When one sells a house, it does not include certain parts of the house, unless the seller specifies that the sale includes everything in the house. The Mishna lists the properties not included in the sale – the yetzia, for which the Gemara brings two possible definitions, an inner room used for storage, and a room with a parapet of ten handsbreadths. Rav Yosef quotes a braita that says there are two other synonyms for the word yetzia – tzela and ta – and sources from the Torah and tannaitic sources are brought to show where these words are used. Mar Zutra qualifies the yetzia exclusion to one where the yetzia was four cubits. Ravina questions this but Mar Zutra resolves the difficulty. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to add the case of the room if one could have derived the ruling for the storage room from the yetzia? It teaches that even if the seller designates a border, and the storage room is included in the border, if the seller says “house,” the room is not included. This accords with two statements of Rav Nachman that the Gemara proceeds to analyze and establish the circumstances of the cases. Why did Rav Nachman need to teach about both cases – why couldn’t we have derived one from the other? The Gemara mentions certain terms and explains what would be included in a sale if that particular term was used, such as ara, arata, zihara, and nichsei.
Bava Batra 61
Share this shiur:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Bava Batra 61
הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת – לֹא מָכַר יָצִיעַ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא פְּתוּחָה לְתוֹכוֹ; וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלְּפָנִים הֵימֶנּוּ; וְלֹא אֶת הַגָּג – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרַת פֶּתַח, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים – אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.
MISHNA: One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״יָצִיעַ״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: אַפְּתָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַפְּתָא לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה – אֲבָל אַפְּתָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא.
GEMARA: What is a gallery? Here in Babylonia they interpreted this as referring to an attic [apta]. Rav Yosef said: It means a windowed structure [bidka ḥalila] attached to the main building. The Gemara notes that according to the one who says that an attic is not sold together with a house, all the more so is a windowed structure attached to the house not sold together with a house, as it is certainly considered a separate entity and not part of the main building. But according to the one who says that a gallery is a windowed structure attached to the house, it is only such a structure that is not included in the sale of the house, but an attic is sold together with a house.
תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – יָצִיעַ, צֵלָע, תָּא. יָצִיעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה חָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ״. צֵלָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַצְּלָעוֹת צֵלָע אֶל צֵלָע שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים פְּעָמִים״. תָּא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַתָּא קָנֶה אֶחָד אֹרֶךְ וְקָנֶה אֶחָד רֹחַב, וּבֵין הַתָּאִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, כּוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ״.
Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6). Additionally, it is called a cell, as it is written: “And the cell [vehata] was one reed long, and one reed wide; and the space between the cells was five cubits” (Ezekiel 40:7). And if you wish, say instead that it can be seen that a small structure attached to a building is called a cell from here, as was taught in the mishna (Middot 4:7): The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits wide, and the cell [vehata] in back of it was six cubits wide, and the wall of the cell was five cubits wide.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: וְהוּא דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
§ Relating to the mishna’s statement that a gallery is not included in the sale of a house, Mar Zutra said: And that is the halakha only when the gallery has an area of at least four by four cubits.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ עַד דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּתְנַן: לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא; הָכִי נָמֵי אִי הָווּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?
Ravina said to Mar Zutra: According to your opinion, that you say a gallery is not excluded from the sale of a house unless it is at least four by four cubits in size, there is a difficulty. As if that is so, then with regard to the exclusion of a pit or a cistern from the sale of a house, about which we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house has sold neither the pit nor the cistern, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house; so too, should we say that only if they have an area of at least four by four cubits, yes, they are excluded from the sale of the house, but if not, no, they are not excluded? This is difficult, as a pit is not four cubits wide, and consequently, it would never be excluded.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – הָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד, וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד; הָכָא – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא; אִי הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חֲשִׁיב, וְאִי לָא – לָא חֲשִׁיב.
Mar Zutra responded: How can these cases be compared? There, in that mishna, this, the excavations, have a discrete use, to store water, and they cannot possibly be used as living quarters, and that, the house, has a discrete use, to serve as living quarters, and so they are considered separate entities even if the excavation is not four cubits wide. But here, in the case of a gallery, both this, the gallery, and that, the house, have the same use, and so if the gallery is at least four by four cubits it is deemed significant and considered a separate entity, but if it is not four by four cubits, it is not deemed significant in its own right, but simply another part of the house.
וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנּוּ. הַשְׁתָּא יָצִיעַ לָא מִיזְדַּבַּן, חֶדֶר מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The mishna teaches that one who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from it. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna taught that a gallery is not sold along with the house, is it necessary to teach that a room behind the house is not included in such a sale?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצַר לֵיהּ מִצְרֵי אַבָּרַאי –
No, this ruling is necessary to teach that the room behind the house is excluded from the sale of the house even if the seller delineated the boundaries of the house for the buyer in the bill of sale by listing places outside the room, e.g., noting the houses that border the property being sold. Even though this might suggest that the room is included in the sale, the mishna teaches that it is not.
כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a residence to another in a large building [bira] containing several residences, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large building, he did not sell him the entire building, but rather he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what he was selling; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the specific residence subject to the transaction.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ וּלְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – בַּיִת זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּירָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דִּלְבִירָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בַּיִת״? כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
With regard to Rav Naḥman’s statement, the Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a residence a residence, and a building a building, and they always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious that he did not intend to sell him the entire building but merely enlarged upon the boundaries for him, as he sold him a residence and did not sell him a large building. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call a building a residence. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire building, since he delineated the external boundaries of the large building?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא קָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ לְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִירָה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב: ״וְלָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where most of the people call a residence a residence, and a building they call a building, but there are also some people who call a building a residence. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the building’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire building, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire building, he would have written in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but if he did not write this clause, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִקְעָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
And in a similar fashion, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a field to another in a large expanse of fields, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large expanse of fields he did not sell him the entire expanse of fields; rather, he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what was being sold; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the particular field he was selling.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְשָׂדֶה ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – שָׂדֶה זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּקְעָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! וְאֶלָּא דִּלְבִקְעָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״? כּוּלָּהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a field a field, and an expanse of fields an expanse of fields, and always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious the he did not intend to sell him the entire expanse of fields, as he sold him a field and did not sell him an expanse of fields. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call an expanse of fields a field. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire expanse of fields, since he delineated the external boundaries of the expanse of fields?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא דִּלְשָׂדֶה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִקְעָה קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינֵי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where there are some people who call a field a field, and an expanse of fields they call an expanse of fields, but there are also some people who call an expanse of fields a field. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the expanse’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire expanse, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire expanse, he would have written for him in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but since he did not write this clause for him, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, אֲבָל בִּקְעָה – דְּכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ;
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for Rav Naḥman to teach the halakha in both cases, even though the two rulings appear to be the same. As had he taught us the halakha only in the case of the residence, that he did not sell him the entire building even if he delineated the building’s external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that this, the residence, has a discrete use, separate from that of the rest of the building, and that, the building, has a discrete use. But as for an expanse of fields, all of which has a single use, since it can be sown with grain in its entirety, say that the seller sold him the entire expanse.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּקְעָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּיִת – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מְצַר לֵיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ; צְרִיכָא.
And had Rav Naḥman taught us the halakha only in the case of an expanse of fields, that he did not sell him the entire expanse even if he delineated its external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that the seller had no way to delineate the particular field’s boundaries, since all of the fields are similar, and they all belong to the seller. But as for a residence, with regard to which the seller had a way to delineate its borders, through the use of descriptive terms that would isolate it from the rest of the building, but he did not delineate them, I might say that he sold him the entire building. Therefore, it was necessary to mention both cases explicitly.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל (בַּר שִׁילַת) מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבְּנִי לֵיהּ מִידֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, כְּמַאן? כְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said in the name of Abaye: One who sells something to another must write for him in the bill of sale: I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale. In accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Rabba bar Avuh says that even when the seller delineates the boundaries of what he is selling, he does not necessarily mean to sell everything included within those boundaries. Inserting this clause in the bill of sale removes uncertainties that could lead to conflict.
הָהוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָא דְּבֵי חִיָּיא מְזַבֵּנְנָא לָךְ״. הֲוַאי לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אַרְעָתָא דַּהֲוָה מִתְקַרְיָן ״דְּבֵי חִיָּיא״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲדָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תַּרְתֵּי לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to another: I am selling you land of the house of Ḥiyya, but there were two plots of land that were called that of the house of Ḥiyya, and the Sages deliberated as to whether both were included in this sale or only one. Rav Ashi said: He said to him that he was selling him one plot of land, and he did not say to him that he was selling him two plots of land, as he employed a singular term. Therefore, only one is included in the sale.
וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָתָא״ סְתָמָא – מִיעוּט אַרְעָתָא שְׁתַּיִם. וְאִי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כֹּל אַרְעָתָא״ – כֹּל אַרְעָתָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, לְבַר מִבּוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיהֲרָא״ – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי בוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי, לְבַר מִבָּתֵּי וְעַבְדֵי.
And if he said to him: I am selling you fields, without specifying how many, the minimum number of fields that would justify being called fields in the plural is two, and therefore the seller has to give the buyer only two of his fields, even if he owns many fields. And if he said to him: I am selling you all of my fields, what he means is that he is selling him all the fields that he owns, excluding his orchards [bustanei] and vineyards. And if he said to him: I am selling you my landed property, what he means is that he is selling him even his orchards and vineyards, but excluding his houses and Canaanite slaves.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Ontario, Canada
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Bava Batra 61
הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת – לֹא מָכַר יָצִיעַ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא פְּתוּחָה לְתוֹכוֹ; וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלְּפָנִים הֵימֶנּוּ; וְלֹא אֶת הַגָּג – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרַת פֶּתַח, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים – אֵינוֹ מָכוּר.
MISHNA: One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״יָצִיעַ״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: אַפְּתָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַפְּתָא לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה – אֲבָל אַפְּתָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא.
GEMARA: What is a gallery? Here in Babylonia they interpreted this as referring to an attic [apta]. Rav Yosef said: It means a windowed structure [bidka ḥalila] attached to the main building. The Gemara notes that according to the one who says that an attic is not sold together with a house, all the more so is a windowed structure attached to the house not sold together with a house, as it is certainly considered a separate entity and not part of the main building. But according to the one who says that a gallery is a windowed structure attached to the house, it is only such a structure that is not included in the sale of the house, but an attic is sold together with a house.
תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – יָצִיעַ, צֵלָע, תָּא. יָצִיעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה חָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ״. צֵלָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַצְּלָעוֹת צֵלָע אֶל צֵלָע שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים פְּעָמִים״. תָּא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַתָּא קָנֶה אֶחָד אֹרֶךְ וְקָנֶה אֶחָד רֹחַב, וּבֵין הַתָּאִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, כּוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ״.
Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6). Additionally, it is called a cell, as it is written: “And the cell [vehata] was one reed long, and one reed wide; and the space between the cells was five cubits” (Ezekiel 40:7). And if you wish, say instead that it can be seen that a small structure attached to a building is called a cell from here, as was taught in the mishna (Middot 4:7): The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits wide, and the cell [vehata] in back of it was six cubits wide, and the wall of the cell was five cubits wide.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: וְהוּא דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
§ Relating to the mishna’s statement that a gallery is not included in the sale of a house, Mar Zutra said: And that is the halakha only when the gallery has an area of at least four by four cubits.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָר זוּטְרָא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ עַד דְּהָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּתְנַן: לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא; הָכִי נָמֵי אִי הָווּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?
Ravina said to Mar Zutra: According to your opinion, that you say a gallery is not excluded from the sale of a house unless it is at least four by four cubits in size, there is a difficulty. As if that is so, then with regard to the exclusion of a pit or a cistern from the sale of a house, about which we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house has sold neither the pit nor the cistern, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house; so too, should we say that only if they have an area of at least four by four cubits, yes, they are excluded from the sale of the house, but if not, no, they are not excluded? This is difficult, as a pit is not four cubits wide, and consequently, it would never be excluded.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – הָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד, וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד; הָכָא – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא; אִי הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חֲשִׁיב, וְאִי לָא – לָא חֲשִׁיב.
Mar Zutra responded: How can these cases be compared? There, in that mishna, this, the excavations, have a discrete use, to store water, and they cannot possibly be used as living quarters, and that, the house, has a discrete use, to serve as living quarters, and so they are considered separate entities even if the excavation is not four cubits wide. But here, in the case of a gallery, both this, the gallery, and that, the house, have the same use, and so if the gallery is at least four by four cubits it is deemed significant and considered a separate entity, but if it is not four by four cubits, it is not deemed significant in its own right, but simply another part of the house.
וְלֹא אֶת הַחֶדֶר שֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנּוּ. הַשְׁתָּא יָצִיעַ לָא מִיזְדַּבַּן, חֶדֶר מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The mishna teaches that one who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from it. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna taught that a gallery is not sold along with the house, is it necessary to teach that a room behind the house is not included in such a sale?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְצַר לֵיהּ מִצְרֵי אַבָּרַאי –
No, this ruling is necessary to teach that the room behind the house is excluded from the sale of the house even if the seller delineated the boundaries of the house for the buyer in the bill of sale by listing places outside the room, e.g., noting the houses that border the property being sold. Even though this might suggest that the room is included in the sale, the mishna teaches that it is not.
כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִירָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a residence to another in a large building [bira] containing several residences, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large building, he did not sell him the entire building, but rather he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what he was selling; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the specific residence subject to the transaction.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ וּלְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – בַּיִת זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּירָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דִּלְבִירָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בַּיִת״? כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
With regard to Rav Naḥman’s statement, the Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a residence a residence, and a building a building, and they always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious that he did not intend to sell him the entire building but merely enlarged upon the boundaries for him, as he sold him a residence and did not sell him a large building. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call a building a residence. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire building, since he delineated the external boundaries of the large building?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא קָרוּ לֵיהּ לְבַיִת ״בַּיִת״ לְבִירָה ״בִּירָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִירָה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב: ״וְלָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where most of the people call a residence a residence, and a building they call a building, but there are also some people who call a building a residence. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the building’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire building, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire building, he would have written in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but if he did not write this clause, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּבִקְעָה גְּדוֹלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצַר לוֹ מְצָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – מְצָרִים הִרְחִיב לוֹ.
And in a similar fashion, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who sells a field to another in a large expanse of fields, even if he delineates for him the external boundaries of the large expanse of fields he did not sell him the entire expanse of fields; rather, he enlarged upon the boundaries for him. That is, the seller did not mean to delineate the precise borders of what was being sold; rather, he delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, giving the general location of the particular field he was selling.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ לְשָׂדֶה ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, פְּשִׁיטָא – שָׂדֶה זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, בִּקְעָה לָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ! וְאֶלָּא דִּלְבִקְעָה נָמֵי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״? כּוּלָּהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ!
The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that this is referring to a place where they call a field a field, and an expanse of fields an expanse of fields, and always differentiate between the two terms, it is obvious the he did not intend to sell him the entire expanse of fields, as he sold him a field and did not sell him an expanse of fields. Rather, explain that this is referring to a place where they also call an expanse of fields a field. But in that case, why not say that the seller sold him the entire expanse of fields, since he delineated the external boundaries of the expanse of fields?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא דִּלְשָׂדֶה קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״שָׂדֶה״ וּלְבִקְעָה ״בִּקְעָה״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דִּלְבִקְעָה קָרוּ לַהּ ״שָׂדֶה״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינֵי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, וְלָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר.
The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman’s ruling is necessary in a place where there are some people who call a field a field, and an expanse of fields they call an expanse of fields, but there are also some people who call an expanse of fields a field. Lest you say that since the seller delineated the expanse’s external boundaries, this indicates that he meant to sell him the entire expanse, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this is not so. As, if the seller intended to sell him the entire expanse, he would have written for him in the bill of sale: And I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale, but since he did not write this clause for him, conclude from it that the seller withheld something for himself and did not mean to sell everything located within the delineated boundaries.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, אֲבָל בִּקְעָה – דְּכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הִיא, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ;
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for Rav Naḥman to teach the halakha in both cases, even though the two rulings appear to be the same. As had he taught us the halakha only in the case of the residence, that he did not sell him the entire building even if he delineated the building’s external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that this, the residence, has a discrete use, separate from that of the rest of the building, and that, the building, has a discrete use. But as for an expanse of fields, all of which has a single use, since it can be sown with grain in its entirety, say that the seller sold him the entire expanse.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּקְעָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּיִת – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִימְצַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מְצַר לֵיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ זַבֵּין לֵיהּ; צְרִיכָא.
And had Rav Naḥman taught us the halakha only in the case of an expanse of fields, that he did not sell him the entire expanse even if he delineated its external boundaries, I might have said that this is due to the fact that the seller had no way to delineate the particular field’s boundaries, since all of the fields are similar, and they all belong to the seller. But as for a residence, with regard to which the seller had a way to delineate its borders, through the use of descriptive terms that would isolate it from the rest of the building, but he did not delineate them, I might say that he sold him the entire building. Therefore, it was necessary to mention both cases explicitly.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל (בַּר שִׁילַת) מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבְּנִי לֵיהּ מִידֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״לָא שַׁיַּירִית בִּזְבִינִי אִלֵּין קֳדָמַי כְּלוּם״, כְּמַאן? כְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said in the name of Abaye: One who sells something to another must write for him in the bill of sale: I have not withheld anything for myself in this sale. In accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that Rabba bar Avuh says that even when the seller delineates the boundaries of what he is selling, he does not necessarily mean to sell everything included within those boundaries. Inserting this clause in the bill of sale removes uncertainties that could lead to conflict.
הָהוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָא דְּבֵי חִיָּיא מְזַבֵּנְנָא לָךְ״. הֲוַאי לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אַרְעָתָא דַּהֲוָה מִתְקַרְיָן ״דְּבֵי חִיָּיא״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲדָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תַּרְתֵּי לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to another: I am selling you land of the house of Ḥiyya, but there were two plots of land that were called that of the house of Ḥiyya, and the Sages deliberated as to whether both were included in this sale or only one. Rav Ashi said: He said to him that he was selling him one plot of land, and he did not say to him that he was selling him two plots of land, as he employed a singular term. Therefore, only one is included in the sale.
וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַרְעָתָא״ סְתָמָא – מִיעוּט אַרְעָתָא שְׁתַּיִם. וְאִי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כֹּל אַרְעָתָא״ – כֹּל אַרְעָתָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, לְבַר מִבּוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיהֲרָא״ – אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי בוּסְתָּנֵי וּפַרְדֵּיסֵי, לְבַר מִבָּתֵּי וְעַבְדֵי.
And if he said to him: I am selling you fields, without specifying how many, the minimum number of fields that would justify being called fields in the plural is two, and therefore the seller has to give the buyer only two of his fields, even if he owns many fields. And if he said to him: I am selling you all of my fields, what he means is that he is selling him all the fields that he owns, excluding his orchards [bustanei] and vineyards. And if he said to him: I am selling you my landed property, what he means is that he is selling him even his orchards and vineyards, but excluding his houses and Canaanite slaves.
