Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 26, 2017 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 63

When one says (or writes in a contract) that one is selling “part of the land” – is the intention half or not? 聽Different uses of the word “part” may mean different things. 聽Raba brings a few cases and explains the differences. 聽However, Abaye disagrees with him and thinks there is no distinction between the cases as each can be explained in the same manner. 聽A Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give him the Levite tithes. 聽How can one do this if it is selling something that does not yet exist? 聽The assumption is he is retain rights to part fo the land. 聽Reish Lakish makes an聽assumption that one can learn from here to a different case and Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa debate what the relevance of Reish Lakish’s statement is. 聽Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights,聽and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. 聽What items are included in each case? 聽The gemara tries to prove his statement from the next mishna, but then rejects the proof.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 诪爪专 讗专注讗 讚诪讬谞讛 驻诇讙讗 讜讘讬谉 诪爪专 讗专注讗 讚诪讬谞讛 驻住讬拽讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讻住讬 驻诇讙讗 转谞讜 讞诇拽 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讻住讬 诪讗讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 拽讬住讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讞诇拽 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讘讜专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪专讘讬注 诇讞讘讬转 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诪讬谞讬转 诇拽讚专讛 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讟驻讬讞 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖砖讛 注砖专

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讬 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讜 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讘谞讬讬 诪转 讬转谉 诇讘谞讬讜

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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛砖讚讛 讝讜 讘讬讚讱 诪讻专讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 possession in the interim, the seller no longer has a claim to the tithe.

讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讬 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 诪注砖专

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讬 讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讜

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.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讘讜谞讛

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 interpretation is difficult, as it does not account for the wording of Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讱 诪转讛讜诐 讗专注讗 讜注讚 专讜诐 专拽讬注讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讛谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜讗讛谞讬 诪转讛讜诐 讗专注讗 讜注讚 专讜诐 专拽讬注讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转

搂 The Gemara discusses what is included in the wordings of various contracts. Rav Dimi from Neharde鈥檃 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 拽谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇讬讛谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna (64a) supports Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讜 讻诪讬 砖讻转讘 讚诪讬 诇诪讬拽谞讗 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讬讛 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 拽谞讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙讙 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

搂 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 63

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 诪爪专 讗专注讗 讚诪讬谞讛 驻诇讙讗 讜讘讬谉 诪爪专 讗专注讗 讚诪讬谞讛 驻住讬拽讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 驻诇讙讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讻住讬 驻诇讙讗 转谞讜 讞诇拽 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讻住讬 诪讗讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 拽讬住讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讞诇拽 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讘讜专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪专讘讬注 诇讞讘讬转 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诪讬谞讬转 诇拽讚专讛 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讟驻讬讞 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖砖讛 注砖专

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讬 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讜 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讘谞讬讬 诪转 讬转谉 诇讘谞讬讜

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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛砖讚讛 讝讜 讘讬讚讱 诪讻专讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 possession in the interim, the seller no longer has a claim to the tithe.

讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讬 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 诪注砖专

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讬 讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇讜

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.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讘讜谞讛

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 interpretation is difficult, as it does not account for the wording of Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讱 诪转讛讜诐 讗专注讗 讜注讚 专讜诐 专拽讬注讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讘住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讛谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜讗讛谞讬 诪转讛讜诐 讗专注讗 讜注讚 专讜诐 专拽讬注讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转

搂 The Gemara discusses what is included in the wordings of various contracts. Rav Dimi from Neharde鈥檃 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘住转诪讗 拽谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇讬讛谞讬 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the mishna (64a) supports Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讜 讻诪讬 砖讻转讘 讚诪讬 诇诪讬拽谞讗 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 诇诪讬拽谞讗 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讜诪讞讬诇讜转 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讬讛 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 拽谞讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讙讙 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

搂 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.

Scroll To Top