(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 and the wine-press are not included in the sale.
What does the Tana say about the dove-cots?

(b) Will it help to say 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tochah'?

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, the owner will have to purchase a path to all of these.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) What will Rebbi Akiva say in a case where the seller said 'Chutz me'Eilu'?

(a) What do Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan respectively, say in a case where the seller sells the above accessories and retains the field? Does the buyer need to purchase a path to get to his purchase?

(b) Seeing as Rebbi Akiva holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher', does it follow that he argues with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Lo es ha'Bor, ve'Lo es ha'Gas ve'Lo es ha'Shuvach'?

(c) What will be the Din with regard to 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), in a case where one gave the field as a Matanah?

(d) Will this ruling also extend to money or detached produce (that no longer needs the field)?

(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.
Why might this S'vara not extend to the brother who receives the inner field needing to purchase a path to get to it?

(b) To which third case (of Chulin) does this ruling pertain?

(a) By Hekdesh too, the Tana says 'Hikdish es Kulah' (even the Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah).
What did we rule in Chezkas ha'Batim 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?

(b) Bearing in mind that Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah are considered separate fields, how will we reconcile the ruling here with the ruling in Chezkas ha'Batim?

(c) Even assuming that someone who gives a gift gives generously, more so than someone who sells, what problem do we have with the Tana's distinction between a sale and a gift?

(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 then did Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa (who stated this answer before Rebbi) really say?

(a) What did they discover in a case where Reuven promised Shimon a room that holds a hundred 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. On what basis did Rav Ashi refute Mar Zutra's ruling?

(a) We already learned that, according to Rebbi Akiva, a seller sells generously. What do the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Akiva, say about someone who purchases two trees in a field? What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(b) What does Rav Huna say about someone who sells a field retaining two trees for himself?

(c) On what grounds will even Rebbi Akiva (who generally holds that a seller sells generously) agree with this ruling?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah disagrees with the Tana Kama regarding the Din of Hekdesh.
According to Rebbi Shimon, what of the things that are not included in the sale of the field, are the only two that are included in the event that the owner declares his field Hekdesh?

(b) To what does Rebbi Shimon himself attribute this in a Beraisa?

(c) How do we reconcile with Rav Huna, who just ruled that the owner keeps the land together with the trees that he retains?

(d) But did we not establish Rav Huna even according to Rebbi Akiva?

(a) Why do we 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)?

(b) If Rav Huna holds like the Rabbanan, then what is the Chidush? Is it not obvious that he retains the land for the trees?

(c) What would be 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?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,