Siman 214

In these simanim until siman 221, matters will be explained regarding a seller who sold things without specification and did not explicitly state the details—for example, where it was written in a deed that he sells him such-and-such a house, or such-and-such a courtyard, or such-and-such a field, orchard, vineyard, bathhouse, ship, or the like, and he did not explicitly state their details. What is sold with them and what is not sold with them will be explained. In all of them, the reason is because it is established for our sages, of blessed memory, that it is the way of people to include that thing in this terminology because it is the primary use of that sold object, and certainly it was the intent of the seller to transfer to him that specific thing within the general one. And know that the Rambam in chapter 26 wrote a great principle regarding this: that all these matters are only stated in a place where there is no custom and no known names for each and every thing individually. But in a place where they are accustomed that one who sells such-and-such sells such-and-such, behold it is sold, and we rely on the custom, whether regarding land or regarding movables. And this is a great principle in all matters of negotiation: we follow the language of the people in that place and the custom. Only in a place where no custom is known and there are no specific names, but rather some call it this and some call it that, do we act as the sages explained. Thus far his words. Furthermore, there is another great principle in this: that all this only deals with the time of the sale or the time of the gift, when he sold or gave without specification and did not explicitly state the details; in this, our sages, of blessed memory, said according to their expertise in the languages of people that this thing he sold and this he did not sell. But if the sale or the gift was not before us, and there is also no deed, but rather the seller or the giver admitted by way of a total admission that he sold or gave his house, or his courtyard, or his vineyard and orchard to so-and-so, all the usages are included; for in an admission, one only needs to admit to the general category and not to the details. This is not the case at the time of negotiation, where they must detail all the details, and when they did not detail, our sages, of blessed memory, estimated what necessarily belongs to this and according to the language of people. And there is one who wishes to say that an admission through which the buyer acquires, and without which the matter would not be known at all, requires detailing all the details, and if he did not detail, they shall judge as will be explained before us, and only in an admission by way of a mere story is there no need to detail [Sma]. But the main point is like the first opinion, that in an admission there is no need to detail even if he acquires through this admission [Taz]. And it appears that in an admission in a deed, even though he admits that he already sold or gave, nevertheless, since he is now writing a deed of admission, he must detail, and if he did not detail, they must judge as will be explained. And the general rule of the matter according to the laws that will be explained is that one who sells a thing in general and did not detail its details, and this thing has usages, he did not sell the usages—only the things that will be explained—unless he explicitly stated them.

How so? If one sold the house, he has not sold the yatzia. And what is a yatzia? Some say it is a room built around the walls of the house from the outside [the Rif, beginning of chapter 4 of Bava Batra], and even though it is open to the interior such that it has no other entrance and one enters into it from the house, or it is within the thickness of the wall; however, that which is inside the house is included in the term "house" [Kesef Mishneh, chapter 25 of Mechirah]. And some say it is a low building next to the house, from its side or behind it, and made with windows for beauty [Rashbam ibid.]. In what case does this apply? When the width of the yatzia was four amot or more; but less than this, it is included in the house even if it is not open to the interior. And so too the aliyah which is on top of the house, which is open to the interior through a window in the roof of the house—and in the language of the Gemara it is called an arubah, and the roof of the house is the floor of the aliyah and is called a ma'azivah—and the aliyah has no other entrance, but rather they ascend by a ladder from the house to the aliyah through the arubah; behold, it is included in the house even when its width is four amot. But when the aliyah has a path from the outside, such as a mirpeset, it is not included in the house when its width is four amot [it appears to me]. And since a yatzia is not included in the house, all the more so he has not sold the room that is inward from the house, which is not made for dwelling but rather to store vessels, garments, and money there, and its use is not like the use of the house. And some say that even regarding a room we require four amot, but less than this, its law is like a yatzia, and this is the primary ruling in law. And one should not raise a difficulty as to why we do not look at the purchase, for it should be understood according to the money the buyer gave whether they are included in the house or not, as this reasoning will be explained in siman 220 regarding a yoke and oxen, where we establish there that the money provides information; for one can say that this only applies to movables, but regarding lands, the money is not proof, for sometimes a person buys land for much more than its value [Tosafot ibid.]. And know that in their times it was not like in our times in our countries, where all the buildings are included in the term "house," and when they sell without the buildings and the aliyot, they specify in detail; but in their times, the name "house" did not include anything except the rooms where they dwell, and also not aliyot, and so too other things which in our times are not so according to the language, as I have written in the name of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

In all these that we have said are not included in the house, even if he delineated external boundaries for him—meaning when he wrote the boundaries of the house and gave the signs of the boundaries in the deed as that which is beyond all the buildings, and these buildings are included within the boundaries—nevertheless, they are not sold as part of the house. For we say that because he wanted to make signs that are recognizable to all, he expanded the boundaries for him, and he did not delineate the boundaries of the yatzia and the room because they are not recognizable to all; but in truth, he did not sell them as part of the house. Since in the language of most people they are not included in the name "house" according to their time, the buyer does not have the power to extract them from him because of the boundaries, since he did not specify them. And if he truly sold them to him, the buyer caused his own loss by not specifying them. And although there are those who say that regarding a yatzia, when he delineates external boundaries for him it is included in the house, and there are those who are in doubt about this, the Rosh and the Tur decided that its law is like a room, and such appears to be the opinion of our teacher, the Rema:

And likewise, he did not sell him the roof when it has a parapet ten tefachim high and it has a width of four amot, and even if the roof is not roofed or enclosed [Nemukei Yosef ibid.], for their roofs were fit for use as they were flat, and their use is distinct from the use of the house, and it has all the laws of a yatzia and a room as has been explained. And in all these matters, since the majority of people call the house "house," and for the yatzia, the room, the upper story when it has an entrance from the outside, and the roof, they call each one by its specific name, and when they mention "house" they are not included in it—even though there is a minority of people who include all these in the name "house" and when they mention the house their intention is also for all these—nevertheless, since the majority of people do not include them in the name "house," neither the expansion of the boundaries nor the notification of the price is effective [as is implied in the Gemara]. And if the majority of people include them in the term "house," as in our country, certainly in every case they are sold within the category of "house."

And similarly, one who sells a house has not sold the pit or the cistern where water is collected and drawn from. A pit is a digging in hard ground without a built wall, and a cistern is a digging in soft ground with a built wall around it like our cellars. Even though they are beneath the house, they are not sold with it in an unspecified sale because they have a name of their own, and even when they are not four cubits wide [Sma] because they are not connected to the house at all. Nevertheless, if they are not ten handbreadths high, they are nullified to the house as they are not significant at all [it appears to me]. And in this as well, even if he delineated the outer boundaries for him as mentioned regarding the side-structure and the room, and even if he wrote "and I have not reserved anything from this sale," and even if he wrote for him "depth and height," it is of no avail since they have a name of their own; and similarly, "height" does not avail for the roof [ibid.]. But when he delineated the boundaries for him and wrote to him "acquire for yourself everything within it," he acquires even the pit and the cistern, for this phrasing is superior to the phrasing "that I have not reserved anything in the sale" [ibid.]. And some say that if he wrote to him "and I have not reserved etc." it also avails and they are sold as part of the house. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote both opinions, and these opinions also disagree regarding the side-structure, the room, the upper story, and the roof. And it appears to me that there is no dispute here, for certainly if there is even a minority of people who include these things in the term "house," the phrasing "and I have not reserved etc." avails; and if there is not even a minority, this phrasing does not avail since there is no person who would include them in the term "house." These opinions do not disagree on the core of the law, but rather they disagree whether there is a minority that includes them in the term "house" or not [and so it appears from the Nimukei Yosef and so it is proven in the Sugya; and examine this carefully].

Even though he did not sell him the cistern and the cellar, nevertheless, he can prevent the seller from walking through his house and his courtyard to the cistern and the cellar, and the seller must purchase a path for himself from the buyer. We do not say that he reserved for himself a path to go to his cistern and cellar. However, if he said to him at the time of the sale, "I am selling you the house except for the cistern and the cellar," he does not need to purchase a path for himself; since he mentioned that which was not necessary, we say that his intention was to reserve a path for them. But without this, we do not say that he reserved a path for himself, for the general rule is that a seller sells with a generous eye, and all the more so a giver. And in everything that he sold or gave, he did not reserve anything for himself, even if he needs it for the other thing that was not sold as part of the house, if he did not mention the other thing explicitly [and this is consistent with the reservation of fruits in siman 209]. And one who sells a cistern or a cellar to his fellow, the buyer does not need to purchase a path from him; rather, he enters into the house of the seller until the cistern and the cellar, for presumably he sold to him with a generous eye so that he would have a path to his cistern and cellar that he purchased. In what case does this apply? When the buyer has no other path besides this that he would give him; but if he has another path, he has no path through the house of the seller, for there is no assessment of intent here that he also sold him a path when he did not specify.

One who sells to his fellow a house within a large birah—and the birah is a large building with small houses opening into it, and many homeowners dwell in the small ones, and the birah itself is not for use but for dwelling and passage for all the homeowners—and the seller stood in one of the houses and said to his fellow, "This house I am selling to you" or "giving to you," and the majority of people call the birah a birah and each of the houses they call a house, he has only acquired the small house in which he is standing. And even if he demarcated for him the outer boundaries, and even if there is a minority who also call the birah a house, nevertheless, the hand of the buyer or the recipient is at a disadvantage, since the majority call a birah a birah and not a house, and he expanded the boundaries for him as a clear sign, as I wrote in section 3. And if he wrote to him in the deed, "And I have not reserved anything in this sale," he certainly sold him the entire birah, since a minority call it a house. But when there is not even a minority who call it a house, he has only acquired the house in which he is standing, even when he wrote to him thus. However, when he wrote to him, "Acquire everything within these boundaries," he certainly sold him everything [as is evident from the Sma, subsection 10]. And if the majority of people call the birah a house, and a single house they do not call a house until they specify it individually, then even if he did not demarcate the outer boundaries for him, the entire birah is sold to him. And if they call the birah a house and a single house also a house, then if he did not demarcate the outer boundaries for him, he has only acquired the house in which he is standing; and when he demarcated the outer boundaries for him, the entire birah is sold to him, and so too regarding a gift [the Gra]. And in section 2 we explained why we do not say "the money indicates," see there. Therefore, we do not look at the purchase price, how much he gave, for regarding land, sometimes one acquires it for much more than its value, as I wrote there, and sometimes when the seller is pressed, he sells it for much less than its value, for he cannot take it to another city like movable property.

One who sells a house to his fellow and did not write to him that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, but rather sold to him without specification, the buyer has no rights neither in the airspace above the roof nor below beneath the floor, whether in a house or in a courtyard; when he sold to him and did not specify the depth and the height, he did not acquire in the height of the courtyard except until the top of the walls. And some say that in a courtyard one acquires in the height all the upper airspace even without specification, since the airspace is not demarcated from above as in a house which has a roof. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is proper to rule accordingly; however, regarding depth, its law is like a house.

Therefore, if the buyer comes to raise and build upon the airspace of the house or to dig beneath the ground, he is not permitted, for the depth and the height are reserved for the seller. The seller may build in the airspace and shall support the building on pillars and not on the walls of the buyer, so that he does not place a burden upon his house. Similarly, if the seller comes to dig from outside the house of the buyer or his courtyard, and proceeds to dig also beneath the ground of the buyer, he has permission to do so, provided that he does not cause damage to the buyer with his digging, in that he must leave thick soil so that his house does not sink little by little, according to the assessment of experts. Likewise, in a courtyard, he must leave thick soil sufficient for walking and common heavy usages. However, some say that beneath the ground he cannot dig at all, for the measurement is difficult in this matter, and perhaps he will dig a bit more and the damage will be imminent. According to this opinion, one must ask for what purpose did the sages say [Bava Batra 63b] that the buyer did not acquire the depth? It can be said that if the buyer dug pits there, they belong to the seller; however, the buyer can compel the seller to cover the opening of his pit with a proper cover, since the upper surface belongs to him, and he cannot say "perhaps the cover will fall," since he himself dug [it appears to me].

When he wrote for him "depth and height," the buyer may raise his building and build in the upper airspace or deepen and dig as he wishes. However, the structures that are in the depth and in the air, such as a pit, a cistern, and a roof ten tefachim high and four amot wide, he has not acquired even though he wrote for him "depth and height." Less than this he has acquired even though he did not write for him "depth and height," for it is nullified to the house, as I wrote in section 4. In the language of "depth and height," structures are not included, only the upper airspace and the thickness of the ground. Therefore, when he sells him the structures as well, he must write for him: "Acquire from the floor of the abyss until the height of the sky." And even if he only wrote for him this language and did not also write for him "depth and height," he has also acquired the structures, for so the language implies: that everything found from the abyss until the sky is yours. This is not the case with the language of "depth and height," which only implies until the upper airspace and the thickness of the ground alone. This is not like the one who says that there is no distinction between the phrasings, and that specifically if he wrote both phrasings he acquired the structures due to the redundancy of language [Rashbam]; rather, this language itself includes the structures as well. And if he wrote "depth and height" twice, he has also acquired the structures due to the redundancy of language [Nimukei Yosef ibid.].

And so wrote the Rambam in the twenty-fourth chapter of Sale: One who sells a house to his fellow, even though he wrote "I have transferred to you its depth and its height," he must write to him "acquire from the ground of the abyss until the height of the sky," for the depth and the height are not acquired in an unspecified sale; and since he acquired the depth and the height, he acquired the height, which is the airspace alone, and the depth, which is the thickness of the earth, but he did not acquire the structures that are in the depth or in the air. And since he wrote to him "from the ground of the abyss until the height of the sky," he acquired the pit and the cistern in the thickness of the ground, and the plaster-floors and the cavities that are between the plaster-floors above. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed it in section 3. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that also the roof, even if it has a height of ten and a width of four; but anything that is not a width of four and a height of ten is included in the house, and even if he did not write to him "depth and height," he acquired such a roof. Thus far his words. And it is as we have explained.

Even though he wrote to him "from the depths of the earth until the height of the sky," nevertheless, the buildings and excavations belonging to the seller that go from his remaining domain into the domain of the buyer beneath his ground—for example, Reuven who sold a house to Shimon, and Reuven had a house adjacent to this one, and a latrine extends from the house remaining to Reuven into the area beneath the house he sold, or a pit or a cellar goes from the domain of the seller into the domain of the buyer beneath the house he purchased—the buyer cannot seal the excavation that is beneath his domain, for we are witnesses that he did not sell it to him such that he would lose his house or his remaining usage. And so too regarding anything similar to this. And this law applies in every place and at every time, even though the laws of the airspace, the thickness of the ground, and the buildings above and below depend on the local custom, as I wrote in section 1; however, a law such as this and its like applies always [it appears to me]:

And even in a place where the buyer does not acquire the upper airspace, such as where he did not write for him "depth and height" and the airspace remained with the seller, nevertheless the seller cannot transfer the airspace to others because airspace has no substance that can be grasped by a kinyan, as was written in siman 212, unless he transfers with the airspace also some building that is above the building of the buyer, such as a roof or an attic that was not sold to the buyer, for then he transfers to him the building with the airspace above it until the firmament. Therefore, if he sold a house to Reuven and did not write for him "depth and height," such that the airspace above was not acquired by Reuven, and he afterwards sold all of his houses to Shimon and the seller departed from this house entirely, Shimon has not acquired the airspace that is over the house he sold to Reuven. Even though he wrote to Shimon "from the depths of the earth until the height of the firmament," nevertheless, since he already sold this house to Reuven and did not reserve for himself anything but the airspace which has no substance, he cannot transfer it. Unless there is a roof on the house he sold to Reuven and the roof remained with the seller and now he sold it to Shimon; since he acquires the roof which has substance, he also acquires the airspace above it. And one should not say: why should Shimon not acquire the airspace of Reuven even without the roof, that he should acquire it with the rest of the houses? For it can be said: because the airspace that is over the house of Reuven does not belong to the rest of the houses at all, unless the house of Reuven stands in the courtyard of the seller and he sold the courtyard and all that is in it to Shimon, for then the airspace over the house of Reuven is also sold within the category of the entire courtyard, for all the airspace belongs to the courtyard. [And this is the intention of the Rema in section 5 and in the second intention of what he wrote in the Darchei Moshe; and the words of the Sma in subsection 27 require further study, and for the law it is as written in the Shulchan Aruch, and examine this closely].

There is one who wrote that even though depth and height are not acquired in an unspecified sale, nevertheless, if he sold him a ruin and did not write for him "depth and height," since ruins are typically intended to be built upon, he possesses in the airspace the equivalent of the height of an average house. This is sufficient for a person to take an average bundle on his head and enter and exit comfortably through the doorway that he will open in the building, and he will not need to bend his head, for this is as if he explicitly specified. And similarly, if he sold him a field or a vineyard, he acquires the height by default even though he did not specify, for they are not intended to be built upon and he does not reserve it for himself. However, he does not acquire the depth, for they are intended for digging. And some say that even the depth is acquired by him by default in a field and a vineyard because the buyer requires the nourishment of the seeds and the trees from the depths [Sma], and it is as if he explicitly specified.

The Tur wrote in the name of the Ramban: One who sells a house to his fellow without specification, such that he did not acquire the depth and the height, it is obvious that if the house fell, the buyer cannot rebuild except according to the first dimensions. And even if he wrote to him "depth and height," and there was an upper story built upon pillars, since the buyer did not acquire it, if it fell, the seller may return and rebuild it. But if the seller sold it to another and it fell, it is gone, and the buyer cannot return and rebuild it, for he did not acquire an acquisition of the body [of the property], but rather he acquired those specific woods and stones. However, one who buys an upper story built upon a house and it fell, he returns and rebuilds it. Thus far his words. And the Tur wondered why the buyer who bought the upper story from the seller cannot return and rebuild it if it falls, just as the seller who sold it to him would have done, for he surely sold him all the power that he possessed in it. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed the words of the Ramban in section 6 and was not concerned for the difficulty of the Tur [see Beit Yosef]. And there is one who wrote the reason: that since he cannot transfer ownership of the air, the acquisition did not take effect from the beginning except upon the woods and stones as long as they exist, and not when it fell; but when he reserved it for himself, he reserved it with a generous eye forever. But one who buys an upper story built upon a house, behold, the ground is also liened to the upper story just as to the house, and the place exists and it is not called "air" [Sma]. However, this reason is not satisfactory according to what I wrote in section 13, that specifically air alone he cannot transfer, but when he transfers the roof, he transfers the air as well, and here, behold, he transferred the upper story to him with the air [see Levush, and it is not understood]. And it appears to me that the Ramban, of blessed memory, only stated this law in a case where he wrote to the first [buyer] "depth and height," for he transferred to him all the air above until the sky, only the buildings he did not transfer to him, as I wrote. Therefore, since that upper story is built upon pillars and is not attached to the roof of the house, and there is a gap between them, it follows that all the air from the roof of the house until the sky belongs to the first [buyer]. Therefore, even when he sold the upper story to the second [buyer], perforce he did not sell the air, for it belongs to the first [buyer]. And even though as long as the upper story stands he cannot use the air of the place of the upper story, nevertheless, when it fell, the air of the upper story is included within the air above and below until the roof of the house. But when the upper story is built upon the roof of the house such that there is no gap between them, the air of the upper story did not belong at all to the first [buyer], for his air began from the roof of the upper story and above. And that which the seller himself can return and rebuild is not because the air is his, but because we estimate the intent of people that for himself he certainly reserved that he should have the ability to return and rebuild when it falls, and it is as if they stipulated so, but not when he sells it to another. But if he did not write to the first [buyer] "depth and height," such that the air does not belong to the first [buyer], it is obvious that when the seller sold his upper story that was upon pillars and it fell, the buyer returns and rebuilds it.

One who sells a house to his fellow and specified in the deed what remains for the seller that is not included in the house, such as a pit or a cistern, the Sages, of blessed memory, said that we interpret the extra language for some strengthening of the seller's power, even regarding what he did not specify, such as reserving a path to the pit and cistern, as was written in section 6. And so too, one who sells a house to his fellow and specified that the upper diota is his—and a diota is a roof that has a parapet ten high and four wide, which even without this would also remain for the seller as was written—therefore we say that the extra language is for the matter that if he also sold him the courtyard, the seller may extend moldings from the diota to the courtyard. And the explanation of the reservation is thus: that the upper diota shall be his for whatever he wishes to do with it, even to extend moldings from it to the courtyard of the buyer. And so too, if the law regarding a diota is that if it fell, the seller may not return and rebuild it—and it is not similar to an aliyah, where it was explained that he may rebuild it when it falls—the reservation is effective so that if it fell, he may return and rebuild it. And one of the great Rishonim wrote that the reservation is effective so that he may build upon it a new structure that was not there even previously. And it appears that he holds that regarding building as it was at first if it fell, even without the extra language he is permitted [this is the intention of the Ra'avad in his gloss to chapter 24, and that which the Kesef Mishneh questioned him on is settled]. And so too, in any such case, any extra language is effective for some strengthening of power according to the assessment of the beit din, even if they are included with difficulty in the extra language [and so it appears from the Rashbam 63a].

We establish that a seller sells with a generous eye; therefore, one who sells an inner house to his fellow and did not mention that the buyer should have a path to go to the house through the outer house of the seller, nevertheless, he has a path, for it was sold to him with a generous eye, and his intention was not that the buyer would need to purchase a path from him or fly through the air. In what case does this apply? When the seller reserved the outer house for himself. But if there were two houses, one inside the other, and he sold at one time the outer one to Reuven and the inner one to Shimon, and he did not precede the sale of the inner one to the outer one—whether he sold to both of them or whether he gave them as a gift to both of them—the inner one does not have a path over the outer one. For just as he sold to the inner one with a generous eye, so too he sold to the outer one, and he did not reserve in his sale a path for the inner one. And it goes without saying if he sold to the inner one and gave to the outer one, for a giver gives with a more generous eye than a seller. Therefore, if he sold to the outer one and gave to the inner one, he has a path over the outer one, for he gives to him with a more generous eye than what he sold to the outer one. And all this is when he transferred ownership to both of them as one. But if he sold or gave to the inner one and afterwards sold or gave to the outer one, the inner one has a path over the outer one, for immediately upon the inner one acquiring it, he has a path, as he did not reserve for himself, as has been explained. And when he gave to the outer one, it is not within his power to give more than what he has. And likewise conversely, if he sold to the outer one first, even if he gave as a gift afterwards to the inner one, he does not have a path over the outer one, for when he sold to the outer one first, he did not reserve for himself a path, and when he gave afterwards to the inner one, it is not within his power to give more than what he has. And let the matter not be a wonder, that in every place we say that when one reserves for himself he has more power than for another, yet regarding a path we say the opposite. For the reason for the matter is this: that when he mentioned what he reserved, certainly he reserves for himself with every possible power, and he is more precise for himself than for another. Therefore, even in a reservation that another would not acquire for himself, it is a reservation, as I wrote in siman 209. But when he did not mention what he reserved, we say that certainly everything he sold to the buyer, he sold to him with a generous eye without reserving for himself anything in the purchase of the buyer since he did not mention it. Therefore, when he sold the outer house, he did not reserve for himself anything in the purchase of the buyer since he did not mention it. Therefore, when he sold the outer house, he did not reserve for himself anything, and automatically he has no path, for if it were not so, he would have mentioned the reservation of the path. And likewise, when he sold the inner house, certainly he sold with a generous eye, and it is not the way of the world to sell a house and the buyer not have a path to enter it; therefore, the buyer has a path [it appears to me]. And see what I wrote in section 6.

In siman 218 it will be explained that when Reuven had half a field and said to his fellow, "The half that I have in this field is sold to you," he acquired the entire half. But when he said to him, "Half of the field that I have is sold to you," he only acquired a quarter, for the "half" refers back to the portion that he has, and from this he sold half. According to this, it should have been the same in the case of a house in such a manner; for example, one who gave to his fellow an eighth of a certain house that he has, and afterward it became known that he only has half a house or a quarter, and we would need to calculate an eighth of the portion that he has. Despite all this, we do not say so, and he gives him an eighth of the entire house. The reason is that regarding a field, the name "field" applies even to half a field, but regarding a house, the name "house" does not apply to half a house. We follow the common speech of people, and certainly he meant an eighth of the entire house. Even when he said, "An eighth of the house that I have," this is the explanation: "An eighth of the house that I have in a certain house, I give to you in its entirety." And so too regarding other matters, we follow the common speech of people.

One who sells a house has sold all things fixed within the house, even if they are not of the essence of the building, such as a door, and a bolt which is a bar fixed in the wall, and the circular frame which is the circle around the millstone when it is fixed to the floor of the house, and a mortar fixed to the floor of the house, and the oven, the stoves, and the millstones if they are fixed to the floor like our ovens, and the frames of the doorways attached with mortar, as it was their way to make them around the doorposts of the house like moldings upon which the door strikes. And specifically when they are attached with mortar, but if they are attached by means of pegs, it is not called an attachment, for it is a legal doubt, and he does not acquire it due to the doubt [Bava Batra 69a]. However, he has not sold the key, even if it is always fixed in the door, such as the wooden keys of villagers which one does not move from its place; nevertheless, it is not sold with the house implicitly when he did not specify, because its use is light and it is easy to move, and sometimes it is moved [Levush]. Nor a portable mortar, even if its place and fixity are always in the house. Nor the hopper, which is the vessel into which the flour descends. Nor the frames for the legs of the bed, as it was their way to place pieces of wood under the legs of the bed so that the legs would not rot, and even if they are attached to the ground with mortar, for they have no connection to the house, only to the bed [Sma]. Nor the frames of the windows, even though they are attached with mortar, because they are only for beauty and are not similar to the frames of the doorways. And there is one of our teachers who holds that the law of window frames is like the law of doorway frames [Rashbam ibid.], but the poskim wrote according to the first opinion. And if he said to him, "I am selling you the house and everything within it," behold all these things are sold; but not the roof, the gallery, the cistern, the cellar, or the tunnels, for the inclusion only includes what is within it and not outside of it. And it is not similar to what was written in section 5, that this phrasing includes these as well, for that is because he delineated the outer boundaries for him and wrote this phrasing to him, so automatically they are included within the boundaries; but in the house alone they are not included even with this phrasing. And according to those who disagree there, even if he wrote to him "and I have not reserved anything in this sale," it is like the phrasing "everything within it" [and in the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 11, there is a scribal error and it should be the opposite, and this is the intent of the Gra, and what the Sma wrote requires further study, and the Levush omitted it; and delve into this].

One who says to his fellow, "A house within my house I am selling or giving to you," and did not specify which house, he gives him the smallest of them. And if one of them fell after its sale, he shows him this one that fell, for the hand of the recipient is at a disadvantage. However, he does not give him an aliyah, since he said "a house within my house," which implies from the houses and not from the aliyot, for this language implies that which is more uniquely called by the name "house." But if he said only "a house I am selling to you" or "giving to you," he may give him even an aliyah, for it is also called by the name "house." And the same law applies to one who says, "An ox from my oxen I am selling or giving to you," he may give him the smallest. And so it is in all matters, because the seller is the possessor, and in every case of doubt his hand is at an advantage. And the house must hold four cubits by four cubits, and he does not need to give him wider than this [Sma]. And there are those who say that even when saying "a house within my house," he may give him an aliyah [as is implied from the Rambam and as is implied in Menachot 108a, as the Ran wrote in Nedarim 56a; and see Sma].

One who sells a place to his fellow to make for him a house unspecified, or a cattle stall, or a wedding house for his son, or a widowhood house for his daughter—for it was their way that the son was always together with the father, and the daughter was always with her husband's father, and when she was widowed she would return to her father—whether he sold the place and the buyer will build upon it, or whether the seller accepts upon himself to build, he makes for him four amot by six amot, and such a place he shall give to him. And even though regarding one who sells a house four by four is sufficient as I have written, that is regarding one who sells a built house; but one who comes to build, it is the way to build four by six. And if he said "a large house," it must be ten by eight. And if he said "for a triclinium," which is made for the seating of ministers, it must be ten by ten. And if he mentioned "a courtyard area," which is a large courtyard that they make alongside a palace, it must be twelve by twelve. And all these measurements are excluding the thickness of the partitions [Tur]. And the height of each and every house shall be like half its length and half its width; for example, in an unspecified house where the length is six and the width is four, which are together ten, the height must be five amot, and so too for all of them. And a sign for the matter is from the Heikhal, whose length excluding the Holy of Holies was forty amot and its width twenty, which are sixty, and its height was thirty amot. And there is one who says that an unspecified house is six by eight [Rashbam 98b, and so the Tur wrote in the Remazim there, but in the Tur he wrote according to the opinion of the Rambam]. And it has already been explained at the beginning of the siman that these matters are dependent upon the custom of the countries.