משנה: וְלֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָה וְרוּמָה וְצָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. וּמוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ חוּץ מֵאֵילּוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. מְכָרָן לְאַחֵר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar¹¹This is a continuation of Mishnah 1. A sale contract for a house which does not mention either the cistern or the cellar, a masonry cavity used for storing wine or grain, does not include these items. even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access¹²If the seller wants to use cistern or cellar, he has to buy access from the buyer, the new owner of the surrounding area., the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access¹³They hold that nobody wants to make a contract which will hurt himself.. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”¹⁴If cistern and/or cellar are mentioned as excluded in the sales contract., he does not have to buy himself access. If he sold them¹⁵A person sold cistern or cellar to a third party while retaining ownership of his house and courtyard. This part of the Mishnah is quoted in Ketubot 13:7:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.7.3">Ketubot 13:7, Notes 112–115. to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access¹⁶In this situation, he adopts the reasoning of the Sages in the preceding case., but the Sages say, he has to buy access¹⁷They hold that (particularly in an inflationary environment) a person may buy real estate purely as an investment without intention of using it personally. Therefore, nothing is sold which is not spelled out in the contract..

הלכה: וְלֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר כול׳. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר כָּתַב עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא. שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהַשְׁפִּיל יִשְׁפִּיל לְהַגְבִּיהַּ יַגְבִּיהַּ. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דִידָן דְּהוּא רַבָּנָן דְּרִבִּי חִייָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי חִייָה דְּהוּא רַבָּנִן דְּבַבְלָאֵי. HALAKHAH: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Then why did he write “its bottom and height”? That if he wants to dig down, he may dig down and if he wants to increase its height, he may increase its height¹⁸Tosephta 3:1, Babli 63b. It is necessary to convey the rights to the ground and the airspace separately. Compare Greek contracts which mention κάτω, ἄνω “downwards, upwards” cf. A. Gulak, Das Urkundenwesen im Talmud im Lichte der griechisch-aegyptischen Papyri und des griechischen und römischen Rechts, Jerusalem 1935 (Hebrew edition 1994 by Ranon Katzoff).. Rav Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in our version which is following the rabbis in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version which is following the rabbis in the Babylonians’ version¹⁹The same statements by Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah are in the Babli, 64b/65a, which notes that there are opposite traditions about the possible requirement of providing separate contracts for access. The problem of access is not mentioned in the Tosephta, so it is not clear which version our Mishnah represents.
E formulates: “R. Ze‘ura in the name of Rav: Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥiyya parallel the Babylonian rabbis.”.

תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. אַדְמוֹן וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. אִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּסְתָם. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין. צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. ²⁰This is a shortened version of a paragraph in Ketubot 13:7:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.7.3">Ketubot 13:7, Notes 111–116. The Mishnah there refers to the case when the access path to a field disappeared in the surrounding property of a single owner while this field’s owner was on a prolonged absence overseas; Admon holds that the owner may choose for himself a short path through the other’s domain while the Sages hold that he has to buy access or fly through the air. There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.