When one says (or writes in a contract) that one is selling “part of the land” – is the intention half or not? \u00a0Different uses of the word “part” may mean different things. \u00a0Raba brings a few cases and explains the differences. \u00a0However, Abaye disagrees with him and thinks there is no distinction between the cases as each can be explained in the same manner. \u00a0A Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give him the Levite tithes. \u00a0How can one do this if it is selling something that does not yet exist? \u00a0The assumption is he is retain rights to part fo the land. \u00a0Reish Lakish makes an\u00a0assumption that one can learn from here to a different case and Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa debate what the relevance of Reish Lakish’s statement is. \u00a0Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights,\u00a0and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. \u00a0What items are included in each case? \u00a0The gemara tries to prove his statement from the next mishna, but then rejects the proof.<\/p>\n