But according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, is it reasonable that the first tanna of the mishna said that the gardens within the city are included in the sale of the city, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel responded to him that the land registrar is included? How are the two connected? The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that what is meant by shelaḥin is gardens? This is not the case. Rather, what is meant by shelaḥin? This is referring to the fields that surround the city, as it is written: “Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholeaḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). According to the first tanna, it is specifically the fields that 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 also sold.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The santar is not sold with the city, but the city scribe [ankolemus] is sold with it. What, is it not clear from the fact that the city scribe is a man that the santar is also a man? The Gemara rejects this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is, and santar means fields, and not the land registrar.

The Gemara asks: How can you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the fields surrounding the city are not sold along with it? But isn’t it taught in the latter clause of this baraita: But when one sells a city he has not sold its remnants, and not its daughters, i.e., the nearby rural villages, and not the woods that are set aside and designated for the city, and not the enclosures [beivarin] for animals, for birds, and for fish. And we said in explanation: What is meant by its remnants? Bizlei. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of bizlei? Rabbi Abba said: The strips of the fields that are separated from the main fields by a stretch that cannot be cultivated. From here, it may be inferred that it is the strips of the fields that are not sold with the city, but the fields themselves are sold with it.

The Gemara suggests: Reverse the statement found in the baraita so that Rabbi Yehuda says that the santar, now understood to mean fields, is sold with the city, but the city scribe is not sold with it.

The Gemara asks: How can you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, to the point that you adduce proof from the words of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in the latter clause of that same baraita: But when one sells a city he does not sell its remnants, and he does not sell its daughters, i.e., the nearby rural villages. Whereas with regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say that one who sold a city sold its daughters along with it, i.e., the nearby rural villages, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sells a city has not sold its daughters; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: One who sells a city has sold its daughters.

The Gemara answers: This does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it may be suggested that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to one issue, that the fields that surround the city are included in the sale, and disagrees with him with regard to another issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda the nearby villages are not sold along with the city.

§ The baraita teaches: When one sells a city he has not sold, among other things, the enclosures for animals, for birds, and for fish. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: If the city has daughters, i.e., nearby villages, they are not sold along with it. If it has one part on the sea and one part on dry land, or if it has enclosures for animals, for birds, or for fish, these are all sold along with the city.

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult, as a distinction can be made between different cases: Here, the one baraita addresses animal enclosures whose openings face inward, i.e., toward the city, and they are therefore considered a part of the city, whereas there, the other baraita addresses animal enclosures whose openings face outward, i.e., away from the city, and therefore they are not included in its sale. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the baraita teach: And he has not sold the woods that are set aside for the city, indicating that they face the city, and nevertheless they are not sold along with the city? The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be emended so that it reads instead: And he has not sold the woods that are set apart from the city, i.e., that are at a distance and do not face the city.

MISHNA: One who sells a field without specifying what is included in the sale has sold the stones in the field that are for its use, and the reeds in the vineyard that are for its use, and the produce that is still attached to the ground, and the cluster of reeds that occupy less than the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], and the watch station that is not plastered with clay, and the young carob tree that has not yet been grafted, and the untrimmed sycamore that is still young.

But he has not sold along with the field the stones that are not designated for use in the field, and not the reeds in the vineyard that are not designated for its use, and not the produce that is already detached from the ground. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the field. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the field, he has not sold the cluster of reeds that occupy a beit rova or more, as they are considered a separate field, and he has not sold the watch station that is plastered with clay, and not the carob tree that has been grafted, and not the sycamore trunk. All of these entities are significant in their own right and have a status independent from that of the fields, and they are therefore not included in the sale of the field.