Bava Batra 71 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Elul - September 4, 1 Elul

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's mother, Helene Krivosha, Hanna Mindel bat Yerachmiel haKohen and Feiga Raba on her first yahrzeit. "A true eshet hayil." If one sells a field, the sale does not include a pit, winepress, or dovecote in the field. Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis again disagree about whether the seller keeps an access route or needs to purchase one. However, if the field were given as a gift or to one of the brothers while dividing up an inheritance, or one who acquires an ownerless field (like from a deceased convert's property) the one who acquires the field would acquire everything in it, including the pit, winepress and dovecote. If one consecrated the field, the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether everything was consecrated or also the usual items are excluded, other than a grafted carob tree or sycamore. A case happened where a person on their deathbed promised a house of a particular size to gift to someone, but they owned a house larger than that size. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi each ruled differently how to fulfill the promise. Rav Ashi awarded the recipient the entire house based on the principle that one who gives a gift always gives generously, and the intent must have been for the entire house. Rav Huna made a statement that one who sold one's land but kept two trees intended to keep the land around the trees. At first, it is assumed that this statement can be understood even according to Rabbi Akiva that one who sells, sells generously, as the trees need the land for nutrients and if the seller did not retain rights to the land, it would lead to problems down the road with the buyer who insist the seller uproot the trees as it is weakening the buyer's land. However, they raise a difficulty on this from an explanation given for Rabbi Shimon's opinion in our Mishna regarding one who consecrated a field, the grafted carob tree and sycamore are consecrated as well since they get nutrients from the ground. This implies that the one who consecrated may have intended not to consecrate the trees but did not retain rights to the land around them. Therefore, one must assume that Rabbi Shimon and Rav Huna do not agree, as Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Akiva that one who sells/consecrates does so generously, and Rav Huna's statement only accords with the rabbis' position.