Bava Batra 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

Moreover,

he collected for her from her father's inheritance

a tenth of the estate,

a tenth of the assets. As explained in the Gemara in Ketubot [68a], if we do not know how much this father would have wished to give his daughter for her marriage expenses, we collect a tenth from the inheritance of the real estate for her marriage expenses.

And he collected

even from millstones,

because they too are considered part of the land.

And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that anything attached to the land is considered like the land.

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

from the father's inheritance for the daughter's marriage expenses

even from the rent of houses,

from the rent received for the houses, since income received for land is considered like the land .

Mishna:

One who sells a courtyard without specification

sells

along with the courtyard also

the houses

that open into the courtyard, as well as

pits, ditches,

and caves

within it. [Although pits are not included in the sale of a house, with regard to 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 implements that are not fixed to the ground. This means all those listed in the previous Mishna that are not sold as part of a house, and likewise all other movable property that is not among the household implements.

When he said to him

the seller said to the buyer:

“It, and everything within it,”

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

everything is sold.

All the movable property used in the house, even though it is not needed for the house, is sold with the courtyard , except for food.

In either case—

even if he said to him, “It and everything within it are sold to you”—

he did not sell

with the courtyard

either the bathhouse or the olive press

in which olives are pressed for oil

within it,

within the courtyard. This is because they are not included in the category of a courtyard and are not included in “everything within it,” as most courtyards are not ordinarily equipped with a bathhouse and an olive press .

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells the courtyard

without specification

does not sell

with the courtyard

anything but the airspace of the courtyard—

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

It is not possible to determine from the amount the buyer paid for the courtyard whether he included additional items in the sale of the courtyard, since there is no law of exploitation with regard to 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 sandy .

And if there are

shops that open into it,

intended for internal sales among the residents of the courtyard,

they are sold with it,

but those that do not open into it,

but rather open 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 into the courtyard and outward,

they are sold with it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells the courtyard—

sells nothing but the milusa

its open space

of the courtyard.

The Master said:

We learned in the baraita that if the shops were

open in both directions,

both into the courtyard and outward,

they are sold with it,

with the courtyard.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

and taught

Rabbi Hiyya

the opposite in a baraita: If the shops were open both into the courtyard and outward,

they are not sold with it!

We answer:

It is not difficult: This

baraita above, which holds that they are sold with the courtyard, speaks of shops

whose primary use is inward,

toward the inside of the courtyard, and therefore they are sold with the courtyard.

This

baraita of Rabbi Hiyya speaks of shops

whose primary

use is outward,

toward the outside. Their outward-facing entrance is used more than the entrance 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 said to the buyer:

“Dirata,”

“I am selling you this dwelling,” and with this expression he sold him the courtyard—

everyone agrees that it implies houses,

since people do not live in a courtyard, but in houses. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that in this case he sold him both the courtyard and the houses within it, since all of them together are called a dwelling.

They disagree

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

where he said to him,

the seller said to the buyer:

“Darta”—

“I am selling you a courtyard”:

one

Rabbi Eliezer

holds that “tarbetza”

an open courtyard

is implied, while the other

the Sages

holds that houses are implied,

since both darta and dirata are expressions denoting a 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 he intended to sell only the courtyard, without the houses.

There are those who say

that Rava's statement was transmitted in another formulation, as follows:

He said

(Rabba) [

Rava ]:

If he said to him

the seller said to the buyer in this expression:

“Darta,”

“I am selling you”

everyone agrees

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

it implies houses,

as everyone agrees that darta is an expression denoting a dwelling.

They disagree

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

where he said to him,

the seller said to the buyer in this expression:

“Courtyard,”

“I am selling you.”

One

Rabbi Eliezer

holds that “courtyard”

implies the airspace. But the other

the Sages

holds that his intention is

that it is like

the courtyard of the Tabernacle.

With regard to 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.” The Holy of Holies and the Tent of Meeting, which are like houses, were included within this area, yet Scripture called the entire area 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

(Rabba) [

Rava ]

said that Rav Naḥman said:

If

he sold him

also

a sandy area—

a place containing 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

in order to acquire it through an act of possession,

he did not acquire

through this act

the riverbed,

but only the sandy area itself; he must perform another act of acquisition with regard to the riverbed. And likewise, if

the buyer took possession

the buyer

of the riverbed

in order to acquire it through an act of possession,

he did not acquire

through this act

the sandy area,

and he must perform a separate act of acquisition with regard to it.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?

Is this indeed the halakha?

But didn’t Shmuel say: 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 with it,

he acquired them all!

Since he gave the seller the money for all the fields, all the fields became bound to the buyer by virtue of the money he paid for them. Therefore, an act of possession with regard to one field is effective for acquiring all the fields, even though they are not adjacent to one another .

If so, how could Rava say in the name of Rav Naḥman that if he performed an act of possession with regard to the sandy area or the riverbed, the act did not acquire the other?

We answer:

There

with regard to the ten fields,

it

is the reason that an act of possession was effective for all the fields:

“The foundation of the land is one.”

The underlying substratum of all the land is one, and all the parcels of land are connected to the single body of the earth. Therefore, when he performed an act of possession with regard to one of the fields, it is considered as though he performed an act of acquisition with regard to all the fields , and also

“their use is one and the same,”

as the use of all the fields he purchased is identical: they are all intended for sowing. Therefore, because they are connected to one another through the body of the earth, they are considered like one field, and the act of acquisition with regard to one field is effective for acquiring all the fields .

But here,

with regard to one who acquires a sandy area and a riverbed, their uses are not the same:

“This has one use, and that has another use,”

as the sandy area is intended for sand, while the riverbed is intended for silver and gold or for fish. Although they are adjacent to one another, an act of possession with regard to the sandy area is not effective for acquiring the riverbed.

The reason that one cannot acquire, through a single act of possession, two parcels of land whose uses are not the same is that in the Gemara in Kiddushin [26a] the law that land is acquired through an act of possession is derived from the verse: “And they shall settle in your cities that you have seized” [Jeremiah 40:10]. The Sages expound: Through what did you seize them [through what did you acquire the cities]? Through settling! And they likewise derive it from another verse: “And you shall inherit it and settle in it” [Deuteronomy 11:31]. Through what did you inherit it? Through settling. From this we learn that one acquires only the land in which he settles, or the city in which he settles, through the possession of settling; he does not acquire another city through settling in its fellow. Therefore, with regard to a sandy area and a riverbed, since they are two types of land distinguished from one another by their uses, he acquires through an act of possession only the one in which he takes possession, and not the other.

There are those who say

that Rava's statement was transmitted in another formulation: