Previous Folio /
Baba Bathra Contents /
Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba BathraFolio 83ain Dura dira'awatha^{1} [where three trees, planted at distances of less than eight cubits between them, were sold], and, when [the disputants] came before Rab Judah, he said unto [the buyer]: Go [and] give him [his share in the ground, even though the spaces between the trees are just] enough for a pair of oxen and their [ploughing] outfit. I did not know [at the time] how large was the 'space of a pair of oxen and their outfit'. When, however, I heard the following [Mishnah in] which we learnt: A man must not plant a tree near his neighbour's field^{2} unless he has kept at a distance of four cubits:^{3} and in connection with this it has been taught: 'The four cubits mentioned are the dimensions of the space required for attending to the vineyard': I concluded that the 'space of a pair of oxen and their outfit' is four cubits. But is there not also a Mishnah which agrees with [the report of] R. Joseph? Surely^{4} we learnt:^{5} R. Meir and R. Simeon say: He who plants his vineyard [leaving distances of] eight cubits [between the rows] may insert seed there!^{6} — A practical decision^{7} is, nevertheless, preferable.^{8} [The statement] of R. Joseph who follows R. Simeon may be regarded as satisfactory. [since] we have heard [a definition of] scattered [trees] and we have [also] heard [a definition of] closely [planted trees]. [With regard to trees] scattered, [we have the Mishnah] just mentioned.^{9} [As regards trees planted] closely, it has been taught:^{10} A vineyard planted on [an area of] less than four cubits is not [regarded as] a vineyard — these are the words of R. Simeon. And the sages say: [It is regarded as a] vineyard, the intervening vines being treated as if they were not [in existence].^{11} [The statement], however, of R. Nahman who follows the Rabbis [cannot very well be considered satisfactory; for] we have heard [a definition of] scattered [trees, but] have we heard [a definition of] closely [planted trees]? — This [latter definition is arrived at] logically: Since according to R. Simeon [the distances between closely planted trees are] half [of those of scattered trees], according to the Rabbis also, [the proportion of the distances is a] half. Raba said: The law is [that a buyer of three trees acquires implicitly the ground also when the distances between the respective trees are] from four^{12} to sixteen cubits.^{13} In agreement with Raba's opinion it has been taught: How near [to each other] may [the trees] be? — [No nearer than] four cubits. And how far removed may they be? — [No more than]^{14} sixteen cubits. [He who buys three trees of these] has [implicitly] acquired the [necessary] ground and the intervening [young] trees. Consequently, [if] a tree dries up or is cut down [the buyer of the trees] retains [his rights in] the ground. [If the distances between the trees are] less, or more than [the figures] given, or if [the trees] were purchased one after the other, [the buyer] does not acquire either the ground or the intervening [young] trees. Consequently, [if] a tree dries up or is cut down, [the buyer] retains no [title to the] ground.^{15} R. Jeremiah inquired: Does one measure [the required distances between the trees] from the thin^{16} or thick^{17} parts [of the trees]? — R. Gebiha of BeKathil said to R. Ashi: Come and hear! We learnt:^{18} [In the case of] a layer^{19} of the vine, one is to measure from the second root,^{20} only. R. Jeremiah inquired: What is the law when one sold three branches of [one] tree, [four cubits distant from one another, and covered with alluvium at their knots so that they appear as three separate trees]?^{21} — R. Gebiha of BeKathil said to R. Ashi: Come and hear! We learnt:^{22} Where one bends three vines [covering the middle parts with earth so that the layers,^{23} when detached from the original vines, may each form two vines] and their [new] roots are seen,^{24} if there is a distance between them of four to eight cubits they combine, said R. Eleazar b. Zadok, to form a vineyard,^{25} and if not, they do not combine.^{26} R. Papa inquired: What is the law when he sold two [trees] in his field and one on [its] border, [do they combine^{27} or not]? [If it is replied that in this case they combine], what is the law [when he sold] two [trees] in his [own field] and one [tree which he owned together with its ground] in [the field] of his neighbour? — The matter stands undecided.^{28}
Baba Bathra 83bR. Ashi inquired: [In the case of the sale of three trees] does a [water] cistern [situated between them] form a division?^{1} [If not],^{2} does a water canal^{3} form a division? [If this also is not regarded a division], what [is the law if] a reshuth harabbim^{4} [intercepts] or a nursery of young inoculated palmtrees? — The matter stands undecided. Hillel inquired from Rabbi: What if a cedar sprang up between them?^{5} [Is it regarded as a division between the trees]?^{6} — [What a question! If it] sprang up [after the sale], it [obviously] grew in [the buyer's] own territory! But [no; this is the question: What if] there was a cedar between them [at the time of the sale]? — He replied unto him: He has certainly acquired^{7} [its ownership]. What must be the disposition [of the three trees]?^{8} — Rab said: As a straight line; and Samuel said: Like a tripod.^{9} He who said, 'as a straight line' [agrees]^{10} so much the more [in the case when they are arranged] as a tripod.^{11} But he who said, 'like a tripod' [holds the opinion that if the trees are arranged] as [in] a straight line [the ground is] not acquired, because one can sow between them.^{12} R. Hamnuna raised a difficulty: Is not the reason given by him, who insists on a triangular disposition. that one cannot sow between them? If so, let the ground be acquired also by him to whom three Roman thorns^{13} have been sold, since one cannot sow between them! — He replied to him: Those [thorns] are of no importance, [but] these [trees] are important.^{14}
MISHNAH. HE WHO SELLS THE HEAD OF LARGE CATTLE HAS NOT SOLD THE FEET; HE WHO SOLD THE FEET HAS NOT SOLD THE HEAD. [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE LUNGS^{15} HE HAS NOT SOLD THE LIVER, [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE LIVER HE HAS NOT SOLD THE LUNGS. BUT, IN [THE CASE OF] SMALL CATTLE, [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE HEAD HE HAS SOLD THE FEET, [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE FEET HE HAS NOT SOLD THE HEAD. [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE LUNGS HE HAS SOLD THE LIVER, [IF] HE HAS SOLD THE LIVER HE HAS NOT SOLD THE LUNGS. FOUR^{16} [DIFFERENT] LAWS [ARE APPLICABLE] TO SALES.^{17} [IF] ONE HAS SOLD WHEAT AS GOOD, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE BAD, THE BUYER MAY WITHDRAW [FROM THE SALE]. [IF SOLD AS] BAD, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE GOOD, THE SELLER MAY WITHDRAW. [IF AS] BAD, AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE BAD; [OR AS] GOOD, AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE GOOD, NEITHER MAY WITHDRAW. [IF ONE HAS SOLD WHEAT AS] DARK^{18} — COLOURED, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE WHITE, [OR AS] WHITE, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE DARK;^{18} [ OR IF ONE HAS SOLD] WOOD [AS] OLIVE, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE SYCAMORE, [OR AS] SYCAMORE, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE OLIVE; [OR IF A LIQUID HAS BEEN SOLD AS] WINE, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE VINEGAR, [OR AS] VINEGAR, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE WINE, BOTH MAY WITHDRAW.
GEMARA. R. Hisda said: If one has sold to another what was worth five for six^{19} and [subsequently]^{20} the price has risen to eight,^{21} since the buyer has been imposed upon he may withdraw, but not so the seller,^{22} because  To Next Folio 

