ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 68
BAVA BASRA 68-69 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) Our Mishnah states that - the houses, the various pits ... dove-cotes
and Beis-ha'Shalachin (which will be explained in the Sugya) are not sold
together with the town.
(b) Neither are - the bathhouses or the olive-presses.
(c) Should the owner declare 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tocho, the Metaltelin
are included, too - and this incorporates ...
1. ... the Chatzeiros (which are too obvious to mention, even in the initial
list of things that are sold).
2. ... the animals and Avadim.
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya extrapolated from the fact that Avadim are
not initially sold together with the town - that Avadim must be considered
(b) The problem this creates is - that later in the Masechta we will pose a
She'eilah (which will remain unresolved) as to whether Avadim are considered
Karka or Metaltelin. Why do we not cite this Mishnah to resolve it?
(c) The fact that one acquires Avadim with Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah
(clearly assuming Avadim to be Karka) has no bearing on the She'eilah and on
the case in our Mishnah - which concern 'Lashon B'nei Adam', (what people
consider them in their minds when *they* make stipulations connected with
(a) Rav Ashi further extrapolated from the Tana's use of the word '*even*
animals and Avadim' (even assuming that Avadim are Metaltelin) - that they
are worse than regular Metaltelin in this regard (because they move).
(b) And he finally uses this to solve our problem - by explaining that, by
the same token, even if Avadim were considered Karka, they might be worse
than regular Karka for the same reason.
(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel includes the Santer in the sale of a town. We
translate Santer as 'bar Mechavnisa', which Rabeinu Chananel interprets as
the town guard (from the Lashon in Shir Hashirim "*Noterah* es ha'Keramim").
It might also mean - an Eved belonging to the mayor, whose task it is to
clarify the boundaries of the privately-owned fields.
(a) Shimon ben Avtulmus interprets 'Santer' as - 'Bagi' (meaning fields that
surround the town).
(b) He and the Tana Kama argue over 'bar Mechavnisa', who is not sold
according to Shimon ben Avtulmus (seeing as he moves [although those who
interpret Santer as 'bar Mechavnisa', will agree with him that Bagi are
included in the sale]).
(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Shole'ach Mayim al-P'nei Chutzos", we initially
translate 'Beis Hashalachin' (which, according to the Tana Kama, is included
in the sale) as - 'Bagi'.
(d) The problem this creates according to Shimon ben Avtulmus'
interpretation of Santer is - that since the Tana Kama includes Bagi in the
sale of the town, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is merely mimicking the Tana
(a) Consequently, according to Shimon ben Avtulmus, we are forced to
re-interpret 'Beis ha'Shalachin' to mean - 'Ginunisa', which means gardens
that are close to the town, and that are suitable for strolling in, just
like a house (this time based on the Pasuk "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim").
(b) Based on the inference (in the Tana Kama) that the gardens are sold but
not Bagi, the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah is now - whether
the Bagi are included in the sale (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or not (the
(c) According to the second Lashon, we have no problem with Shimon ben
Avtulmus, as we just explained. The problem with those who explain Santer as
'bar Machvenisa' is - that seeing as the Tana Kama includes gardens in the
sale, Raban Simon ben Gamliel should not have jumped on to bar Machvenisa
without including the middle case of Bagi (which is not sold according to
the Tana Kama).
(d) And we resolve this problem - by establishing 'Beis ha'Shalachin' as
Bagi, which the Tana Kama considers sold, but nor bar Machvenisa, whereas
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel considers the latter sold as well.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, considers a Santer sold together with the
town, but not an Unkulmus (the Sofer of the town). We try and extrapolate
from their jusxtaposition - that a Santer must be a person (just like an
Unkulmus [a Kashya on Shimon ben Avtulmus])
(b) We refute this proof however - on the grounds that it is quites
acceptable for the Tana to juxtapose a case concerning a person next to one
concerning an object.
(c) The Seifa of the Beraisa - precludes from the sale of a town, villages,
forests that are close to it, enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries
and fish pools from the sale of a town.
(d) The Tana also lists Shiyrei (alias Bizli), which Rebbi Aba translates as
Piski Bagi - which are large patches of Bagi situated at the most distant
extremity of the Bagi from the town.
(a) We can now extrapolate from the Tana's insertion of Piski Bagi in the
previous list - that Piskei Bagi are not sold together with the town,
whereas Bagi are.
(b) Consequently, we will have to reverse the Lashon of Rebbi Yehudah in the
Reisha which initially reads 'Santer Eino Machur, Ankulmus Machur'.
(c) Another version initially cited the Din of Santer and Ankulmus in the
Beraisa as - 'Eino Machur' (in both cases).
(d) They will reconcile the two Beraisos in exactly the same way (by
switching the ruling by Santer from 'Eino Machur' to 'Machur' (but without
saying that they are reversing the Lashon of Rebbi Yehudah, which would not
(a) This means that Rebbi Yehudah concurs with Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel. The
Tana Kama in a Beraisa precludes villages from the sale of a town. Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel - includes them.
(b) We reconcile our having equated Rebbi Yehudah with Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel, when we now see that they argue (with regard to villages being
included in the sale) - by pointing out that there is nothing irregular
about one Tana concurring with another Tana in one point and arguing with
him in another.
(a) The Beraisa rules that if someone sells a town that is partly on dry
land and partly in the sea - the entire town is included in the sale ...
(b) ... as are enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries and fish pools.
(c) We reconcile this Beraisa with the Beraisa that we learned earlier which
rules that the latter are not sold together with the town - by establishing
this Beraisa when the opening to the enclosure faces the town, and the
previous Beraisa, when it doesn't.
(a) According to our Mishnah, stones that are needed for a field that is
being sold, canes that are used to support its vines, and produce that still
needs the ground - are all included in the sale of the field.
(b) From the fact that the Tana includes the canes in the list, we
extrapolate - that when someone sells a field, he has sold all the trees
(with the one or two exceptions listed in our Mishnah), even the vines in
(c) The Tana also adds Chitzas ha'Kanim, Shomirah, Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav
and Besulas ha'Shikmah to the list. The sale of the field includes ...
1. ... a bundle of growing canes - that is smaller than a Beis Rova (ten and
a fifth Amos square).
2. ... a hunter's hut - that is not made with cement.
1. A 'Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav' is - a young carob-tree that has not yet been
grafted, and which is therefore not yet Chashuv.
2. A 'Besulas ha'Shikmah' is - a young sycamore tree that has not yet been
cut (and is therefore still relatively thin and not Chashuv).
(a) The sale does not include ...
1. ... the stones and canes in the field - if the field does not really need
(b) All of these will be included in the sale - if the seller declares 'Hi
ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tochah'.
2. ... the produce that grew in the field - if it is no longer attached to
(c) A bundle of canes that is more than a Beis Rova however, will not be
included, neither will a Ch'ruv ha'Murkav or a Sadan ha'Shikmah - because
each of these is so Chashuv, that it is considered like an independant