ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 71
BAVA BASRA 71-75 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) If someone sells a field, says our Mishnah, then the pit the
wine-press - and the dove-cots are not included in the sale, whether they
(the dove-cots) are functional or not.
(b) And this ruling applies - even if the seller declares 'Hi ve'Chol Mah
(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, the owner will have to purchase a path to all
of these. The Rabbanan say - that this is not necessary (because they hold
'Mocher, be'Ayin Ra'ah Hu Mocher').
(d) Rebbi Akiva concedes - that where the seller said 'Chutz me'Eilu', he
does not need to purchase a path.
(a) In a case where the seller sells the above accessories and retains the
field - Rebbi Akiva does not require the buyer to purchase a path to get to
his purchase, whereas the Rabbanan do.
(b) Despite the fact that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher',
it does not follow that he argues with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Lo es
ha'Bor, ve'Lo es ha'Gas ve'Lo es ha'Shuvach' - since, unlike a path running
through the purchaser's field, these are not intrinsic parts of the field
(that might automatically go with the purchase of the field).
(c) In a case where one (did not sell the field, but) gave it as a gift,
then all the cases listed in our Mishnah as not being sold together with the
field (e.g. Ch'ruv ha'Murkav, Sadan ha'Shikmah, Bor, Gas and Shuvach) - are
included in the gift.
(d) This ruling will not however, extend to money or detached produce (that
no longer needs the field) - since these are totally unconnected with the
field (and it is obvious that they are not sold or donated together with it
unless otherwise specified).
(a) Brothers who divide their deceased father's field also acquire
completely (like we just learned by Matanah), since the purpose of the
division is in order to clarify each one's portion and separate. This S'vara
might not however, extend to the brother who receives the inner field
needing to purchase a path to get to his field - because he can claim that
he wants to use the field in the same way as his father used it (as we
(b) This ruling also pertains - to someone who acquires a field of Nechsei
(a) By Hekdesh too, the Tana says 'Hikdish es Kulah' (even the Ch'ruv
ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah).
We ruled in Chezkas ha'Batim that, in a
case of two fields with a border in between, where someone made a Kinyan on
one of them with the intention of acquiring both of them - he only acquires
the field on which he actually made the Kinyan.
(b) Even though Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah are considered
separate fields, he will nevertheless acquire them together with the field
(despite the ruling in Chezkas ha'Batim) - because in this case, there is
no border dividing between the field and them.
(c) Even assuming that someone who gives a gift gives generously, more so
than someone who sells, the problem with the Tana's distinction between a
sale and a gift is - that even in the case of a gift, how can we take for
granted that the donor means to give the recipient all the accesories, when
he did not specifically say so?
(d) The initial answer 'Zeh Piresh, ve'Zeh Lo Piresh' makes no sense, since
the truth of the matter is 'Zeh Lo Piresh, ve'Zeh Lo Piresh'. What Rebbi
Yehudah ben Nekusa (who stated this answer before Rebbi) really said was -
that whereas it is up to the seller to specify what he wants to *in*clude in
the sale, the onus of a donor is to specify what he wants to *ex*clude!
(a) When Reuven promised Shimon a room that holds a hundred barrels - they
discovered that the room that he gave him held a hundred and twenty barrels.
(b) Mar Zutra held that, seeing as Reuven did not have a room that could
hold a hundred barrels, Shimon should only receive five sixths of the room.
Rav Ashi refuted Mar Zutra's ruling on the basis - of our Mishnah, which
rules that even the Rabbanan agree that 'ha'Nosen Matanah, be'Ayin Yafah Hu
Nosen'. Consequently, he had to receive the entire room.
(a) We already learned that, according to Rebbi Akiva, a seller sells
generously. The Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Akiva, rule that someone who
purchases two trees in a field - does not acquire the land, implying that,
once his trees die, he is not permitted to plant new ones.
(b) Rav Huna rules that someone who sells a field retaining two trees for
himself - retains the land that goes with it (because he sold the field
(c) Even Rebbi Akiva (who generally holds that a seller sells generously)
will agree with this ruling - because (unlike a pit, which is the case to
which Rebbi Akiva's ruling pertains), his trees weaken the purchaser's land.
Consequently, unless he retains the land in which the trees are growing, it
stands to reason that the purchaser will not allow him to plant new trees,
once the old ones die (and we assume that, when the owner kept back the
trees, he did so on a permanent basis).
(a) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah disagrees with the Tana Kama regarding the
Din of Hekdesh. According to Rebbi Shimon, of all the things that are not
included in the sale of the field, the only two to be included in the event
that the owner declares his field Hekdesh are - a Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and a
(b) Rebbi Shimon himself attributes this in a Beraisa to the fact - that
they nurture from a field belonging to Hekdesh.
(c) We reconcile this with Rav Huna, who just ruled that the owner keeps the
land together with the trees that he retains (in which case the land from
which the tree nurtures is not Hekdesh) - by establishing Rebbi Shimon like
Rebbi Akiva ([his Rebbe], who holds 'Mocher [O Makdish], be'Ayin Yafah Hu
Mocher) and Rav Huna like the Rabbanan (Mocher, be'Ayin Ra'ah Hu Mocher').
(d) True, we just established Rav Huna even according to Rebbi Akiva - but
we have now been forced to retract from that statement.
(a) We do not answer the Kashya by explaining that, according to Rebbi
Shimon, one is Makdish even more generously than one gives a Matanah (in
which case Rav Huna could still hold like Rebbi Akiva) - because then Rebbi
Shimon would be comparing Makdish only partially to Mocher (inasmuch as he
only declares Hekdesh what is included in 'field') and partially to Matanah
(that he leaves himself nothing with regard to what he specified). And
logically, one either compares Makdish completely to one or to the other.
(b) If Rav Huna holds like the Rabbanan, the Chidush is - that he retains
the land for the trees even with regard to re-planting the trees after they
die, as we explained earlier. (otherwise we might have thought that he only
retains the land with regard to bringing Bikurim).
(c) The equivalent Din in the case where the owner retained a pit (which
includes a path, according to the Rabbanan), and the pit caved in - he would
no longer have any rights to the path, once he rebuilt his pit.