Bava Batra 63 - August 27, 23 Av

Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

If one says yachlok, divide my portion with..., the person gets half, but what is the law if one says “give a chelek, portion, to...? Ravina bar Kisi brings an answer from a braita which rules in a similar case that one gets a quarter as there is a doubt whether the intent was half or a bit and Sumchus rules that when there is money in question, the money is split it between the two parties.

A braita explains that a Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give the seller the Levite tithes. How can one do this if it means selling something that does not yet exist? To answer this question, the Gemara assumes that the seller retains rights to part of the land. Reish Lakish infers from this braita the law for a different case when the seller says he/she is selling the house but retaining the upper floor, as both are cases where there is no real meaning to the statement and it is therefore applied to mean something else. Regarding the Levite, there is no way to retain future produce, so the seller must have meant the land itself. With the house, since there is no need to retain the upper floor, so it must have been referring to something else. Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each provide different interpretations in the case of the house as to what Reish Lakish understood to be retained by the original owner - either to hang a beam from the roof into the airspace of the courtyard (Rav Zevid) or building rights to build on the roof if the current roof is destroyed (Rav Papa). The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Papa’s explanation as it is more intuitive to derive it from the next Mishna (Bava Batra 64a) than from the braita. Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights, and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. What items are included in each case? The Gemara tries to prove his statement from the next Mishna, but then rejects the proof.