Bava Batra 129

הלכה כדברי חכמים ורב ירמיה בר אבא אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי עקיבא אמר ליה רב ירמיה בר אבא לרב הונא והא זמנין סגיאין אמריתה קמיה דרב הלכתא כרבי עקיבא ולא אמר לי ולא מידי אמר ליה היכי תניתה אמר ליה איפכא תנינא משום הכי לא אמר לך ולא מידי

The <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of the Sages. R. Jeremiah b. Abba, however, said in the name of Samuel that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Akiba. Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba to R. Huna: Did I not frequently say in the presence of Rab that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Akiba, and he did not say a word to me? Said R. Huna to him: How did you report his ruling? — He said to him: I reported them [with the names] reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These, of course, were not the actual words of R. Jeremiah. Perhaps we should read, [H] [so MS.M. v. D. S.], 'he gave him the rulings in the reverse form', making R. Akiba say that the vendor interprets the terms of sale strictly and the Sages that he interprets them liberally. ');">¹</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי לימא אזדו לטעמייהו

It is for that reason [said R. Huna] that he did not say anything to you.

דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל האחין שחלקו אין להן לא דרך זה על זה ולא סולמות זה על זה ולא חלונות זה על זה ולא אמת המים זה על זה

Rabina said to R. Ashi: May we say that they [Rab and Samuel here] are in accord with their respective views [as expressed in the following passage]: R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel, If brothers divide an inheritance, neither has a right of way against the other nor the right of 'ladders', nor the right of 'windows', nor the right of 'watercourses', and take good note of these rulings, since they are definite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7a and notes. ');">²</span>

והזהרו בהן שהלכות קבועות הן ורב אמר יש להן

Rab, however, said that they have [these rights].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here also we see that according to Rab the terms of the division are interpreted strictly by each party (i.e. to his own advantage), and according to Samuel liberally (i.e. to the other's advantage). ');">³</span>

צריכא דאי אשמועינן בההיא בההיא קאמר רב משום דא"ל בעינא למידר ביה כי היכי דדרו ביה אבהתי תדע דכתיב (תהלים מה, יז) תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך אבל בהא אימא מודי ליה לשמואל

[R. Ashi answered:] Both statements are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the statements of the dispute between Rab and Samuel both in regard to the purchaser and vendor and in regard to the brothers, and we cannot say that in one case they are merely applying a principle underlying their decision in the other. ');">⁴</span>

ואי איתמר בהא בהך קאמר שמואל אבל בהא אימא מודי ליה לרב צריכא

For if I had only the latter, I would say that Rab's reason [for allowing the right of way] is because one brother can say to the other, I want to live on this land as my father lived: and in proof that this is a valid plea in the mouth of an heir, the Scripture says, In the place of thy fathers shall be thy sons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XLV, 17. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב הונא הלכתא כוותין או הלכתא כוותייכו אמר ליה הלכתא כוותייכו דמקרביתו לבבא דריש גלותא דשכיחי דייני:

In the other case, however, I might think that Rab agrees with Samuel. If again I had only the former statement, I might think that only in that case did Samuel say [that the vendor interprets the terms of sale liberally], but here he agrees with Rab. Hence both statements are necessary.

איתמר שני בתים זה לפנים מזה שניהם במכר שניהם במתנה אין להן דרך זה על זה כל שכן חיצון במתנה ופנימי במכר

R. Nahman said to R. Huna: Does the law follow our<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own and that of Samuel, who was his teacher. ');">⁶</span>

חיצון במכר ופנימי במתנה סבור מינה אין להן דרך זה על זה

opinion or yours? — He replied: The law follows your view, since you have continual access to the gate of the Exilarch, where the judges are in session.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman was a son-in-law of the Exilarch. ');">⁷</span>

ולא היא מי לא תנן במה דברים אמורים במוכר אבל בנותן מתנה נותן את כולן אלמא מאן דיהיב מתנה בעין יפה יהיב הכא נמי מאן דיהיב מתנה בעין יפה יהיב:

It has been stated: If there are two apartments one within the other, and both are sold or given away [at the same time to two different persons], they have no right of way against one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., through the outer room to the inner, because both parties are on an exactly equal footing. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוכר את הבית מכר את הדלת אבל לא את המפתח מכר את המכתשת קבועה אבל לא את המיטלטלת מכר את האיצטרוביל אבל לא את הקלת ולא את התנור ולא את הכירים בזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שבתוכו

Still less have they if the outer one is given and the inner one is sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we presume the gift to have been made in a more liberal spirit than the sale. ');">⁹</span> If the outer one is sold and the inner one given, [the students] wanted to infer from this that there is no right of way from one to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because presumably the owner does not favour one above the other to this extent. ');">¹⁰</span> but this is not correct. For have we not learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 71a, in connection with the dispute between R. Akiba and the Sages about the right of way. ');">¹¹</span> 'This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to the Rabbis a right of way is not included. ');">¹²</span> applies only to a sale, but if the owner makes a gift, he includes all these things'? This shows that a donor is presumed to make a gift in a liberal spirit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even on the view of the Rabbis, and still more on that of R. Akiba. ');">¹³</span> So here, the donor gives in a liberal spirit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even at the expense of the purchaser, and therefore the recipient of the inner room has a right of way through the outer. ');">¹⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SELLS A HOUSE, HE [IPSO FACTO] SELLS [WITH IT] THE DOOR, BUT NOT THE KEY;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'opener': a bolt which would fit any door, but which usually was left in its socket. ');">¹⁵</span> HE SELLS [WITH IT] A MORTAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For pounding spices etc. ');">¹⁶</span> FIXED [IN THE GROUND] BUT NOT A MOVABLE ONE; HE SELLS [WITH IT] THE CASING OF A HANDMILL BUT NOT THE SIEVE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 103. ');">¹⁷</span> AND NOT A STOVE OR AN OVEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These too were movable, but the stove was somewhat larger and used for baking bread, V.l. 'he sells (with it) a stove and oven,' these being regarded as fixtures. The principle is therefore that the 'house' includes fixtures but not movable things. ');">¹⁸</span> IF HE SAYS TO THE PURCHASER, [I SELL] THE HOUSE AND ALL ITS CONTENTS,