Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

It was apparently not uncommon in Talmudic times for entire towns to be the property of a single landowner, who would lease the properties to various tenants.

Needless to say, the courtyards are also included, for they are the fundamental elements of the town (Rashbam, Bava Batra 68a).

Although these are not included in the sale of a home (Chapter 25, Halachah 2), they are part of the landed property of a town.

Which provide water for the town’s trees (Rav Kapach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Batra 4:7). The Rashbam and others offer different interpretations, defining the term as “gardens” or “plots of fields.”

And the servants and the livestock (Bava Batra 68a).

The Rashbam (Bava Batra, ibid.) differs with the Rambam concerning this point. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 215:4) quotes the Rambam’s decision.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 4:8), which clearly states that the stones themselves do not serve as the fence.

After the grain is cut, it is collected in sheaves and left to dry. A stone is placed on the sheaves so that they will not be spread about by the wind.

Hence, even though they are movable property, they are considered to be part of the field.

The bark of the reeds would be planed off so that it would not attract worms (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:19).

Although the grain is ready to be harvested, since it is still attached to the field, it is included in the sale of the field. See Chapter 1, Halachah 17.

Because it is so small, it is not considered to be an independent entity.

The standard printed texts of Bava Batra 68b, the source for this halachah, read “which is not made with mortar.” The Rambam’s ruling is taken from the version of the text quoted by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi.
The rationale is that since the hut was made with mortar, it is considered to be a permanent part of the field.

When a carob tree is old, other trees are often grafted upon it. Therefore, it receives a certain measure of distinction and importance. When, however, it is young, it cannot be used for that purpose. Hence, it is considered to be part of the field (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:33).

In Talmudic times, wild fig trees would be cut off at the trunk for lumber. Afterwards, the tree would grow again from the stump and produce fruit.

The Talmud (Bava Batra, Zoe. cit.) does not mention date palms. The Rambam derives this law as follows. Since vines are considered part of the field, as mentioned above, it is logical to assume that the same applies for date palms.
The Sefer Meirat Einayim 201:35 states that this law also applies to other trees. They are also sold together with the field.

The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 215:5) state that if the stones had been used to weigh down sheaves previously, they are already considered to be part of the field.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:29 states that even if they have been used for this purpose previously only once, they are considered to be a permanent part of the field.

I.e., it still has to be spread out over the field to dry (Ramah, loc. cit.).

This is of sufficient size for it to be considered to be a distinct entity.

The Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:1) explains that this refers to a block of rows in which vegetables or spices were commonly sown.

Since it has a name of its own, it is considered a distinct entity. Even though this block is small, it is still given this importance because spices are not necessarily grown in large fields.

With regard to this point as well, the standard printed texts of Bava Batra 68b follow a different version, reading “which is made with mortar.” The Rambam’s ruling is taken from the version of the text quoted by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi.
The rationale is that since the hut was not made with mortar, it can be picked up at any time. Hence, it is not a permanent part of the field.

Since other trees have been grafted onto them, they are granted more importance and are singled out from the property as a whole.

When the fig trees are cut down, new and more valuable trees sprout from the stump.

As reflected in Chapter 25, Halachah 2, a water reservoir is considered to be a separate and distinct entity.

See Chapter 25, Halachah 3.
From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that it is not necessary for the seller to purchase a path to the trees whose ownership he retains, as mentioned in the previous halachah. The Maggid Mishneh quotes a difference of opinion between the Rabbis concerning this issue.

Note the parallel in Chapter 25, Halachah 3.

A purchaser knows that there are times when restrictions are made with regard to a sale. Since he is paying for the property he is purchasing, he should not be shy about protecting his rights and making sure that all the desired articles are included in the sale. Indeed, if he fails to do so, this is a sign that he does not desire those articles.
Even though we say, “whoever sells, sells generously,” that means that the seller does not intend to hold back the sale of an article that he stated that he was selling. It does not mean, however, that he includes articles that are not mentioned explicitly (Rashbam, Bava Batra 71a). On the contrary, we assume that he did not desire to part with his landed property and therefore sold only what was absolutely necessary. If the purchaser claims that the sale is more inclusive, the burden of proof is on him (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:37).

The Maggid Mislmeh and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 215:6) explain that this refers to only those articles that are physically located within the property being given as a present, but might be considered to be distinct entities because of their importance. If, however, an entity is outside the confines of the property being given, it is not included in the present even though it shares some association with it.

This also applies to a bathhouse, although it is not explicitly mentioned. It does not apply to a town, because none of the articles excluded from the sale of a town are attached to it.

The Maggid Mishneh states that this phrase excludes a ship. See the initial halachot of the following chapter.

If, however, produce is found within the field, but not attached to it, it is not included in the present. If, however, the produce requires the field, even though it is no longer attached, it is included in the present (Maggid Mishneh; Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:40).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 4:9), the Rambam explains the rationale for this halachah: The recipient of a present will be embarrassed to tell the giver: “Tell me specifically what you gave me.” Hence, we rely on the principle, “whoever gives a present, gives generously” and assume that everything is included.

For a division of an inheritance is intended to be complete, without leaving further complications (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:41).

This refers to a convert who dies without leaving any heirs. His property is acquired by the first person who manifests ownership over it (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:6).

It is unnecessary for the person to manifest ownership over all the articles individually. By manifesting ownership over the field, he acquires them all.

Here also we say: “Whoever consecrates property does so generously.” No one is compelling him to make such a gift. If he does so, we assume that he is giving generously (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 215:43).

For it is assumed that the seller and the purchaser had this intent in mind when making the sale.