הֲרֵי כּוּלָּן מְכוּרִין.

all these components are sold as part of the sale of the house.

גמ׳ לֵימָא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא אָמַר: מָכַר אֶת הַכֶּרֶם – מָכַר תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי כֶרֶם!

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna that distinguishes between different types of household items is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t he say in a baraita (78b): If one sold a vineyard, he has sold all of the utensils of the vineyard, including the movable ones? The same should be true for the sale of a house.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָתָם קְבִיעַ, הָכָא לָא קְבִיעַ. וְהָא מַפְתֵּחַ דּוּמְיָא דְּדֶלֶת קָתָנֵי, מַה דֶּלֶת דִּקְבִיעָא, אַף מַפְתֵּחַ דִּקְבִיעַ! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as a distinction can be made between the two cases. There, in the case of a vineyard, the reference is to utensils that are fixed in the vineyard and never removed from it, and therefore they are included in the sale, while here, in the case of a house, the mishna is referring to utensils that are not fixed in the house, and therefore they are not part of the sale. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t the mishna teach the halakha governing a key in similar fashion to the halakha governing the door, indicating that just as a door is fixed in the house, so too, a key is fixed in the house? Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת – מָכַר אֶת הַדֶּלֶת וְאֶת הַנֶּגֶר וְאֶת הַמַּנְעוּל, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. מָכַר אֶת הַמַּכְתֶּשֶׁת הַחֲקוּקָה, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַקְּבוּעָה. מָכַר הָאִיצְטְרוֹבִּיל, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַקֶּלֶת, לֹא אֶת הַתַּנּוּר וְלֹא אֶת הַכִּירַיִם וְלֹא אֶת הָרֵיחַיִם; רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע;

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): One who sells a house has sold the door and the door bolt and the lock, but he has not sold the key. He has sold the mortar that was hollowed out of the ground but not the mortar that was fixed to the ground after its construction. He has sold the immovable lower millstone but not the portable upper stone. And he has sold neither the oven, nor the double stove, nor the hand mill. Rabbi Eliezer says: The principle is that any item attached to the ground is considered like the ground and included in the sale.

בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״הוּא וְכָל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ״ – הֲרֵי כּוּלָּן מְכוּרִין; בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, לֹא מָכַר לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת וְלֹא אֶת הַיָּצִיעַ.

When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the house. Both in this case and in that case he did not sell the pit or the cistern or the gallery, as they are considered separate entities that are not at all part of the house.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: צִינּוֹר שֶׁחֲקָקוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף קְבָעוֹ – פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, קְבָעוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף חֲקָקוֹ – אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְלָא רַבָּנַן.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: A duct that one hollowed out and afterward attached to the ground or to a building invalidates a ritual bath through the water it channels to the bath. The water in a ritual bath must be gathered directly from rain or a stream, not drawn with vessels. If one hollowed out a log and used it to channel water into the bath, this is considered drawn water, as he used a vessel. By contrast, if one attached it first and afterward hollowed it out, it does not invalidate the ritual bath. Before the log was hollowed out, it was already attached to and considered part of the ground, and therefore the act of hollowing it out does not turn it into a vessel. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, nor that of the Rabbis.

הֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּבַיִת, דִּלְמָא הַיְינוּ טַעֲמָא, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן רָעָה מוֹכֵר!

The Gemara clarifies the question: To which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is this referring? If we say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the aforementioned baraita with regard to the sale of a house, that any item attached to the ground is considered part of the house and is sold along with it, there is a difficulty. As perhaps this is the reasoning employed in the dispute with regard to the sale of a house, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who sells, sells generously anything that is attached to the ground, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, selling only utensils that serve an intrinsic function in the house and nothing else, even if they are attached to the ground. But this teaches us nothing about the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with respect to a ritual bath.

וְאֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּכַוֶּורֶת דְּבוֹרִים. דִּתְנַן: כַּוֶּורֶת דְּבוֹרִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּקַרְקַע, וְכוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל,

But rather, the reference must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a beehive. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 10:7): With regard to a beehive attached to the ground by clay, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is like land, and therefore one may write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from canceling an outstanding debt [prosbol] based upon it. Such a document cannot be written unless the borrower owns some land, and a beehive is considered like land for this purpose.