Bava Batra 67a

אַגְבַּהּ עִישּׂוּר נִכְסֵי, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאִצְטְרוֹבְלֵי דְרֵיחַיִים. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, מַגְבֵּינַן אֲפִילּוּ מֵעַמְלָא דְבָתֵּי.

collect for her one-tenth of her father’s estate, in keeping with the rabbinic ordinance that states that if a man dies, his sons are obligated to give his daughter a tenth of his landed properties as a dowry, and collect it even from his immovable lower millstones, as they too are considered landed property. Rav Ashi said: When we were students in Rav Kahana’s house we would collect for this purpose even from the rent of houses; since this money is earned from real estate, it too has the status of landed property and is included in the dowry calculations.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הֶחָצֵר – מָכַר בָּתִּים, בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת; אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: ״הוּא וְכׇל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ״ – הֲרֵי כּוּלָּן מְכוּרִין. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – לֹא מָכַר לֹא אֶת הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְלֹא אֶת בֵּית הַבַּד שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הֶחָצֵר – לֹא מָכַר אֶלָּא אֲוִירָהּ שֶׁל חָצֵר.

MISHNA: One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, pits, ditches, and caves found in the courtyard, but he has not sold the movable property. 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 courtyard, even the movable property. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that includes the movable property, he has not sold the bathhouse, nor has he sold the olive press that is in the courtyard, as each is an entity with a discrete purpose and not an integral part of the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold only the airspace, i.e., the open space, of the courtyard, but nothing found in the courtyard, not even the houses.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הֶחָצֵר – מָכַר בָּתִּים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וּבָתִּים הַפְּנִימִים, וּבֵית הַחוֹלְסָאוֹת. חֲנוּיוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת לְתוֹכָהּ – נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ, וְשֶׁאֵין פְּתוּחוֹת לְתוֹכָהּ – אֵין נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ. פְּתוּחוֹת לְכָאן וּלְכָאן – [אֵלּוּ] וְאֵלּוּ נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הֶחָצֵר – לֹא מָכַר אֶלָּא מִילוּסָא שֶׁל חָצֵר.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita ( Tosefta , 3:1): One who sells a courtyard has sold with it the outer houses that can be accessed directly from the courtyard, and the inner houses that can be entered only via the outer houses, and the area of the sand fields [ uveit haḥolsaot ]. As for the stores, those that open into the courtyard are sold along with it; those that do not open into it, but rather open into the public domain, even if they are located in the courtyard, are not sold along with it; and those that open both into this courtyard and into that other public domain are grouped together with those that open into this courtyard alone, and both these and those are sold with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold only the open space of the courtyard.

אָמַר מָר: פְּתוּחוֹת לְכָאן וּלְכָאן – נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ. וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵין נִמְכָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּרוֹב תַּשְׁמִישְׁתַּיְיהוּ לְגוֹ, הָא דְּרוֹב תַּשְׁמִישְׁתַּיְיהוּ לְבַר.

The Master said in the baraita : Stores that open both into this courtyard and into that public domain are sold along with the courtyard. The Gemara raises an objection: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that states that such stores are not sold with the courtyard? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This baraita , that teaches that the stores are sold along with the courtyard, is referring to a case where the majority of their use is from within, i.e., the stores are mainly accessed from within the courtyard, while that baraita of Rabbi Ḥiyya, that teaches that the stores are not sold along with the courtyard, is referring to a case where the majority of their use is from without, i.e., the stores are accessed mainly from the public domain.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הֶחָצֵר – לֹא מָכַר אֶלָּא אֲוִירָהּ שֶׁל חָצֵר. אָמַר רַבָּה: אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״דֵּירְתָּא״ – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתֵּי מַשְׁמַע. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״דָּרְתָּא״; מָר סָבַר: תַּרְבִּיצָא מַשְׁמַע, וּמָר סָבַר: בָּתֵּי מַשְׁמַע.

The mishna teaches, and it was similarly taught in the baraita , that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells a courtyard has sold only the airspace of the courtyard, and he has sold nothing found in the courtyard, not even the houses. To clarify the disagreement between the unattributed opinion in the mishna and Rabbi Eliezer, Rabba said: If the seller said to the buyer that he is selling him dirata , i.e., the place of residence, everyone agrees that he means to sell the houses and that they are also included in the sale. When they disagree, it is where he said to him that he is selling him darta , i.e., the courtyard. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that he means to sell only the garden, i.e., the space between the houses, and one Sage, the unattributed first opinion in the mishna, holds that he means to sell also the houses.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה: אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״דָּרְתָּא״ – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתֵּי מַשְׁמַע. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חָצֵר״; מָר סָבַר: חָצֵר – אַוֵּירָא מַשְׁמַע, וּמָר סָבַר: כַּחֲצַר הַמִּשְׁכָּן.

Some state a different version of this discussion, according to which Rabba says: If the seller says to the buyer that he is selling him darta , everyone agrees that he means to sell also the houses and that they are included in the sale. When they disagree, it is where he said to him that he is selling him the ḥatzer , the Hebrew term for courtyard. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that when he says ḥatzer , he means to sell him only the airspace, i.e., the open space of the courtyard itself, and one Sage, the unattributed first opinion in the mishna, holds that houses are also included in the sale, just as the courtyard of the Tabernacle included the Tabernacle itself.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָכַר לוֹ חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה; הֶחְזִיק בַּחוֹלְסִית – לֹא קָנָה מְצוּלָה, הֶחְזִיק בַּמְּצוּלָה – לֹא קָנָה חוֹלְסִית. אִינִי?! וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָכַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׂדוֹת בְּעֶשֶׂר מְדִינוֹת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – קָנָה כּוּלָּן!

§ And Rabba says that Rav Naḥman says: If one sold another a sand field for glass making, and a pond for fishing or some other purpose, if the buyer took possession of the sand field in order to finalize the transaction, he has not acquired the pond and must therefore perform a separate act of acquisition for it. Conversely, if he took possession of the pond, he has not acquired the sand field. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Shmuel say: If one sold another ten fields in ten different regions, all in a single bill of sale, once he takes possession of one of them, he has acquired them all; and the two cases seem to be analogous.

הָתָם הוּא דְּסַדָּנָא דְאַרְעָא חַד הוּא, וְכוּלַּהּ חֲדָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא – הָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד, וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוֹד.

The Gemara rejects the parallel: There, in the case of the ten fields, the land is all located in one geographic block, and it all has one use, i.e., to be farmed. The buyer, therefore, acquires all of the fields when he takes possession of one of them, even if they are not adjacent. But here, in the case of the sand field and the pond, this, the sand field, has a distinct use, i.e., to supply sand for glass making, and that, the pond, has a distinct use, i.e., for fishing. Therefore, taking possession of one of them does not effect a transfer of the other.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי,

And some state a different version of the previous discussion.