Responsa for Bava Batra 128:11

איתמר רב הונא אמר רב

— No. Perhaps the Mishnah [desires to] tell us by this that [the difference between R. Akiba and the Sages is as stated above] both in regard to a house and a field, both being necessary. For if it had stated [the difference only] in the case of a house, [I might have thought that there R. Akiba says that the vendor has to buy a right of way] because the purchaser desires privacy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his objection to treading. ');">¹²</span> but in the case of a field [where this reason does not apply] I might say he need not. And if the difference had been stated only in regard to a field, I might have thought that there [R. Akiba says that the vendor has to buy a right of way] because [the purchaser objects to his land being] trodden down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so rendered less productive. ');">¹³</span> but in the case of a house [where this reason does not apply I might say] he need not. May we then [base the assumption] on the succeeding clause: 'If he sells them [the pit etc. in a field] to another, R. Akiba says that the purchaser does not need to buy a right of way, while the Sages say that he must.' Now why is [their difference stated] again? It is exactly the same here as in the previous case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., where these things are bought and sold with a house. ');">¹⁴</span> We must therefore say that this shows that in the view of R. Akiba the vendor interprets the terms of sale liberally, and in the view of the Rabbis he interprets them strictly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As otherwise the statement would be entirely superfluous. ');">¹⁵</span> It has been stated: R. Huna said in the name of Rab:

Explore responsa for Bava Batra 128:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.