Bava Batra

The question was [accordingly] raised: [If one sold] a house to one and [its] upper storey to another, what [is the law']? Is it [assumed that he] reserved [some air space in the courtyard]  or not? If [some reason] could be found [for the decision that if] a house [was sold] to one and [its] upper storey' to another [the seller] reserved nothing [of the air space of the courtyard], what [is the law when he specifically added]. 'Except its upper storey'? Raba said in the name of R, Nahman: If you can find [a reason] for the decision [that he who sold] a house to one and [its] upper storey to another has not reserved [anything from the air space of the courtyard, if he specifically added]. 'Except [its] upper storey', he did reserve [a portion of the air space of the courtyard]. And [this is] in accordance with [the view] of R. Zebid who stated that if he  wished to attach  mouldings to it,  he may do so.  From this it clearly follows [that] because he [specifically] reserved [for himself] the upper storey. he has also reserved the place of the mouldings. R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man gave all his property in writing. to strangers,  [the following] should be noted: If he did it by way of distribution,  [then if] he died all of them acquire possession;  [if] he recovered he may withdraw in [the case of] all of them.  If, [however,] he did it after consideration,  [then if] he died, all of them acquire possession;  [if] he recovered, he may only withdraw in [the case of] the last,  But is it not possible that he merely considered the [matter]  and then gave [the further gifts]? — It is usual for a dying man carefully' to consider [the whole matter] first and subsequently to distribute [the gifts]. R. Aba b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man gave all his property. in writing, to strangers and [then] recovered, he may not withdraw [the gifts], since it may be suspected that he has possessions in another country  Under what circumstances, however, is [the case of] our Mishnah, where it is stated [that if] he did not leave some ground his gift was invalid, possible? — R. — Hama replied: [In the case] where he said, 'All my possessions'.  Mar son of R. Ashi replied: [In the case] where it is known to us that he has none. The question was raised: Is partial withdrawal  [considered] complete withdrawal  or not?  — Come and hear: [If a dying man gave] all his possessions  to the first, and a part of them  to the second, the second acquires ownership [and] the first does not. Does not [this refer to the case] where [the testator] died? — No; where he recovered.  Logical reasoning also supports this [view];  since the final clause reads: [If he gave] a part of his possessions  to the first and all of them  to the second, the first acquires ownership [and] the second does not.  [Now,] if [the Baraitha] is said [to refer to the case] where he  recovered, one can well understand why the second does not acquire possession;  if, however, it is said [to refer to the case] where he  died, both should have acquired ownership!  R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: Even if it  be explained  [as referring to the case] where he  recovered [the following objection may be raised].  If it is said [that] partial withdrawal is [considered] complete withdrawal, one can at least understand why the second acquires possession;  if, however, It is said [that] partial withdrawal is not [considered] complete withdrawal, [the testator] should be [regarded] as one who distributes [his possessions]  and none of them should acquire ownership!  And the law [is that] partial withdrawal is [considered] complete withdrawal. [Hence.] the first clause [of the Baraitha] may be applicable either [to the case] where he died or [to that] where he recovered:  the final clause can only be applicable [to the case] where he recovered. The question was raised: [If a dying man] consecrated all his possessions and [subsequently] recovered, what [is the law]?  Is it assumed that whenever it is a case of consecrated objects the transfer of possession made is unqualified  or, perhaps, when it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? [If the answer is in the affirmative, the question arises] what [is the law in the case where] he renounced the ownership of all his property?  Is it assumed that since [ownerless property may be seized] by the poor  as well as by the rich, he transfers [therefore] unqualified possession  or, perhaps, whenever it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? [If the answer is in the negative,]  what, [it may be asked. is the law where] he distributed all his possessions among the poor? Is it assumed [that in a matter of] charity he has undoubtedly transferred unqualified possession or, perhaps, wherever it is a matter of personal interests one does not transfer unqualified possession? — This is undecided. R. Shesheth stated: 'He shall take', 'acquire', 'occupy' and own'  [used by a dying man]  are all [legal] expressions denoting gift. In a Baraitha it was taught: [The expressions of] 'he shall receive the bequest'  and 'he shall be heir' [are] also [legal] in [the case of] one who is entitled to be his heir; and this is [in accordance with the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka. The question was raised