Bava Batra 276:1

ידה על העליונה רצה נוטלתן רצה נוטלת כתובתה

she is to have the choice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 3, supra. ');">¹</span> She may, if she wishes, receive these, she may, if she prefers, receive her <i>kethubah</i>. [If] a dying man said, 'Give two hundred <i>zuz</i> to X [who is] my creditor, in accordance with his due', he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">²</span> receives these as well as his debt.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 584, n. 13. ');">³</span>

ושכיב מרע שאמר תנו מאתים זוז לפלוני בעל חובי כראוי לו נוטלן ונוטל את חובו ואם אמר בחובו נוטלן בחובו

If, [however], he said, 'as his debt',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two hundred zuz shall be given to the creditor in payment of his debt. ');">⁴</span> he receives these in [payment of] his debt. Should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">⁵</span> then, because he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The testator. ');">⁶</span>

משום דאמר כראוי לו נוטלן ונוטל את חובו ודלמא כראוי לו בחובו קאמר

said, in accordance with his due', receive these and receive [also] his debt, when it is possible that he meant, 'in accordance with what is his due on account of the debt'? — R. Nahman replied: Huna has told me that this law represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who is this? It is, etc.'. ');">⁷</span> R. Akiba who draws inferences [from] superfluous expression[s]. For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 63b, and 64a. ');">⁸</span> [He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who sold a house. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא הא מני רבי עקיבא היא דדייק לישנא יתירא

sold] neither the cistern nor the cellar, even though he has included in the contract<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he wrote for him'. ');">¹⁰</span> depth and height.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the house. A cistern and a cellar are not regarded as its indispensable parts. ');">¹¹</span> He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller. ');">¹²</span>

דתנן ולא את הבור ולא את הדות אף על פי שכתב לו עומקא ורומא וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי רבי עקיבא

must, however, buy for himself a passage [to these];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sale of the house includes the area surrounding it. Hence, the seller, though retaining the ownership of the cistern and the cellar, has no claim upon the path that leads to them. ');">¹³</span> these are the words of R. Akiba. But the Sages say: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller. ');">¹²</span> need not buy for himself a passage. R. Akiba, however, admits that where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller. ');">¹²</span>

וחכמים אומרים אין צריך ליקח לו דרך ומודה ר"ע בזמן שאמר לו חוץ מאלו שאינו צריך ליקח לו דרך

said to him, 'except these',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cistern and cellar. ');">¹⁴</span> he need not buy a passage for himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not necessary for the seller to specify, 'except these', if he wished to retain the cistern and the cellar only, since these are implicitly excluded from the sale. The addition of, 'except these', is, therefore, taken to imply the exclusion from the sale of the path that leads to them. ');">¹⁵</span> From this it clearly follows [that] where [a person] mentioned [that] which was not necessary, his object was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he comes'. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלמא כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מלתא קאתי הכא נמי כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מלתא קא אתי:

to add something; [so] here also, since he mentioned [that]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'In accordance with his due'. ');">¹⁷</span> which was not necessary, his object was to add something.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the sum shall be in addition to his debt. ');">¹⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: If a dying man said, 'X owes me a <i>maneh</i>', the witnesses may write [it down].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a memorandum of what they heard. ');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ר שכיב מרע שאמר מנה יש לי אצל פלוני העדים כותבין אף על פי שאין מכירין לפיכך כשהוא גובה צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר' מאיר וחכ"א אין כותבין אא"כ מכירין לפיכך כשהוא גובה אין צריך להביא ראיה

although they do not know [whether there is any truth in the statement].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V., R. Gersh. a.l. and cf. Rashb. ');">²⁰</span> Consequently, when [the debt] is collected, proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the defendant's liability. ');">²¹</span> has to be brought;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the heirs. ');">²²</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא תנא רבי מאיר אומר אין כותבין וחכמים אומרים כותבין ואף רבי מאיר לא אמר אלא משום בית דין טועין אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא הלכתא אין חוששין לבית דין טועין

these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: [The witnesses must] not write unless they know [the statement to be true].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a memorandum signed by witnesses may sometimes lead a court to a wrong decision through the assumption that the witnesses had verified the statement. ');">²³</span> Consequently, when [the debt] is collected, there is no need for proof to be produced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The existence of a written document is sufficient evidence that the witnesses had satisfied themselves of the veracity of the statements it contains. ');">²⁴</span> R. Nahman said: Huna told me [that] a tanna reported [the following]: R. Meir said, '[The witnesses] must not write', and the Sages say, 'They may write'; and even R. Meir said this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the witnesses may not put the statements on record. ');">²⁵</span>

ומאי שנא מדרבא דאמר רבא אין חולצין אלא אם כן מכירין ואין ממאנין אלא אם כן מכירין לפיכך כותבין גט חליצה וגט מיאון ואע"פ שאין מכירין

only on account of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not because that was the law. ');">²⁶</span> a court [that might] err.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 8, supra. ');">²⁷</span> R. Dimi of Nehardea said: The law is[ that] there is no need to provide against<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to fear', 'apprehend'. ');">²⁸</span>

(מ"ט לאו) משום דחוששין לב"ד טועין

all erring court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, witnesses may put on record the statements of a dying person (as R. Nahman above quoted in the name of the Rabbis), even though they had not satisfied themselves as to the veracity of the statements. ');">²⁹</span> And why [is this case] different from [that] of Raba? For Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jeb. 106a. ');">³⁰</span> <i>Halizah</i> must not be arranged unless [the court] know [the widow and her brother-in-law], nor may a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Mi'un, A minor who has been betrothed by her father may have the engagement annulled on declaring before a court that she refuses to live with the man. ');">³¹</span>

לא ב"ד בתר בית דינא לא דייקי בית דינא בתר עדים דייקי:

be accepted unless [the court] know [the parties]. Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no court would allow halizah, or a declaration of refusal, unless the parties were known to it. ');">³²</span> [it is permissible for witnesses]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were present during one or other of such ceremonies. ');">³³</span> to write out a certificate of <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would enable the woman to re-marry. ');">³⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האב תולש ומאכיל לכל מי שירצה ומה שהניח תלוש הרי הוא של יורשין:

as well as a certificate of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would enable the woman to re-marry. ');">³⁴</span> even though they do not know [the parties].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they do not know, the court well knew. ');">³⁵</span> [Has not this precaution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a court must not arrange a halizah or accept a declaration of refusal unless the parties concerned are known to it. ');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תלוש אין מחובר לא

been taken] in order to provide against an erring court!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a second court that might be called upon to deal with the question of the remarriage of the parties, and that might wrongly assume that the previous court had satisfied itself as to their identity. Now, if here provision was made against an erring court, why is not such provision necessary in the case spoken of by R. Dimi? ');">³⁷</span> No;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a court is not to be compared with that of witnesses. ');">³⁸</span> a court does not minutely examine [the decision of] another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'. ');">³⁹</span> court;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, no court must arrange halizah or annul a minor's betrothal unless the parties are known to it. ');">⁴⁰</span> [that of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'. ');">³⁹</span> witnesses, [however], it does minutely examine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, every document that would be brought before them, though attested by witnesses, would always be carefully scrutinised. Witnesses, therefore, nay put on record the statements of a dying man (as R. Dimi stated supra) even though they had not satisfied themselves as to whether the debt he mentioned was really due to him. ');">⁴¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A FATHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who directed that after his death his estate shall be given to his son, so that the land itself is acquired by the son at once while the right of usufruct remains with the father. ');">⁴²</span> MAY PLUCK [THE FRIT] AND GIVE IT TO ANY ONE HE WISHES FOR CONSUMPTION; AND ANY PLUCKED [FRUIT] WHICH HE LEAVES [AFTER HIS DEATH] BELONGS TO [ALL] THE HEIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not only to that son to whom the estate had been assigned. ');">⁴³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. PLUCKED [FRUIT] only belongs to all the heirs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">⁴⁴</span> [but] not [fruit] that is still attached to the ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'joined'. Since our Mishnah stated that detached fruit belongs to all the heirs it seems to imply that fruit attached to the ground is regarded as the ground itself and belongs to the son to whom the estate was assigned. ');">⁴⁵</span>