(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 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) What does our Mishnah say about the houses, the various pits ... dove-cotes and Beis-ha'Shalachin (which will be explained in the Sugya) with regard to the sale of a town?

(b) Which other two items does the Tana include in the list?

(c) Should the owner declare 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tocho, the Metaltelin are included, too.
Does this incorporate ...

  1. ... the Chatzeiros?
  2. ... the animals and Avadim?
(a) What did Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya extrapolate from the fact that Avadim are not initially sold together with the town?

(b) What problem does this create?

(c) Seeing as one acquires Avadim with Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah, why is it anyway not obvious that Avadim are considered Karka?

(a) What did Rav Ashi further extrapolate from the Tana's use of the word '*even* animals and Avadim' (even assuming that Avadim are Metaltelin)?

(b) How does he finally use this to solve our problem, and allow us to consider Avadim as Karka?

(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"). What else might it mean?

(a) How does Shimon ben Avtulmus interpret 'Santer'?

(b) In which point do he and the Tana Kama then argue?

(c) Based on the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Shole'ach Mayim al-P'nei Chutzos", how do we initially translate 'Beis Hashalachin' (which, according to the Tana Kama, is included in the sale)?

(d) What problem does this create, according to Shimon ben Avtulmus' interpretation of Santer?

(a) So how are we forced to re-interpret 'Beis ha'Shalachin' according to Shimon ben Avtulmus (this time based on the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim")?

(b) What will then be the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah?

(c) According to the second Lashon, we have no problem with Shimon ben Avtulmus, as we just explained.
What problem do we have with those who explain Santer as 'bar Machvenisa'?

(d) How do we explain 'Beis ha'Shalachin in order to answer this Kashya?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, considers a Santer sold together with the town, but not an Unkulmus (the Sofer of the town).
What do we try and extrapolate from their juxtaposition?

(b) How do we refute this proof?

(c) What does the Seifa of the Beraisa say about villages, forests that are close to it, enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries and fish pools?

(d) The Tana also lists Shiyrei (alias Bizli), which Rebbi Aba translates as Piski Bagi.
What is the difference between Piski Bagi and Bagi?

(a) What can we now extrapolate from the Tana's insertion of Piski Bagi in the previous list?

(b) But did Rebbi Yehudah in the Reisha not just say that Bagi are not included in the sale?

(c) How did another version initially cite the Din of Santer and Ankulmus in the Beraisa?

(d) How will now reconcile the two Beraisos?

(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.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(b) How do we then 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)?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a town that is partly on dry land and partly in the sea?

(b) And what does the Tana say about enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries and fish pools?

(c) How do we then reconcile this Beraisa with the Beraisa that we learned earlier which rules that the latter are not sold together with the town?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about stones that are needed for a field that is being sold, canes that are used to support vines, and produce that still needs the ground?

(b) What do we extrapolate from the fact that the Tana includes the canes in the list?

(c) The Tana also adds Chitzas ha'Kanim, Shomirah, Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav and Besulas ha'Shikmah to the list.
Under what circumstances does the sale of the field include ...

  1. ... a bundle of growing canes?
  2. ... a hunter's hut?
(d) What is ...
  1. ... a 'Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav'?
  2. ... a 'Besulas ha'Shikmah'?
(a) When does the sale not include ...
  1. ... the stones and canes in the field?
  2. ... the produce that grew in the field?
(b) Under which circumstances will all of these be included in the sale?

(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.
Why not?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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