Study Bava Batra folio 68B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא למאן דאמר בר מחווניתא – אמר תנא קמא: גינונייתא; ומהדר ליה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: בר מחווניתא?! מי סברת מאי ״שלחין״ – גינונייתא?! לא; מאי ״שלחין״ – בגי, דכתיב: ״ושלח מים על פני חוצות״; אבל בר מחווניתא – לא מזדבן. ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר, דאפילו בר מחווניתא נמי מזדבן.
But according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, is it reasonable that the first tanna of the Mishnah said that the gardens within the city are included in the sale of the city, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel responded to him that the land registrar is included? How are the two connected? The Talmud answers: Do you maintain that what is meant by shelaḥin is gardens? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to the fields that surround the city, as it is written: “Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholeaḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). According to the first tanna, it is specifically the fields that are sold with the city, but the land registrar is not sold. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the land registrar is also sold.
תא שמע, רבי יהודה אומר: סנטר אינו מכור, אנקולמוס מכור. מאי, לאו מדאנקולמוס גברא, סנטר נמי גברא? מידי איריא?! הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא.
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: R' Yehuda says: The santar is not sold with the city, but the city scribe [ankolemus] is sold with it. What, is it not clear from the fact that the city scribe is a man that the santar is also a man? The Talmud rejects this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is, and santar means fields, and not the land registrar.
ומי מצית אמרת הכי? והא קתני סיפא: אבל לא שייריה ולא בנותיה, ולא חורשין המוקצין לה, ולא ביברין של חיה ושל עופות ושל דגים. ואמרינן: מאי ״שייריה״? ביזלי. מאי ביזלי? אמר רבי אבא: פיסקי בגי. פיסקי בגי הוא דלא מזדבני, הא בגי עצמן – מזדבני!
The Talmud asks: How can you say that according to R' Yehuda the fields surrounding the city are not sold along with it? But isn’t it taught in the latter clause of this baraita: But when one sells a city he has not sold its remnants, and not its daughters, i.e., the nearby rural villages, and not the woods that are set aside and designated for the city, and not the enclosures [beivarin] for animals, for birds, and for fish. And we said in explanation: What is meant by its remnants? Bizlei. The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of bizlei? R' Abba said: The strips of the fields that are separated from the main fields by a stretch that cannot be cultivated. From here, it may be inferred that it is the strips of the fields that are not sold with the city, but the fields themselves are sold with it.