Our Mishnah states that someone who sells a house or a room ('Bayis' can mean either) has not sold the Yatzi'a even if the Yatzi'a has a door that leads into the room.

Neither has he sold the room into which the main room leads because its use is independent of the main room (since it is used for storage, like a cupboard]).

Besides that room, the purchaser does not receive the roof, assuming it is surrounded by a Ma'akeh (a parapet) of ten Tefachim, together with the house, according to the Tana Kama.

Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama. He considers a 'Tzuras ha'Pesach' (the shape of a doorway [even one that is less than ten Tefachim tall]) to be the equivalent of a Ma'akeh of ten Tefachim.

'They translated' Yatzi'a as 'Afta' (a low-roofed construction at the rear or alongside a house). Rav Yosef translates it as 'Barka Chalilah' a similar type construction, but with many windows (similar to an Achsadra [a sun-porch]).

If, as the first opinion maintains, a Yatzi'a is an Afta, then it goes without saying that a Barka Chalilah (which is less part of the house than an Afta, since its function is merely for aesthetics) is certainly not sold together with the house; whereas, according to Rav Yosef, a Barka Chalilah is not sold together with the house, but an Afta is.

Rav Yosef quotes a Beraisa, which discusses Yatzi'a, Tzela and Ta. Effectively these three are all one and the same, a serious of rooms that adjoined the walls of the Heichal on three sides.

Surrounding the Heichal in the Beis Hamikdash, there were three rows of Tzela'os one on top of the other the bottom one five Amos wide, the middle one six, and the top one, seven ...

... arranged in this way, so that the planks that ran across the width to form the ceiling, could rest on the extra space that caused the walls to recede by one Amah (thereby avoiding having to knock nails or pegs into the walls of the Heichal).

When the Pasuk gives the measurements of each Ta as one Kaneh long and one Kaneh wide it means six Amos by six Amos, the length of one Kaneh, which was a measuring-stick.

When the Tana in Midos concludes with the wall of the Heichal, the Ta and the wall of the Ta he is measuring the length of the Heichal from east to west.

The Tana gives both the thickness of the wall of the Heichal and the width of the Ta as six Amos, and the thickness of the wall of the Ta as five Amos.

According to Mar Zutra, for the Mishnah to say that a Yatzi'a is not sold together with the house it must be at least four Amos square.

Ravina asks Mar Zutra from the Din of Bor va'Dus in our Mishnah whether there too, the Tana is referring specifically to a pit of four Amos by four Amos (which is much larger than a regular pit) ...

... to which Mar Zutra replied that a pit is not included in the sale, irrespective of its size.

The basis for this distinction is the fact that the usage of the pit is totally independent of the house; whereas a Yatzi'a, which is used (not together with, but) in conjunction with the main room of the house, is considered part of the house, unless it is four by four Amos or more, when its Chashivus (significance) renders it independent from the house.

The problem with the Tana's mentioning a room within a room, after having taught that the purchaser does not acquire the Yatzi'a is that if the purchaser does not acquire the Yatzi'a (which is really an extension of the main room), it seems obvious that he does not acquire the inner room either (so why does the Tana need to insert it)?

To answer this Kashya, we establish the latter case 'Af-al-Gav de'Meitzar leih Metzri' which means that after specifying the room, he indicates all four borders (e.g. so and so's room on the north, so and so's on the south, and so on), and the inner room falls within those specified borders.

And the reason that the inner room is not included in the sale is because a person prefers to specify borders that are distinct and easily recognizable (even if they are a slight distance away from the property that he is selling), rather than borders that are perhaps more precise, but less recognizable (such as his own inner-room).

The above Chidush is based on a statement to this effect by Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha who was referring to a case of someone who sold a room within a many-roomed mansion, and specified the borders that surrounded the mansion.

Rav Nachman cannot be referring to a many-roomed mansion which ...

... nobody refers to as a Bayis, but a Birah because then it is obvious that the mansion is not included in the sale of the Bayis.

... everyone refers to it as a Bayis because then there is no reason why it should not be included in the sale.

He is therefore referring to where most people refer to such a mansion as a Birah and not a Bayis, but there are some who refer to it is as a Bayis.

And the reason that the mansion is not included in the sale is because seeing as most people do not call a mansion a 'Bayis', the seller should have written in the Shtar that he omitted nothing from the sale (to eliminate any doubts in the matter [precisely because of Rav Nachman's principle of 'Meitzar Hirchiv lo' meaning that he may have extended the borders]).

Rav Nachman repeats the same Chidush with regard to someone who sold a field in a large Bik'ah. The equivalent case there will be when most people refer to a Bik'ah as a Bik'ah, and there are some who call it a 'Sadeh'.

In both cases, we cannot use the price as an indication of whether the seller included the entire property in the sale or only a small section of it because of the principle 'Ein Ona'ah le'Karka'os', meaning that Karka is not subject to overcharging, and that people will sometimes pay more for a field than it is really worth.

In spite of having presented the case of ...

... Bayis, Rav Nachman found it necessary to add the case of Sadeh because there, we might have thought since all the fields concerned are used for the same purpose (e.g. planting crops), the sale definitely incorporates them all.

... Sadeh, Rav Nachman nevertheless found it necessary to add the case of Bayis because there we might have thought that, since it is generally easier to find clearly-defined borders of sorts between one room and another (than between two fields), the Sevara of 'Metzarim Hirchiv lo' will not apply.

Based on the Din of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuha, Rav Mari the son of Shmuel's daughter issued a ruling that someone who sells property must insert in the Shtar that he sold everything (to counter the possibility of 'Metzarim Hirchiv lo'. Otherwise, we will assume that he did indeed extend the borders).

When Reuven sold Shimon 'a field of Rebbi Chiya', and it then transpired that he owned two such fields, Rav Ashi ruled that 'a field of Rebbi Chiya' implies one field and not two.

The purchaser would receive the smaller of the two fields (based on the principle 'that the owner of the Shtar [who is the claimant], has the underhand').

He called the fields by that name because he bought them from Rebbi Chiya.

If the seller used the Lashon ...

... 'Arata' he would incorporate two fields.

... 'Kol Arata' he would incorporate all his fields, except for his vegetable-gardens and vineyards.

... 'Zihara' it would include even his vegetable-gardens and vineyards too, but not his houses and Avadim.

... 'Nechasai' then even his houses and Avadim would be included in the sale as well.