to protect them so that they would not rot from the ground, and which are not attached to the bed at all,

what is [their law]?

Are they included in the sale of the bed or not?

And they explain the doubt: it is obvious that

wherever

they move with it,

in a manner that they move with the bed, being attached to the bed with nails or pegs,

you need not ask

there is no need to doubt that they are considered part of the bed, to be included in its sale—

for they move,

for they move with the bed.

When you must ask—

when there is a doubt—

where they do not move,

in a manner that they are not attached to the legs of the bed, but are merely placed beneath it,

what

is their law? Are they considered part of the components of the bed and sold with it, or not?

For this doubt as well no decision was found, and therefore

teyku—

let it stand in place until Elijah the Tishbite comes and decides it.

We learned in the Mishna: he does not sell with the field

nor the grafted carob tree, nor the trunk of the sycamore, etc.