Bava Batra 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

We learned it the opposite way,

that is, we teach their statements in reverse: the judges of the Exile are the ones who hold in accordance with Rava, that he collects only half.

Mishna:

This Mishna continues the previous Mishna, and initially clarifies the law concerning one who sells a field to another: what is included in the sale of the field and what is not.

It subsequently clarifies the distinction between one who sells a field and one who gives the field as a gift, or consecrates it [and likewise one who inherits it, or acquires it from ownerless property], who acquire everything.

A. One who sells a field to another and tells him that he is selling him everything contained within it does not thereby sell him

neither the pit

within it,

nor the winepress

in which wine is made,

nor the dovecote

belonging to the doves,

whether

the pit, the winepress, and the dovecote

are ruined structures or inhabited ones.

And

the seller

must acquire for himself

from the buyer

a path

through the field that he sold to the buyer, so that he can reach the pit, the winepress, and the dovecote,

the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

But the Sages say: He need not acquire

a path for himself in order to reach them, since a person retains a path for himself and does not sell his entire field outright.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when he tells him:

I am selling you the field and everything contained within it

except these

[the pit, the winepress, and the dovecote],

he need not acquire a path for himself.

B.

And if the owner of the field did not sell his field, but only

sold them

the pit, the winepress, and the dovecote as entities in their own right

to

a

different

Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not

acquire

a path for himself

from the owner of the field, because included in the sale of the pit, the winepress, and the dovecote was also the sale of the path leading to them.

But the Sages say: He must

the buyer

acquire a path for himself

to them from the owner of the field, since he sold him only those objects and did not sell him a path.

The Mishna now continues and states a general rule concerning all the objects that we learned throughout the Mishnayot of this chapter are not sold: this applies only to a sale, but not to a gift or to consecration, and not to inheritance or acquisition of ownerless land:

C.

In what case is this statement said,

that which we learned throughout this chapter, that there are objects that are not sold as part of the field?

With regard to one who sells.

But with regard to one who gives a gift

he gives all of it,

including even objects that are not included in it, such as a grafted carob tree and a sycamore stump, and a pit, a winepress, and a dovecote, because everyone who gives a gift gives generously, even beyond what is necessary.

Brothers who divided

among themselves the field that they inherited from their father

acquire the field, they acquire all of it,

since they divided it in this manner, with each one completely withdrawing from his brother’s share.

One who takes possession of the property of a convert,

who died without heirs, and it is ownerless

if he took possession of the field, he took possession of all of it.

One who consecrates the field

has consecrated all of it,

everything contained within it, since he consecrates generously.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and

says: One who consecrates the field

has not consecrated

with it the other objects that are not sold along with it, because one who consecrates a field does not consecrate more than what a seller sells,

but

he consecrated with it only

the grafted carob tree and the sycamore stump

[although they are not sold along with it], for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara,

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the distinction that we learned in the Mishna between a sale and a gift:

What is different about a sale,

that he did not sell all of it,

and what is different about a gift,

that he gave all of it?

Yehuda ben Nekosa explained before Rabbi: In this case,

the one who gives,

he specified

in his statement that he was giving everything;

and in that case,

the seller,

he did not specify

that he was selling everything.

The Gemara challenges his statement:

This one,

did we in fact learn in the Mishna

specified, and that one did not specify!?

But in the Mishna,

this one did not specify, and that one did not specify!

For the tanna stated his words without qualification and taught both cases in the same language.

Rather,

the Gemara explains that the distinction is as follows:

This one,

the giver, whose practice is to give generously, if he had wanted to retain something for himself,

he should have specified

what he was retaining; and since he did not explicitly retain it, he forfeited it.

And that one,

the seller, who does not sell generously, but sells because he is under financial pressure,

did not need to specify

that he was retaining for himself the objects that are not included in the field; therefore, he did not forfeit them by failing to specify in his statement that he was not selling them.

The Gemara relates an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to them,

instructing the members of his household to give a gift to another person, and he said as follows:

Give so-and-so a house that holds one hundred

barrels,

one of my houses that has an area capable of holding one hundred barrels.

It was found that it held one hundred and twenty.

Among his houses there was no house whose area held only one hundred barrels; rather, there was a larger house that held one hundred and twenty barrels. The question now arises: Does his fellow acquire the entire house, or should they give him only a portion of the house with an area capable of holding one hundred barrels?

Mar Zutra said:

Only an area for

one hundred

barrels

did he say

to give

him.

But a house with an area for

one hundred and twenty, he did not say to him,

and his fellow receives only a portion of the area of the house, not the entire house.

Rav Ashi said: Did we not learn: In what case is this statement said

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

he gives all of them?

Apparently, one who gives

a

gift

gives generously.

And if so,

here too, one who gives a gift

gives generously.

He intended to give him an entire house rather than part of a house, and therefore they should give him the entire house.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who consecrates the field

has consecrated

all of it.

Rav Huna said: Although the Sages said

[below, 81a], that

one who purchases two trees within another’s field

has not acquired the land,

the land adjacent to the trees and between them, and likewise he has not acquired rights to the land occupied by the trees themselves; therefore, if the trees die, he has no right to plant other trees there in their place.

But if a person

sold

the

land, and retained

for himself

two trees before him

he has land

around the trees and between them, since he did not sell this land, but retained it for himself as part of the two trees that he retained.

The Gemara explains that Rav Huna’s novelty does not apply according to the Sages, because according to them it is obvious that the seller retains the land for himself, as they hold that one who sells a field sells begrudgingly. Rather, Rav Huna’s novelty applies even according to Rabbi Akiva:

And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that a seller sells generously,

here he does not sell the land surrounding the trees as well, because

this applies

when he sells generously all the land surrounding

a pit or a cistern, since they do not damage the land,

as the pit and the cistern that the seller retains for himself are not destined to damage the buyer’s land. The seller does not fear that the buyer will later demand that he remove the pit or cistern so that they will not damage the land he purchased; therefore, he does not retain any portion of the surrounding land.