Bava Batra

she is to have the choice.  She may, if she wishes, receive these, she may, if she prefers, receive her kethubah. [If] a dying man said, 'Give two hundred zuz to X [who is] my creditor, in accordance with his due', he  receives these as well as his debt.'  If, [however], he said, 'as his debt',  he receives these in [payment of] his debt. Should he  then, because he  said, in accordance with his due', receive these and receive [also] his debt, when it is possible that he meant, 'in accordance with what is his due on account of the debt'? — R. Nahman replied: Huna has told me that this law represents the view of  R. Akiba who draws inferences [from] superfluous expression[s]. For we learnt:  [He  sold] neither the cistern nor the cellar, even though he has included in the contract  depth and height.  He  must, however, buy for himself a passage [to these];  these are the words of R. Akiba. But the Sages say: He  need not buy for himself a passage. R. Akiba, however, admits that where he  said to him, 'except these',  he need not buy a passage for himself.  From this it clearly follows [that] where [a person] mentioned [that] which was not necessary, his object was  to add something; [so] here also, since he mentioned [that]  which was not necessary, his object was to add something. Our Rabbis taught: If a dying man said, 'X owes me a maneh', the witnesses may write [it down].  although they do not know [whether there is any truth in the statement].  Consequently, when [the debt] is collected, proof  has to be brought;  these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: [The witnesses must] not write unless they know [the statement to be true].  Consequently, when [the debt] is collected, there is no need for proof to be produced.  R. Nahman said: Huna told me [that] a tanna reported [the following]: R. Meir said, '[The witnesses] must not write', and the Sages say, 'They may write'; and even R. Meir said this  only on account of  a court [that might] err. R. Dimi of Nehardea said: The law is[ that] there is no need to provide against  all erring court.  And why [is this case] different from [that] of Raba? For Raba said:  Halizah must not be arranged unless [the court] know [the widow and her brother-in-law], nor may a declaration of refusal  be accepted unless [the court] know [the parties]. Consequently  [it is permissible for witnesses]  to write out a certificate of halizah  as well as a certificate of refusal  even though they do not know [the parties].  [Has not this precaution  been taken] in order to provide against an erring court!  No;  a court does not minutely examine [the decision of] another  court;  [that of]  witnesses, [however], it does minutely examine. MISHNAH. A FATHER  MAY PLUCK [THE FRIT] AND GIVE IT TO ANY ONE HE WISHES FOR CONSUMPTION; AND ANY PLUCKED [FRUIT] WHICH HE LEAVES [AFTER HIS DEATH] BELONGS TO [ALL] THE HEIRS. GEMARA. PLUCKED [FRUIT] only belongs to all the heirs,  [but] not [fruit] that is still attached to the ground?