Bava Batra 69b — the Talmud in English

From where are these words derived?

From where do we learn that a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk are not considered part of the field, to the extent that even if he said that he was selling everything within the field, he did not include them in the sale, since they are considered a field in their own right.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

This matter is learned from the verse, with regard to Ephron the Hittite, who sold Abraham the field [in which was the Cave of Machpelah] without specifying what was included in the sale, as it is written [Genesis 23:13]: “I have given the money for the field; take it from me,” and Ephron answered him: “A land worth four hundred shekels of silver, etc.” Nevertheless, Abraham acquired all the trees,

as the verse says [

Genesis 23:17–18 ]:

“And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah,

which was before Mamre, the field and the cave that was in it, and every tree that was in the field, within all its surrounding boundaries, arose for Abraham as a purchase.” We see that by purchasing the field without specification, he also acquired all the trees.

And the verse “within all its surrounding boundaries” is superfluous, for the verse could have written: “and every tree that was in the field,” whose meaning would be every tree that is within the boundaries of the field. Rather, necessarily, “within all its surrounding boundaries” was written for an exposition.

And this is how we expound it: Only

that which requires a surrounding boundary,

such as thin trees that do not have a name of their own, and for that reason people forget who planted them, and it is necessary to make a sign and a boundary around them so that they will be recognizable and no person will challenge them, saying that since they are planted within his property, they are his—those trees are included in the sale of the field.

These are excluded,

a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk,

which do not require a surrounding boundary,

because they are large and significant, and it is publicly known to whom they belong and in whose land they are planted; these trees are not included in the sale of the field.

Rav Mesharsheya said: From here,

from this verse, we learn

the boundaries from the Torah,

that one who purchases a field also purchases its boundaries and all the trees planted on the boundary, for the boundaries are included in the field. For the meaning of the verse “around” is that Abraham acquired all the trees planted in the ground of the boundary around the field.

Rav Yehuda said: This one who sells land to his fellow,

one who sells land to his fellow,

must write for him

to write for him in the deed of sale:

“Acquire for yourself palm trees,”

acquire for yourself fully grown palm trees,

“and young palms,”

and date palms—young palm trees,

“and palm branches and shoots,”

and branches and saplings of palm trees.

And even though, when he did not write this for him, he acquires them,

even though if the seller did not write this in the deed of sale, the purchaser acquires these things, as explained in the Mishna: one who sells a field sells all the trees in it, except for a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk.

Even so,

even though so,

it is an improvement of the deed

it is an enhancement of the deed, for he writes explicitly in order that there be no room for dispute, and even if they come to litigate before an erring court, the seller will be obligated to include the trees in the sale of the field, since they are specified within the deed.

If

he said to him

the seller to the purchaser:

“Land and palm trees,”

“I am selling you a field and palm trees”—since he added to his words and said “and palm trees,” his words must be interpreted as meaning that he sold additional palm trees besides the palm trees standing in the field, for the palm trees standing in the field are sold together with the field even if he had not said “and palm trees” [as explained in the Mishna]. Rather, certainly he came to add and sell additional palm trees.

Therefore:

we see,

we see,

if he has palm trees,

if the seller has palm trees elsewhere—

he gives him two palm trees,

he gives the purchaser two palm trees [since he said “palm trees” in the plural, and the minimum of a plural is two].

And if he does not have them,

and if he does not have palm trees elsewhere—

he buys him two palm trees,

the seller purchases two palm trees for the purchaser, or returns to the purchaser from the payment he received for the sale an amount equivalent to two palm trees, so that he will not be lacking in trust, for since he said that he was selling additional palm trees, and he does not possess additional palm trees, his words must be interpreted as meaning that he sells the purchaser two palm trees that he will purchase for the purchaser.

And if

the seller has two palm trees elsewhere, but

they are encumbered,

they are encumbered to a creditor, for the seller encumbered the palm trees as security for a loan that he borrowed from the creditor—

he redeems two palm trees for him,

the seller redeems two palm trees for him from the encumbrance and gives them to him.

All this was said in a case in which the seller said to the purchaser: “I am selling you land and palm trees.”

But if the seller wrote to the purchaser:

“Land with palm trees,”

“I am selling you a field with palm trees within it”—his intention is the palm trees within the field being sold. And even though the palm trees are included in the sale of the field even without specifying them in the deed, nevertheless we say that he specified them in order to improve the deed, so that the matters would be clear also in the deed of sale.

And therefore

we see,

we see,

if there are palm trees in it,

if there are palm trees in the field that he sold him,

he gives him,

he gives the purchaser the field together with the palm trees in it.

But

if not,

if there are no palm trees in the field that he sold—

it is a mistaken sale,

because the seller lied to the purchaser that there were palm trees in the field, and it became clear that there were no palm trees in it, and therefore the sale is void. And even though there is no overreaching with regard to land, for any sum paid for land is not considered overreaching, nevertheless it became clear from the deed that the purchaser agreed to the sale only on the understanding that he believed there were palm trees there, and it became clear that there were no palm trees there.

And if the seller said to the purchaser:

“Land suitable for palm trees,”

“I am selling you a place suitable for palm trees”—

he has no palm trees,

the purchaser has no right to receive palm trees, and therefore if there are no palm trees in the field, the sale is not void, since he said only that it was a fine field

suitable for palm trees,

suitable for growing palm trees,

he said to him,

the seller said to him that he was selling it to him.

And if there were palm trees in the field, certainly they are included in the sale; and what the seller said, that he was selling land suitable for growing palm trees, means that he sold him land with palm trees laden with many fruits.

If

he said to him

the seller to the purchaser: “I am selling you the field

except for a certain palm tree,

except for a certain palm tree”—

we see,

we see,

if it is a good palm tree,

if that palm tree is of average quality, which produces some fruit—we say that

he retained it,

the seller retained that palm tree for himself, for his intention was to benefit from some of the fruits of his field, and the purchaser acquired the other palm trees as part of the field that he purchased.

But

if it is a bad palm tree,

if that palm tree that he retained for himself is a poor palm tree, which people call a “bad palm tree,” for example, one that does not produce fruit in the measure of a kav— we interpret his intention as follows: By retaining this palm tree for himself, he intended that even this poor palm tree he retained for himself;

all the more so these,

all the more so he retained for himself the other palm trees that are better than it.

But palm trees inferior to the bad palm tree that he specified are included in the sale of the field, for his intention was only to retain the palm trees better than the palm tree that he specified, as well as the bad palm tree that he specified, but not those inferior to it.

If

he said to him

the seller to the purchaser: “I am selling you a field

except for trees,

except for trees.”

We see:

if it has trees,

if there are tree species in the field, such as olives, figs, apples, and other types of trees that are called trees, we say that he sold him the field

except for trees,

except for the trees, for he excluded them from the field and retained them for himself.

But

if it has palm trees,

if there are only palm trees in the field and there are no other types of trees in it, certainly he intended to sell the field

except for palm trees,

without the palm trees. And even though ordinarily palm trees are not called trees, but they were accustomed to call them palm trees because of their importance, and because most of their trees were palm trees, nevertheless, since there are no other trees here but palm trees, when the seller said that he was retaining trees, certainly his intention was the palm trees.

And likewise,

if it has vines,

if there are only vines in the field—even though ordinarily they are not called trees, nevertheless, since there are only vines in the field, and the seller said that he was selling the field except for the trees in it, certainly his intention was the vines, and he sold the field

except for vines,

except for the vines.

And if there are in the field

trees and vines,

both other trees and vines—he sold the field

except for trees,

except for the other trees; but he did not retain the vines for himself, since ordinarily they are not called trees.

And likewise, if there are in the field

trees and palm trees,

both other trees and palm trees—he sold the field

except for trees,

except for the other trees; but he did not retain the palm trees for himself, since ordinarily they are not called trees.

And if there are in the field only

vines and palm trees,

vines and palm trees—we say that he sold the field

except for vines,

except for the vines; but he did not retain the palm trees for himself, since, because he said that he was retaining “the trees,” we interpret his intention as referring only to the vines, which are closer to being included among trees than palm trees.

Rav said:

If the seller said to the purchaser that he was selling the field except for the trees in it, he retained for himself only those called trees. Therefore, only

all

those trees

that he ascends

upon them

with a rope

to gather the fruits

are a retention,

are included among the trees that the seller retained for himself, for only these are considered a tree. But

all

the small trees

that he does not ascend with a rope

to gather the fruits, since they are low—

are not a retention,

for they are not considered a tree. And the Gemara below will explain that this refers to palm trees, whose way is to be very tall, and whose fruits are at their tops; therefore, they are not considered a tree if they are so small and low that it is possible to gather their fruits without climbing them with a rope.