דף 68

in the summer season or in the rainy season, nor has he sold him the storeroom for the wood. But if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you the bathhouse and all of its accompaniments, all these components are sold.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling you this olive press and all of its accompaniments. There were certain stores outside of the olive press, where, in addition to the ordinary services that these stores provided, sesame seeds would also be spread out to dry before they would be pressed for their oil. The seller and the buyer disagreed about whether these stores were included in the sale, and the buyer came before Rav Yosef, presenting him with his claim to ownership of the stores.

Rav Yosef said to him: We learned in the previously cited baraita that if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you the bathhouse and all of its accompaniments, all these components are sold. Rav Yosef held that in this case too, the disputed stores were sold. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach in a baraita: They are not all sold? Rather, the issue should be resolved as Rav Ashi said: We consider the seller’s statement, and if he said to the buyer: I am selling you the olive press and all of its accompaniments, and these are its boundaries, and he included the area of the stores within those boundaries, the buyer has acquired those stores, but if the seller does not say this, he has not acquired them, as they are not actually part of the olive press.

MISHNA: One who sells a city without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, the pits, the ditches and caves, the bathhouses and the dovecotes, and the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin, as will be explained in the Gemara, but he has not sold the movable property in the city. But when the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, all these entities are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar, the meaning of which will be explained in the Gemara.

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Learn from the mishna that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, as if it is like that of land, the slave should be sold along with the city. Rav Ashi responded: Rather, what do you claim, that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property? If that is the case, what is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold? This is obvious, as the slaves should be treated no differently than the rest of the city’s movable property.

Rather, what have you to say? You must explain that there is a difference between movable property that moves about by itself, such as slaves, and movable property that does not move about by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. In exactly the same manner, one can claim that even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, there is a difference between land that moves about by itself, i.e., slaves, and land that does not move about by itself.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term santar? Here in Babylonia they interpreted it to mean the land registrar [bar maḥavanita] in charge of keeping track of property boundaries. Shimon ben Avtolemos disagrees and says that it is referring to the fields that surround the city. The Gemara comments: The one who says that santar means the land registrar understands that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, when one sells a city, all the more so are the fields that surround the city included in the sale. But the one who says that it means the fields that surround the city holds that the land registrar is not sold with the city.

The Gemara attempts to adduce proof in support of one of the opinions: We learned in the mishna here that the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin are sold along with the city. The Sages initially maintained: What is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to irrigated fields, fields that require additional irrigation to supplement the rain that they receive. As it is written: “Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [shole’aḥ] water upon the fields” (Job 5:10). Granted, according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, the first tanna of the mishna said that the fields that surround the city 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 sold. But according to the one who says that santar means fields, this is what the first tanna is saying as well. In what way, then, does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree with the first tanna?

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that what is meant by shelaḥin is irrigated fields? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to gardens found within the city, as it is stated: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13). But the fields that surround the city are not sold. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the fields are sold as well. This is one version of the discussion.

Some say that the discussion took place as follows: The Sages initially assumed that what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to gardens found within the city. Granted, according to the one who said that santar means the fields that surround the city, the first tanna of the mishna said that the gardens found within the city are sold along with the city, but the fields that surround the city are not sold, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that even the fields that surround the city are sold.