Study Bava Batra folio 68B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But according to the one who says that santar means the land registrar, is it reasonable that the first tanna of the Mishnah 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 tw
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: R' 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 Talmud rejects this proo
The Talmud asks: How can you say that according to R' 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 Talmud suggests: Reverse the statement found in the baraita so that R' 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 Talmud asks: How can you say that R' Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, to the point that you adduce proof from the words of R' Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? But doesn’t R' Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of the