Bava Batra 63
וְלָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָה: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: בֵּין ״מֶצֶר אַרְעָא דְּמִינַּהּ פַּלְגָא״, וּבֵין ״מֶצֶר אַרְעָא דְּמִינַּהּ פְּסִיקָא״ – אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִלֵּין מִצְרָנַהָא״ – פַּלְגָא, לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִלֵּין מִצְרָנַהָא״ – תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין.
But that is not so, as Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said: The matter was explained to me by Abaye, as follows: Whether the seller writes with regard to the fourth boundary: The boundary of the field is the land through which the field is halved, or he writes: The boundary of the field is the land through which a plot can be set apart, if he said to the buyer: These are its boundaries, he has sold him half of the field. But if he did not say to the buyer: These are its boundaries, he has sold him only an area fit for sowing nine kav of seed.
פְּשִׁיטָא – אָמַר: ״יַחֲלוֹק פְּלוֹנִי בִּנְכָסַי״ – פַּלְגָא. ״תְּנוּ חֵלֶק לִפְלוֹנִי בִּנְכָסַי״ – מַאי?
§ The Gemara raises a question about a similar case: It is obvious that if one said: So-and-so should share in my property, he means to give him half of the property. If he said: Give so-and-so a portion of my property, what is the halakha? What portion of the property must he give him?
אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר קִיסִי, תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר: ״תְּנוּ חֵלֶק לִפְלוֹנִי בְּבוֹר״ – סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. ״לְחָבִית״ – אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁמִינִית. ״לִקְדֵרָה״ – אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵים עָשָׂר. ״לְטָפִיחַ״ – אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.
Ravina bar Kisi said: Come and hear a proof concerning the halakha in this case, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says: Give so-and-so a portion of my cistern for his water needs, Sumakhos says: He must give him not less than one-quarter of the water in the cistern. If he qualifies his words and says: Give so-and-so a portion of my cistern’s water for his barrel, he must give him not less than one-eighth of the water. If he says: Give him a portion for his pot, he must give him not less than one-twelfth of the water. And if he says: Give him for his cup, he must give him not less than one-sixteenth of the water. In any event, this baraita indicates that the unqualified phrase: Give so-and-so a portion, should be understood to mean: Give him one-quarter.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלִּי״ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר: ״לִי וּלְבָנַיי״ – מֵת, יִתֵּן לְבָנָיו.
The Gemara now considers another case in which the seller withholds something for himself in a sale. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a Levite who sold a field to an Israelite and said to him: I am selling you this field on the condition that the first tithe from the produce growing in the field, which must be given to a Levite, is mine, and it will be given to me every year and not to any other Levite, the first tithe is his. And if he said: I am selling you the field on the condition that the tithe will be given to me and to my sons, then if he dies, the buyer must give the tithe to his sons.
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיָדְךָ״ – מְכָרָהּ וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ, אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו כְּלוּם.
But if the seller said to the buyer: This stipulation will remain in force as long as this field is in your possession, then if the buyer sold it and afterward bought it back again, the seller has no claim on him. Since the field left the buyer’s possession in the interim, the seller no longer has a claim to the tithe.
אַמַּאי? אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם! כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלִּי״ – שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיְּירֵיהּ לִמְקוֹם מַעֲשֵׂר.
The Gemara challenges the halakha taught in the baraita: Why should the seller ever have a right to the tithe after he has sold the field? After all, a person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world. How, then, can the seller acquire a portion of the produce that does not yet exist? The Gemara answers that since the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this field on the condition that the first tithe is mine, it is as if he withheld the site where the tithe is grown for himself when he sold the field, and that site already exists.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁדְּיוֹטָא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁלִּי״ – דְּיוֹטָא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ.
Reish Lakish said: That is to say that with regard to one who sells a house to another and says to him: I am selling you this house on the condition that the upper story [deyota] is mine, the upper story is his.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהוֹצִיא בָּהּ זִיזִין, מוֹצִיא. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: שֶׁאִם רָצָה לִבְנוֹת עֲלִיָּיה עַל גַּבָּהּ, בּוֹנֶה.
With regard to what halakha did Reish Lakish say this? In any case the upper story is his, as when he sold the house, it was only the lower story that he sold to the buyer. Rav Zevid says: He said this to teach the halakha that if the seller wishes to extend from the upper story projections over the courtyard, which was included in the sale, he may extend them. Rav Pappa says: He said this to teach the halakha that if this upper story collapses and the seller wishes to build an upper story on top of it to replace it, he may build it.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב זְבִיד, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת״; אֶלָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא, מַאי ״זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת״? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav Zevid, this explanation is consistent with that which Reish Lakish teaches, which begins with: That is to say. As according to Rav Zevid, Reish Lakish infers from the ruling of the baraita about tithes that even though the seller of the house did not explicitly withhold anything for himself, the court interprets his use of his superfluous stipulation as an indication that he wished to withhold for himself the space over the courtyard for the projections. But according to Rav Pappa, what did Reish Lakish mean when he said his statement that begins with the phrase: That is to say? The seller’s right to rebuild the upper story after it collapses is not derived from the superfluous stipulation that he attached to the transaction, and it is not inferred from the baraita. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, Rav Pappa’s interpretation is difficult, as it does not account for the wording of Reish Lakish’s statement.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא״, צָרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״קְנִי לָךְ מִתְּהוֹם אַרְעָא וְעַד רוּם רְקִיעָא״. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּעוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא בִּסְתָמָא לָא קָנֵי; אַהֲנִי ״עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא״ לְמִיקְנֵא עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא, וְאַהֲנִי ״מִתְּהוֹם אַרְעָא וְעַד רוּם רְקִיעָא״ לְמִיקְנֵא בּוֹר וָדוּת וּמְחִילּוֹת.
§ The Gemara discusses what is included in the wordings of various contracts. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: Concerning this one who sells a house to another and wants the sale to include the entire property, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you the depth and the height of the house, he must also write for him: Acquire for yourself the property from the depth of the earth up to the height of the sky. What is the reason for this addition? The reason is that the buyer does not acquire the depth and the height of the property without explicit specification, and therefore, unless the matter has been explicitly stipulated, the buyer may not dig under the house or build above it. The words: The depth and the height, effect the acquisition of the depth and the height of the house for the buyer, allowing him to dig below or build above the house. And the additional phrase: From the depth of the earth up to the height of the sky, effects the acquisition of the pit and the cistern and the tunnels associated with the house.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: וְלֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ ״עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בִּסְתָמָא קָנֵי עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא, לַיהֲנֵי ״עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא״ לְמִיקְנֵא בּוֹר וָדוּת וּמְחִילּוֹת! דְּלָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ.
The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna (64a) supports Rav Dimi’s opinion: One who sells a house has sold neither the pit nor the cistern, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house. As if it enters your mind to say that the buyer acquires the depth and the height of the house even without the specification that the depth and the height of the house are included in the sale, let the phrase the depth and the height effect the acquisition of the pit and the cistern and the tunnels, as he attached an additional stipulation to the transaction. The Gemara rejects this opinion: The mishna is referring to a case where the seller did not write these words for him.
וְהָא ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לוֹ, כְּמִי שֶׁכָּתַב דָּמֵי – לְמִיקְנֵא עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא. לְמִיקְנֵא בּוֹר וָדוּת וּמְחִילּוֹת – אִי כְּתַב לֵיהּ: ״עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא״ – קָנֵי, וְאִי לָא כָּתַב – לָא קָנֵי.
The Gemara asks: But this line of reasoning is difficult, as the mishna explicitly teaches that the pit and the cistern are not sold even if the seller writes for the buyer that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Even though the seller did not write these words for him in the bill of sale, for the purpose of acquiring the depth and the height of the house, it is considered as if he wrote them, as it is assumed that they were omitted by accident. By contrast, for the purpose of acquiring the pit and the cistern and the tunnels, if the seller explicitly wrote for him the words the depth and the height, the buyer acquires them, but if he did not write that phrase in the bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire them. No proof can be derived from this mishna.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְלֹא אֶת הַגָּג – בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים.
§ The Gemara now considers a different mishna. Come and hear what was taught in the mishna (61a): One who sells his house without explicitly stating what is included in the sale has not sold the roof along with the house when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is not included in the sale of the house.
