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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 28, 2017 | 讗壮 讘谞讬住谉 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 65

Rav and Shmuel choose sides in the Rabbi Akiva debate with the rabbis about whether one sells with a good eye or a bad eye. 聽And discussions are held regarding their respective decisions. 聽One who sells a house without specifying, what other items does it include? 聽Millstones, locks, keys, ovens, etc?

讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 转谞讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, while Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to Rav Huna: But many times I said before Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and never did he say anything to me, which indicates that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and not that of the Rabbis. Rav Huna said to him: How did you teach the mishna before Rav? Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: I taught it with the opposite attributions, that is to say, the opinion that is attributed in the mishna to Rabbi Akiva, I would teach in the name of the Rabbis. Rav Huna said to him: Due to that reason, he never said anything to you, as Rav agreed with the version that you attributed to Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

With regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel, in their opinions stated with regard to this matter, each follow their general lines of reasoning, as they appear to have disagreed about this same issue in another context as well?

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诇诪讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讜谞讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

As Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, they do not have a right of way against each other, i.e., to walk through the other鈥檚 property to reach his own, even though this is how the place was used in their father鈥檚 lifetime; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other鈥檚 property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other鈥檚 property.

讜讛讝讛专讜 讘讛谉 砖讛诇讻讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 讛谉 讜专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛谉

Rav Na岣an continues: And be careful with these rulings, since they are established halakhot. And Rav says: They do retain all of these privileges. Consequently, Rav and Shmuel appear to be following their general lines of reasoning here, as Shmuel holds that when the brothers, who are like sellers, divide their father鈥檚 estate, they transfer property to each other generously without retaining privileges in each other鈥檚 property, while Rav holds that they transfer the property sparingly.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬讚专 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讚专讜 讘讬讛 讗讘讛转讬 转讚注 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach this disagreement in both cases, as the halakha in the one case cannot be derived from the halakha in the other. As had we been taught this dispute only in that case, of the brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate, I would have said that only in that case does Rav say that they retain all of the earlier privileges, because one brother can say to the other: I wish to live in this house just as my ancestors, who had all of those privileges, lived in it. Know that there is substance to this claim, as it is written: 鈥淚nstead of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 (Psalms 45:17). But in this case of an ordinary house sale, say that he concedes to Shmuel that a seller sells generously.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And if the dispute was stated only in this case of an ordinary house sale, I would have said that only in this case does Shmuel say that a seller sells generously and does not withhold a path for himself, but in that case, of the brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate, say that he concedes to Rav that the desire to live there just as his ancestors did supersedes the seller鈥檚 general tendency to sell generously. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this dispute in both cases.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬谉 讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讚诪拽专讘讬转讜 诇讘讘讗 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讬讬谞讬

As for the ruling itself, Rav Na岣an, who was a disciple of Shmuel, said to Rav Huna: Is the halakha in accordance with our opinion, or is the halakha in accordance with your opinion? Rav Huna said to him: The halakha is in accordance with your opinion, as you are near the gate of the Exilarch, where the judges are frequently found, and therefore you are more proficient in monetary law.

讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讻专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讬爪讜谉 讘诪转谞讛 讜驻谞讬诪讬 讘诪讻专

It was stated: If there are two residences, one situated behind the other, and the owner transferred ownership of the two of them, each one to a different person, by means of a sale, or if he transferred ownership of the two of them, each to a different person, as a gift, they do not have a right of way against each other. That is, the one who acquired the inner residence may not pass through the outer residence, since each of them received equal privileges from the previous owner. And all the more so is this the halakha if the outer residence was transferred by means of a gift, and the inner residence was transferred by means of a sale, as it may be assumed that a gift is made in a more generous manner than is a sale.

讞讬爪讜谉 讘诪讻专 讜驻谞讬诪讬 讘诪转谞讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

As for the case where the outer residence was transferred by means of a sale, and the inner residence was transferred by means of a gift, some Sages at first understood from here that they do not have a right of way against each other, that is, that the recipient of the inner residence may not pass through the outer residence.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘

But that is not so, as didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (71a): In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Apparently, one who gives property as a gift gives it more generously than does one who sells it, as gifts are generally given to friends to whom one wishes to transfer as many privileges as possible. Here too, then, one who gives property as a gift gives it more generously than does one who sells it, and so the recipient of the inner residence acquires a right of way through the outer apartment.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪驻转讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛诪讻转砖转 拽讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽诇转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讻讬专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜

MISHNA: One who sells a house has, as part of the sale, sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold the mortar that is fixed in the ground, but not the portable one. He has sold the immovable lower millstone [ha鈥檌tzterobil], but not the portable upper stone [hakelet], the funnel into which one pours the grain to be ground. And he has sold neither the oven nor the double stove, as they are deemed movable. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it, and everything that is in it,

讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

all these components are sold as part of the sale of the house.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讻专 转砖诪讬砖讬 讻专诐

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna that distinguishes between different types of household items is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say in a baraita (78b): If one sold a vineyard, he has sold all of the utensils of the vineyard, including the movable ones? The same should be true for the sale of a house.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 拽讘讬注 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘讬注 讜讛讗 诪驻转讞 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚诇转 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讚诇转 讚拽讘讬注讗 讗祝 诪驻转讞 讚拽讘讬注 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as a distinction can be made between the two cases. There, in the case of a vineyard, the reference is to utensils that are fixed in the vineyard and never removed from it, and therefore they are included in the sale, while here, in the case of a house, the mishna is referring to utensils that are not fixed in the house, and therefore they are not part of the sale. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach the halakha governing a key in similar fashion to the halakha governing the door, indicating that just as a door is fixed in the house, so too, a key is fixed in the house? Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讜讗转 讛谞讙专 讜讗转 讛诪谞注讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪驻转讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛诪讻转砖转 讛讞拽讜拽讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讘讜注讛 诪讻专 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽诇转 诇讗 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讻讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): One who sells a house has sold the door and the door bolt and the lock, but he has not sold the key. He has sold the mortar that was hollowed out of the ground but not the mortar that was fixed to the ground after its construction. He has sold the immovable lower millstone but not the portable upper stone. And he has sold neither the oven, nor the double stove, nor the hand mill. Rabbi Eliezer says: The principle is that any item attached to the ground is considered like the ground and included in the sale.

讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬爪讬注

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 house. Both in this case and in that case he did not sell the pit or the cistern or the gallery, as they are considered separate entities that are not at all part of the house.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 爪讬谞讜专 砖讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out and afterward attached to the ground or to a building invalidates a ritual bath through the water it channels to the bath. The water in a ritual bath must be gathered directly from rain or a stream, not drawn with vessels. If one hollowed out a log and used it to channel water into the bath, this is considered drawn water, as he used a vessel. By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the ritual bath. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, nor that of the Rabbis.

讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讘讬转 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专

The Gemara clarifies the question: To which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is this referring? If we say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the aforementioned baraita with regard to the sale of a house, that any item attached to the ground is considered part of the house and is sold along with it, there is a difficulty. As perhaps this is the reasoning employed in the dispute with regard to the sale of a house, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who sells, sells generously anything that is attached to the ground, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, selling only utensils that serve an intrinsic function in the house and nothing else, even if they are attached to the ground. But this teaches us nothing about the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with respect to a ritual bath.

讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽专拽注 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 驻专讜讝讘讜诇

But rather, the reference must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a beehive. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:7): With regard to a beehive attached to the ground by clay, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is like land, and therefore one may write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from canceling an outstanding debt [prosbol] based upon it. Such a document cannot be written unless the borrower owns some land, and a beehive is considered like land for this purpose.

  • 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 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 65

讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 转谞讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, while Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to Rav Huna: But many times I said before Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and never did he say anything to me, which indicates that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and not that of the Rabbis. Rav Huna said to him: How did you teach the mishna before Rav? Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: I taught it with the opposite attributions, that is to say, the opinion that is attributed in the mishna to Rabbi Akiva, I would teach in the name of the Rabbis. Rav Huna said to him: Due to that reason, he never said anything to you, as Rav agreed with the version that you attributed to Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

With regard to the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel, in their opinions stated with regard to this matter, each follow their general lines of reasoning, as they appear to have disagreed about this same issue in another context as well?

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诇诪讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讞诇讜谞讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

As Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: With regard to brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate between them, they do not have a right of way against each other, i.e., to walk through the other鈥檚 property to reach his own, even though this is how the place was used in their father鈥檚 lifetime; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other鈥檚 property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other鈥檚 property.

讜讛讝讛专讜 讘讛谉 砖讛诇讻讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 讛谉 讜专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛谉

Rav Na岣an continues: And be careful with these rulings, since they are established halakhot. And Rav says: They do retain all of these privileges. Consequently, Rav and Shmuel appear to be following their general lines of reasoning here, as Shmuel holds that when the brothers, who are like sellers, divide their father鈥檚 estate, they transfer property to each other generously without retaining privileges in each other鈥檚 property, while Rav holds that they transfer the property sparingly.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬讚专 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讚专讜 讘讬讛 讗讘讛转讬 转讚注 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach this disagreement in both cases, as the halakha in the one case cannot be derived from the halakha in the other. As had we been taught this dispute only in that case, of the brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate, I would have said that only in that case does Rav say that they retain all of the earlier privileges, because one brother can say to the other: I wish to live in this house just as my ancestors, who had all of those privileges, lived in it. Know that there is substance to this claim, as it is written: 鈥淚nstead of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 (Psalms 45:17). But in this case of an ordinary house sale, say that he concedes to Shmuel that a seller sells generously.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And if the dispute was stated only in this case of an ordinary house sale, I would have said that only in this case does Shmuel say that a seller sells generously and does not withhold a path for himself, but in that case, of the brothers who divided their father鈥檚 estate, say that he concedes to Rav that the desire to live there just as his ancestors did supersedes the seller鈥檚 general tendency to sell generously. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this dispute in both cases.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬谉 讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讚诪拽专讘讬转讜 诇讘讘讗 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讬讬谞讬

As for the ruling itself, Rav Na岣an, who was a disciple of Shmuel, said to Rav Huna: Is the halakha in accordance with our opinion, or is the halakha in accordance with your opinion? Rav Huna said to him: The halakha is in accordance with your opinion, as you are near the gate of the Exilarch, where the judges are frequently found, and therefore you are more proficient in monetary law.

讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讻专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讬爪讜谉 讘诪转谞讛 讜驻谞讬诪讬 讘诪讻专

It was stated: If there are two residences, one situated behind the other, and the owner transferred ownership of the two of them, each one to a different person, by means of a sale, or if he transferred ownership of the two of them, each to a different person, as a gift, they do not have a right of way against each other. That is, the one who acquired the inner residence may not pass through the outer residence, since each of them received equal privileges from the previous owner. And all the more so is this the halakha if the outer residence was transferred by means of a gift, and the inner residence was transferred by means of a sale, as it may be assumed that a gift is made in a more generous manner than is a sale.

讞讬爪讜谉 讘诪讻专 讜驻谞讬诪讬 讘诪转谞讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

As for the case where the outer residence was transferred by means of a sale, and the inner residence was transferred by means of a gift, some Sages at first understood from here that they do not have a right of way against each other, that is, that the recipient of the inner residence may not pass through the outer residence.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘

But that is not so, as didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (71a): In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Apparently, one who gives property as a gift gives it more generously than does one who sells it, as gifts are generally given to friends to whom one wishes to transfer as many privileges as possible. Here too, then, one who gives property as a gift gives it more generously than does one who sells it, and so the recipient of the inner residence acquires a right of way through the outer apartment.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪驻转讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛诪讻转砖转 拽讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讬讟诇讟诇转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽诇转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讻讬专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜

MISHNA: One who sells a house has, as part of the sale, sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold the mortar that is fixed in the ground, but not the portable one. He has sold the immovable lower millstone [ha鈥檌tzterobil], but not the portable upper stone [hakelet], the funnel into which one pours the grain to be ground. And he has sold neither the oven nor the double stove, as they are deemed movable. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it, and everything that is in it,

讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

all these components are sold as part of the sale of the house.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讻专 转砖诪讬砖讬 讻专诐

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna that distinguishes between different types of household items is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say in a baraita (78b): If one sold a vineyard, he has sold all of the utensils of the vineyard, including the movable ones? The same should be true for the sale of a house.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 拽讘讬注 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘讬注 讜讛讗 诪驻转讞 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚诇转 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讚诇转 讚拽讘讬注讗 讗祝 诪驻转讞 讚拽讘讬注 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as a distinction can be made between the two cases. There, in the case of a vineyard, the reference is to utensils that are fixed in the vineyard and never removed from it, and therefore they are included in the sale, while here, in the case of a house, the mishna is referring to utensils that are not fixed in the house, and therefore they are not part of the sale. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach the halakha governing a key in similar fashion to the halakha governing the door, indicating that just as a door is fixed in the house, so too, a key is fixed in the house? Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讜讗转 讛谞讙专 讜讗转 讛诪谞注讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪驻转讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛诪讻转砖转 讛讞拽讜拽讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽讘讜注讛 诪讻专 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛拽诇转 诇讗 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讻讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): One who sells a house has sold the door and the door bolt and the lock, but he has not sold the key. He has sold the mortar that was hollowed out of the ground but not the mortar that was fixed to the ground after its construction. He has sold the immovable lower millstone but not the portable upper stone. And he has sold neither the oven, nor the double stove, nor the hand mill. Rabbi Eliezer says: The principle is that any item attached to the ground is considered like the ground and included in the sale.

讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬爪讬注

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 house. Both in this case and in that case he did not sell the pit or the cistern or the gallery, as they are considered separate entities that are not at all part of the house.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 爪讬谞讜专 砖讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out and afterward attached to the ground or to a building invalidates a ritual bath through the water it channels to the bath. The water in a ritual bath must be gathered directly from rain or a stream, not drawn with vessels. If one hollowed out a log and used it to channel water into the bath, this is considered drawn water, as he used a vessel. By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the ritual bath. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, nor that of the Rabbis.

讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讘讬转 讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专

The Gemara clarifies the question: To which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is this referring? If we say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the aforementioned baraita with regard to the sale of a house, that any item attached to the ground is considered part of the house and is sold along with it, there is a difficulty. As perhaps this is the reasoning employed in the dispute with regard to the sale of a house, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who sells, sells generously anything that is attached to the ground, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, selling only utensils that serve an intrinsic function in the house and nothing else, even if they are attached to the ground. But this teaches us nothing about the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with respect to a ritual bath.

讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽专拽注 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 驻专讜讝讘讜诇

But rather, the reference must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a beehive. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:7): With regard to a beehive attached to the ground by clay, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is like land, and therefore one may write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from canceling an outstanding debt [prosbol] based upon it. Such a document cannot be written unless the borrower owns some land, and a beehive is considered like land for this purpose.

Scroll To Top