Discussing the sale of a town, our Mishnah rules that the houses, the various pits ... dove-cotes and Beis-ha'Shalachin (which will be explained in the Sugya) - are not automatically sold together with it.

The other two items included in the list are - the bathhouses and the olive-presses.

Should the owner declare 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tocho, the Metaltelin are included, too and so are ...

... the courtyards (which are too obvious to mention, even in the initial list of things that are sold) ...

... the animals and the Avadim.

Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ivya extrapolates from the fact that Avadim are not initially sold together with the town that Avadim must be considered Metaltelin.

The problem this creates is that - later in the Masechta, we will ask a She'eilah (which will remain unresolved) as to whether Avadim are considered Karka or Metaltelin. Why do we not cite this Mishnah to resolve it?

The fact that one acquires Avadim with Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah (clearly assuming Avadim to be Karka) has no bearing on the She'eilah and on the case in our Mishnah - which concern 'Lashon B'nei Adam', (what people consider them in their minds when they make stipulations concerning Avadim [irrespective of what the Torah considers them]).

Rav Ashi further extrapolated from the Tana's use of the word 'even (animals and Avadim)', even assuming that Avadim are Metaltelin - that they are worse than regular Metaltelin in this regard (because they move).

And he finally uses this to solve our problem by explaining that, by the same token, even if Avadim are considered Karka, they might be worse than regular Karka for the same reason (thereby refuting Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ivya's proof).

Raban Shimon ben Gamliel includes the Santer in the sale of a town. We translate Santer as 'bar Mechavnisa', which Rabeinu Chananel interprets as the town guard (and 'Santer' is from the root of the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim "Noterah es ha'Keramim"). It might also mean - an Eved belonging to the mayor, whose task it is to clarify the boundaries of the privately-owned fields.

Shimon ben Avtulmus interprets 'Santer' as - 'Bagi' (meaning fields (valleys) that surround the town).

He and the Tana Kama argue over - 'bar Mechavnisa', who is not sold according to Shimon ben Avtulmus (seeing as he moves [although those who interpret Santer as 'bar Mechavnisa', will agree with him that Bagi are included in the sale]).

Based on the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Shole'ach Mayim al-P'nei Chutzos", we initially translate 'Beis Hashalachin' (which, according to the Tana Kama, is included in the sale) as - 'Bagi'.

The problem this creates according to Shimon ben Avtulmus' interpretation of Santer is that - since the Tana Kama includes Bagi in the sale of the town, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is merely mimicking the Tana Kama's opinion.

Consequently, according to Shimon ben Avtulmus, we are forced to re-interpret 'Beis ha'Shalachin' to mean - 'Ginunisa', which means gardens that are close to the town, and that are suitable for strolling in, just like a house (this time based on the Pasuk "Shelachayich Pardeis Rimonim").

Based on the inference (in the Tana Kama) that the gardens are sold but not Bagi, the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah is now - whether the Bagi are included in the sale (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or not (the Tana Kama).

According to the second Lashon, we have no problem with Shimon ben Avtulmus, as we just explained. The problem with those who explain Santer as 'bar Machvenisa' is that - seeing as the Tana Kama includes gardens in the sale, Raban Simon ben Gamliel should not have jumped to bar Machvenisa without including the middle case of Bagi (which are not sold, according to the Tana Kama either).

We finally interpret 'Beis ha'Shalachin as - Bagi, which the Tana Kama considers sold (but not bar Machvenisa), whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel considers the latter sold as well.

Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, considers a Santer sold together with the town, but not an Unkulmus (the town Sofer). We try and extrapolate from their jusxtaposition that - a Santer must be a person (just like an Unkulmus [a Kashya on Shimon ben Avtulmus])

We refute this proof however on the grounds that - it is perfectly acceptable for the Tana to juxtapose a case regarding a person next to one regarding an object.

The Seifa of the Beraisa rules that villages, forests that are close to it, enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries and fish pools - are precluded from the sale of a town

The Tana also lists Shiyrei (alias Bizli), which Rebbi Aba translates as 'Piskei Bagi' - large patches of valleys situated at the furthest part of the Bagi from the town.

We can now extrapolate from the Tana's insertion of Piskei Bagi in the previous list that - Piskei Bagi are not sold together with the town, whereas Bagi are.

Consequently - we will have to reverse the Lashon of Rebbi Yehudah in the Reisha, which initially read 'Santer Eino Machur, Ankulmus Machur' to read 'Santer Machur, Ankulmus Eino Machur'.

Another version initially cites the Din of Santer and Ankulmus in the Beraisa as 'Eino Machur' (in both cases).

And we reconcile the two Beraisos - in exactly the same way (by switching the ruling by Santer from 'Eino Machur' to 'Machur' (but without saying that they are reversing the Lashon of Rebbi Yehudah, which would not be true).

This means that Rebbi Yehudah concurs with Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah. The Tana Kama in a Beraisa precludes villages from the sale of a town, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - includes them.

We reconcile our having equated Rebbi Yehudah with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, when we now see that they argue (with regard to villages being included in the sale) by pointing out that - there is nothing irregular about one Tana concurring with another Tana in one point and arguing with him in another.

The Beraisa rules that if someone sells a town that is partly on dry land and partly in the sea - the entire town is included in the sale ...

... as are enclosures of wild animals, bird sanctuaries and fish pools.

We reconcile this Beraisa with the Beraisa that we learned earlier which precludes the latter from the sale - by establishing this Beraisa where the opening to the enclosure ... faces the town, and the previous Beraisa, where it doesn't.

According to our Mishnah, stOneis that are needed for a field that is being sold, canes that are used to support its vines, and produce that still needs the ground - are all included in the sale of the field.

From the fact that the Tana includes the canes in the list, we extrapolate that - when someone sells a field, he has sold all the trees (with the one or two exceptions listed in our Mishnah), even the vines in the vineyard.

The Tana also adds Chitzas ha'Kanim, Shomirah, Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav and Besulas ha'Shikmah to the list. The sale of the field includes ...

... a bundle of growing canes - that is smaller than a Beis Rova (ten and a fifth Amos square).

... a hunter's hut - that is not cemented.

And ...

... a 'Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav' - a young carob-tree that has not yet been grafted, and which is therefore not yet Chashuv.

... a 'Besulas ha'Shikmah' - a young Shikmah (wild-fig) tree that has not yet been cut (and is therefore still relatively thin and not Chashuv).

The sale does not include ...

... the stOneis and canes in the field - if the field does not really need them.

... the produce that grew in the field - if it is no longer attached to the ground.

All of these will be included in the sale however - if the seller declares 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tochah'.

Neither a bundle of canes that is more than a Beis Rova nor a Ch'ruv ha'Murkav or a Sadan ha'Shikmah are included in the sale - since each of these is so Chashuv, that it is considered like an independent field.