Bava Batra 67a — the Talmud in English

Because of it,

he collected for her from her father’s inheritance

a tenth of the estate,

a tenth of the assets, for it is explained in the Gemara in Ketubot [68a] that if we do not know how much this father would have wanted to give his daughter for her wedding needs, we collect a tenth from the inheritance from the real-estate assets for her wedding needs.

And he collected

even from “millstones,”

because they too are considered included within land.

And this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that everything attached to land is like land.

Rav Ashi said: When we were at the study hall of Rav Kahana, we collected

from the father’s inheritance for the daughter’s wedding provision

even from the rent of houses,

from the rent of the houses, for the payment received for the land is considered like land .

Mishna:

One who sells a courtyard without qualification—

sells

along with the courtyard also

houses

that open into the courtyard, and likewise

cisterns and pits

and caves

that are within it [and although the cisterns are not included in the sale of a house, nevertheless concerning a courtyard they are subordinate to it and are included in the sale of the courtyard].

But he does not

sell together with the courtyard

the movable property—

the household utensils that are not fixed to the ground, namely all those enumerated in the previous Mishna that are not sold as part of a house, and certainly other movable objects that are not among the household utensils.

When he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

“It and everything within it

is sold to you”—that he sells him the courtyard and everything within it—

everything is sold.

All the movable objects used with the house, even though they are not needed for the house, are sold along with the courtyard , except for foodstuffs.

In either case—

even if he said to him: It and everything within it are sold to you—

he did not sell

along with the courtyard

either the bathhouse or the olive press

in which olives are pressed for oil,

that are within it,

that are within the courtyard, because they are not included within a courtyard and are not included in “everything within it,” since most courtyards do not ordinarily have a bathhouse and an olive press .

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells the courtyard

without qualification—

does not sell

with the courtyard

anything but the airspace of the courtyard—

the vacant area within the courtyard, but not the houses and the cisterns within it.

And it is not possible to clarify from the sum that the buyer paid for the courtyard whether he included additional things in the sale of the courtyard, since there is no fraud concerning land, and land has no fixed value .

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

One who sells the courtyard—

sells the outer houses

that are outside the courtyard area and open into the courtyard,

and the inner houses

that are within the courtyard area,

and the house of sand

a house whose ground is sand .

And if there are

shops opening into it

intended for internal sales among the members of the courtyard—

they are sold with it,

but those that do not open into it

but only into the public domain or another courtyard, even though they are built within it—

are not sold with it.

And if the shops were

open in both directions

both to the courtyard and outward—

these are sold with it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells the courtyard—

sells nothing but the milusa

its vacant space

of the courtyard.

The Master said:

We learned in the beraita that if the shops were

open in both directions,

both to the courtyard and outward—then they are

sold with it,

with the courtyard.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But he taught

and Rabbi

Hiyya

taught the opposite in a beraita: that if the shops were open both to the courtyard and outward,

they are not sold with it!

And we answer:

It is not difficult: This

the beraita above, which holds that they are sold with the courtyard, spoke of shops

whose main use is inside

within the courtyard, and therefore they are sold with the courtyard.

This

the beraita of Rabbi Hiyya speaks of shops

whose main

use is outside,

outward, for the opening facing outward is more open for use than the opening facing the inside of the courtyard, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells the courtyard—

sells nothing but the airspace of the courtyard.

He said

(Rabba) [

Rava ]:

If he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

“A dwelling

I sell you,” and with this expression he sold him the courtyard—

everyone agrees that it means houses,

for people do not dwell in a courtyard except in houses, and Rabbi Eliezer concedes that in this case he sold him both the courtyard and the houses within the courtyard, since everything together is called a dwelling.

When they disagree,

when did the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagree? In a case

where he said to him,

the seller to the buyer,

“Darta”—

I sell you a courtyard:

One Master—

Rabbi Eliezer—

holds: “Tarb mitzra”

a courtyard open to the air

is meant, and the other Master—

the Sages—

holds: houses are meant,

for both darta and dirta are expressions of dwelling.

Accordingly, if the seller explicitly said to the buyer that he was selling him this courtyard [and did not use the expression “darta”], everyone agrees that his intention was to sell the courtyard alone, without the houses.

There are those who say

that the words of Rava were stated in another formulation, and this is what was said:

He said

(Rabba) [

Rava ]:

If he said to him

the seller to the buyer in this expression:

“Darta”

I sell you—

everyone agrees

that he included the houses within it in the sale of the courtyard, since

it means houses,

for according to everyone darta is an expression of dwelling.

When they disagree,

when did the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagree? In a case

where he said to him,

the seller to the buyer in this expression:

“Courtyard”

I sell you.

One Master—

Rabbi Eliezer—

holds: “Courtyard”—

means airspace. And the other Master—

the Sages—

holds

that his intention is

like the courtyard of the Tabernacle.

Concerning the courtyard of the Tabernacle it is written [Exodus 27:18]: “The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits, and the width fifty by fifty,” and within this area are included the Holy of Holies and the Tent of Meeting, which are like houses. Yet Scripture called them a courtyard; this indicates that houses are included in the expression “courtyard,” and therefore the houses are included in the sale of the courtyard.

And he said

(Rabba) [

Rava ]

Rav Nahman said:

If

he sold him

also

a sandy area—

a place where there is sand—

and a riverbed—

and also the river bottom, for fishing or for objects found there [such as silver and gold].

If

the buyer took possession

the buyer

of the sandy area

to acquire it through an act of possession—

he did not acquire

through this act

the riverbed,

but only the sandy area itself, and he must perform another act of acquisition in the riverbed in order to acquire it. And likewise, if

the buyer took possession

the buyer

of the riverbed

to acquire it through an act of possession—

he did not acquire

through this act

the sandy area,

and he must perform an act of acquisition in it separately.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?

Is this indeed the halakha?

But Samuel said: If he sold him

to the buyer

ten fields in ten countries, once he took possession

the buyer

of one of them

of the fields and performed an act of possession in it—

he acquired them all!

For since he gave the seller the money for all the fields, all the fields became bound to the buyer on account of the money he paid for them. Therefore the act of possession in one field is effective to acquire all the fields, even though they are not adjacent to one another .

If so, how did Rava say in the name of Rav Nahman that if he performed an act of possession in the sandy area or in the riverbed, the act of acquisition was not effective to acquire the other one?

And we answer:

There

in the case of the ten fields,

it

is that the act of possession was effective for all the fields because

“the foundation of the earth is one.”

The foundation of all the land is one, and all the lands are connected to the body of the earth, which is one. Therefore, when he performed an act of possession in one of the fields, it is considered as though he performed an act of acquisition in all the fields , and also

“all of them have one use,”

for all the fields he acquired have the same use, since all of them are designated for sowing. Therefore they are considered like one field through being connected to one another in the body of the earth, and the act of acquisition in one of the fields was effective to acquire all the fields .

But here,

in the case of one acquiring a sandy area and a riverbed—their uses are not the same—

this has one use, and that has another use,

for the sandy area is designated for sand, while the riverbed is designated for silver and gold or for fish. And although they are adjacent to one another, possession of the sandy area is not effective to acquire the riverbed.

And the reason that he cannot acquire through one act of possession two pieces of land whose uses are not the same is that in the Gemara in Kiddushin [26a] they derive the law that an act of possession is effective for land from the verse: “And they shall settle in your cities that you have seized” [Jeremiah 40:10], and they expound: Through what did you seize them [through what did you acquire the cities]? Through dwelling! And they likewise expound from another verse: “And you shall inherit it and dwell in it” [Deuteronomy 11:31]: Through what did you inherit it? Through dwelling. From there we learned that only the land in which he dwells, or the city in which he dwells, he acquires through the possession of dwelling; but he does not acquire another city through dwelling in its fellow. Therefore, concerning the sandy area and the riverbed, since they are two types of land that differ from one another in their use, he acquires through an act of possession only the one in which he takes possession, but not the second one.

There are those who say

that the words of Rava were stated in another formulation: