## Bava Batra Daf 138b

###### Bava Batra 138b:1
[Bava Batra 138b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:1)

יָדָהּ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה; רָצָה – נוֹטַלְתָּן, רָצָה – נוֹטֶלֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**she has the advantage;** if **she wants, she takes** the two hundred dinars, and if **she wants, she takes** payment of **her marriage contract.**


###### Bava Batra 138b:2
[Bava Batra 138b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:2)

וּשְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר: ״תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי בַּעַל חוֹבִי, כָּרָאוּי לוֹ״ – נוֹטְלָן, וְנוֹטֵל אֶת חוֹבוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר: ״בְּחוֹבוֹ״ – נוֹטְלָן בְּחוֹבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** if there was **a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my creditor, as is appropriate for him,** the creditor **takes** the two hundred dinars **and takes** payment of the **debt** as well. **But if he said:** Give him two hundred dinars as payment **for** the **debt, he takes** the two hundred dinars as payment **for** the **debt.**


###### Bava Batra 138b:3
[Bava Batra 138b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:3)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר ״כָּרָאוּי לוֹ״ – נוֹטְלָן וְנוֹטֵל אֶת חוֹבוֹ?! וְדִלְמָא ״כָּרָאוּי לוֹ בְּחוֹבוֹ״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Because he says: As is appropriate for him, he takes** the two hundred dinars **and takes** payment of the **debt** as well? **But perhaps he was saying: As is appropriate for him** as payment **for** the **debt,** and meant only to specify the amount of the debt.


###### Bava Batra 138b:4
[Bava Batra 138b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּדָיֵיק לִישָּׁנָא יַתִּירָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** Rav **Huna said to me:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who expounds superfluous language.** Rabbi Akiva holds that if one uses unnecessary words, he apparently intended to add a matter.


###### Bava Batra 138b:5
[Bava Batra 138b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:5)

דִּתְנַן: וְלֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא. וְצָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house without specification has sold **neither the pit nor the cistern [*dut*]** with it, **even if he writes for** the buyer in the bill of sale: With **its depth and its height.** This is because anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller’s possession. **And** therefore the seller **must purchase for himself a path** through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Bava Batra 138b:6
[Bava Batra 138b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:6)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ״ – שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** The seller **need not purchase for himself a path** through the buyer’s domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale. **And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when** the seller **says to** the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house **apart from** the pit and the cistern, **he need not purchase for himself a path** through the buyer’s domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.


###### Bava Batra 138b:7
[Bava Batra 138b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:7)

אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ, וְקָאָמַר – לְטַפּוֹיֵי מִלְּתָא קָאָתֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ, וְקָאָמַר – לְטַפּוֹיֵי מִלְּתָא קָא אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** according to Rabbi Akiva, **since he did not need** to state: Apart from the pit and the cistern, **and stated** it anyway, the seemingly superfluous statement **was coming to add a matter.** Since the seller unnecessarily stressed that the pit and cistern are not included in the sale, he must have intended to thereby reserve for himself the right of access. **Here too,** with regard to the gift given by a person on his deathbed to his creditor, **since he did not need** to say: As is appropriate for him, **and said** it anyway, this phrase **was coming to add a matter,** i.e., that the two hundred dinars are in addition to the debt.


###### Bava Batra 138b:8
[Bava Batra 138b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר: ״מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי״ – הָעֵדִים כּוֹתְבִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין. לְפִיכָךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין, לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 8:18): If there was **a person on his deathbed who said: I have one hundred dinars** owed to me **by so-and-so, the witnesses** that hear this **may write** his statement in a document **even if they do not know** whether the statement is true. **Therefore, when** the person’s heir **collects** the debt, **he must bring proof** of the debt, as the document written by these witnesses is not regarded as proof. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** The witnesses **may not write** the document **unless they know** for a fact that the statement is true. **Therefore, when** the heir **collects** the debt, **he need not bring proof** other than the document written by the witnesses, as it has the status of a promissory note.


###### Bava Batra 138b:9
[Bava Batra 138b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: תָּנָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כּוֹתְבִין. וְאַף רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בֵּית דִּין טוֹעִין. אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, הִלְכְתָא: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבֵית דִּין טוֹעִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says:** Rav **Huna told me** that the opposite is **taught** in another *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir says** that the witnesses **may not write** his statement in a document unless they know for a fact that the statement is true, **and the Rabbis say** that **they may write** it even if they do not know whether the statement is true; **and even Rabbi Meir said** that they may not write it **only due to** the concern that it might be presented before **a court that errs** and allows the heirs to collect without furnishing additional proof. **Rav Dimi of Neharde’a says: The *halakha*** is that **there is no concern about** the possibility of **a court that errs.**


###### Bava Batra 138b:10
[Bava Batra 138b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:10)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּרָבָא? דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֵין חוֹלְצִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין, וְאֵין מְמָאֲנִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין. לְפִיכָךְ כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט חֲלִיצָה וְגֵט מֵיאוּן, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from Rava’s** statement? **As Rava says:** A court **may not** supervise ***ḥalitza* unless** the judges **recognize** the *yavam* and *yevama*. **And** a court **may not** supervise a declaration of the **refusal** of a girl upon her reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father, **unless they recognize** the girl. **Therefore,** another court **may write a document** attesting to the performance **of *ḥalitza* or a document** stating that a declaration **of refusal** was made in a court elsewhere based on the testimony of witnesses **even if** the judges **do not recognize** these people, relying on the presumption the first court would not have allowed the act to be performed had they not been sure of the identities of the parties.


###### Bava Batra 138b:11
[Bava Batra 138b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:11)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבֵית דִּין טוֹעִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** Rava said that the court must recognize the participants in these actions? Is it **not due to the concern that a court that errs** might write such a document based on the testimony of witnesses without verifying that the participating parties were recognized by the court where the *ḥalitza* or refusal took place?


###### Bava Batra 138b:12
[Bava Batra 138b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:12)

לָא; בֵּית דִּינָא בָּתַר בֵּית דִּינָא – לָא דָּיְיקִי, בֵּית דִּינָא בָּתַר עֵדִים – דָּיְיקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The two issues are **not** the same. **A court does not** normally **examine** the act of **another court,** so there is concern that the court where the document is written might assume that the court where the act took place recognized the participating parties. But **a court does** normally **examine** the statement of **witnesses.** Therefore, there is no concern that it will rely on a statement written by witnesses without their knowledge of its accuracy.


###### Bava Batra 138b:13
[Bava Batra 138b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאָב תּוֹלֵשׁ וּמַאֲכִיל לְכׇל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ תָּלוּשׁ – הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל יוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In continuation of the case discussed in the previous mishna of a father who wrote a document granting his property to his son but reserved the rights to the produce during his lifetime, the mishna states that **the father may detach** produce from the land **and feed** the produce **to whomever he wishes, and what he left detached** at the time of his death **belongs to** all the father’s **heirs,** not only to this son.


###### Bava Batra 138b:14
[Bava Batra 138b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/138b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּלוּשׁ אִין, מְחוּבָּר לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna indicates that what the father left **detached, yes,** it is inherited by all the heirs; but the produce that is **connected** to the ground at the time of his death, **no,** it is not inherited by them. Rather, it belongs to the son who received the property.