(a)Rejection: Rav Yemar bar Shalmiyah said in the name of Abaye that no matter which expression he used, if he added (the extra words) 'these are the borders', he sold half. If not, he sold only nine Kavim.

(b)Question: Obviously, if Reuven said 'Ploni will divide my property', he gets half;

1.If he said 'give to him a portion of my property', what is the law?

(c)Answer (Ravina bar Kisi - Beraisa - Sumchus): If Shimon said 'give to Ploni a portion in the pit', he gets a quarter. (We are unsure if he gets half, or an arbitrarily small share. Sumchus holds that when we are in doubt, we divide.) If he said 'for the barrel' (to give to his animals to drink), he gets an eighth. (Half is needed for the animals. We are unsure if he meant half of the half (a quarter), or an arbitrarily small share, therefore he gets half of a quarter.) If he said 'for the pot' (for food preparation, for which a third is proper. Perhaps he meant half of this, therefore), he gets one part in 12. If he said 'for the pitcher (for people to drink, for which a quarter is proper)', he gets one part in 16.

(d)(Beraisa): If a Levi sold his field to a Yisrael (Yehudah), and said 'on condition that the Ma'aser remains mine', he keeps the Ma'aser;

1.If he said '(the Ma'aser is) mine and my son's', if he died, the Ma'aser belongs to his son.

2.If he said 'as long as you have the field', and Yehudah sold it and bought it back, the Levi has no more claim to the Ma'aser.

(e)Question: Why does the stipulation work? One cannot acquire something (e.g. the Ma'aser) that is not yet in the world!

(f)Answer: Through saying 'on condition that the Ma'aser remains mine', he kept the Ma'aser for himself.

(g)(Reish Lakish): This (Beraisa) teaches that if one sells a house and stipulates 'on condition that the top is mine', the top is his.


(h)Question: What law do we learn from this?

(i)Answer #1 (Rav Zvid): He may extend ledges from it.

(j)Answer #2 (Rav Papa): He may build another story on top of it.

(k)Question: According to Rav Zvid, we understand why Reish Lakish said 'this teaches that', for we would not know it without the Beraisa.

1.But according to Rav Papa, even without the Beraisa, we would learn this from his extra words!

2.This is left difficult.


(a)(Rav Dimi of Neharde'a): If Reuven sells his house to Shimon (and wants to include the pit and cistern), it is not enough to write 'the depth and height.' He must write also 'from the Tehom (the depth below the earth) to the sky.'

(b)Question: What is the reason?

(c)Answer: Stam (without specifying), the buyer does not acquire the depth and height (the seller could dig underneath, and retains a roof if it has a Ma'akeh);

1.Therefore, if he wrote only 'the depth and height', this includes only the depth and height;

2.He must write also 'from the Tehom to the sky' to include the pit, cistern and tunnels.

(d)Support (Mishnah): The buyer does not acquire the pit and cistern, even if the seller wrote 'the depth and height.'

1.If you will say that Stam, the buyer acquires the depth and height, writing 'the depth and height', should include the pit, cistern and tunnels!

(e)Rejection: No, the Mishnah discusses when he did not write 'the depth and height'.

(f)Question: It says 'even if the seller wrote 'the depth and height'!'

(g)Answer: No. It means, even if the seller did not write 'the depth and height', it is as if he wrote it (to include the depth and height);

1.To include the pit, cistern and tunnels, he must write 'the depth and height.'