Bava Batra 130

הרי כולן מכורין:

ALL THESE THINGS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SALE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because although movable they more or less belong to the house and are not usually removed from it. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתניתין דלא כר' מאיר דאי ר"מ הא אמר מכר את הכרם מכר תשמישי כרם

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Are we to say that the Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Meir, for if it were according to R. Meir, surely he has laid down that 'if a man sells a vineyard, he [automatically] sells with it the implements of the vineyard'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the poles (infra 78b). Hence we should expect R. Meir to include in the house the movable mortar and the key. ');">²</span>

אפילו תימא ר"מ התם קביע הכא לא קביע והא מפתח דומיא דדלת קתני מה דלת דקביעא אף מפתח דקביע אלא מחוורתא מתני' דלא כר"מ

— You may in fact say that it concurs with R. Meir, for there he was speaking of things which are part and parcel of the vineyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fixed'. I.e., things which though in themselves movable, are in practice never taken from the vineyard. ');">³</span>

תנו רבנן המוכר את הבית מכר את הדלת ואת הנגר ואת המנעול אבל לא את המפתח מכר את המכתשת החקוקה אבל לא את הקבועה מכר האיצטרוביל אבל לא את הקלת לא את התנור ולא את הכירים ולא את הריחים ר' אליעזר אומר כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע

but here [the Mishnah speaks of] things which are not part and parcel of the house. But does not the Mishnah mention a key side by side with a door, [as much as to say], Just as a door is part and parcel of a house, so a key is part and parcel of the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The key spoken of by the Mishnah must be one which is usually left in the door, as otherwise it would have said, 'The sale includes a key which is left in the door, but not one which is carried about', and we should have understood a fortiori that a door is sold with the house. ');">⁴</span>

בזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שבתוכו הרי כולן מכורין בין כך ובין כך לא מכר לא את הבור ולא את הדות ולא את היציע

[and yet it is not sold with the house]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that according to the Mishnah even things which are part and parcel of the house are not sold with it unless the formula 'it and all its contents' is used. ');">⁵</span>

תנו רבנן צינור שחקקו ולבסוף קבעו פוסל את המקוה קבעו ולבסוף חקקו אינו פוסל את המקוה מני לא ר' אליעזר ולא רבנן

— The more tenable opinion therefore is that the Mishnah does not agree with R. Meir.

הי ר' אליעזר אילימא ר"א דבית דלמא היינו טעמא דר"א סבר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ורבנן סברי מוכר בעין רעה מוכר

Our Rabbis taught: If a man sells a house, he ipso facto sells the door, the cross-bar, and the lock, but not the key; the mortar that has been hollowed [out of stone], but not one that has been fixed; the casing of the handmill but not the sieve; and not the oven, the stove, or the handmill. R. Eliezer, however, says that everything attached to the ground<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including, that is, the fixed mortar. ');">⁶</span>

ואלא ר"א דכוורת דבורים דתנן כוורת דבורים רבי אליעזר אומר הרי היא כקרקע וכותבין עליה פרוזבול

is in the same category as the ground. If the vendor uses the formula, 'the house and all its contents', all these things are sold with. In either case, however, he does not sell the well, the cistern, or the verandah. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man hollows out a pipe and then fixes it, water from it makes a mikweh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ritual bath. V. Glos. ');">⁷</span> unfit for use. If, however, he first fixes it and then hollows it, it does not render the mikweh unfit for use.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is that water in the mikweh must not be 'drawn' there by artificial means, i.e., through the instrumentality of a 'vessel', but must flow there naturally. According to this dictum, the fixing of the pipe in the soil does not make it part of the soil, and it still remains a 'vessel'. On the other hand, the hollowing of the wood or stone after it has been fixed does not make it a 'vessel', but it is regarded as being merely a trench in the ground. ');">⁸</span> To whom [are we to ascribe this dictum]? For it cannot be either R. Eliezer or the Rabbis! — Which [statement of] R. Eliezer [have you in mind]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with which statement of his is the one just adduced in conflict? ');">⁹</span> Shall I say, the one about the house?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha quoted above: 'R. Eliezer says that everything attached to the ground is in the same category as the ground.' ');">¹⁰</span> possibly the reason [why he says there that fixtures are in the same category as the ground] is because he holds that the vendor interprets the terms of sale liberally, whereas the Rabbis hold that he interprets them strictly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no conclusion is to be drawn from that Baraitha as to the opinions of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to the mikweh. ');">¹¹</span> Is it then the statement about the beehive, as we have learnt: 'R. Eliezer says that a beehive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Attached to the ground by mud or clay. ');">¹²</span> is on the same footing as the soil; it may serve as a surety for a <i>prosbul</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 324, n. 7. Glos. ');">¹³</span>