Things fastened to the ground, directly or indirectly. Doubt may arise with regard to them, whether or not they become in law part of the land. This may be a question between the landlord and the tenant, or between the seller and the purchaser of the land. It can not, in Jewish law, arise, on the death of the owner, between the heirs of his land and those succeeding to his movables, as the same law of descent applies to both.
For a discussion of the question concerning writings that convey a house or other landed property and concerning what passes as part of such house or property and what does not, see Sale. In Anglo-American law the important question as to fixtures arising between landlord and tenant is what buildings, fences, machinery, etc., placed by the latter on the land during his tenancy, become part of the freehold, and thus the landlord's property; and what, as personalty, may be removed by the tenant. This question could not often arise in Jewish law, as, under the customs recognized by it, the tenantwas not expected to make, and seldom did make, any substantial improvements or even repairs, either in house or in farming property. Of the tenant of a dwelling-house nothing was expected save the placing of a railing about the roof; the putting of the inscribed strips ("mezuzot") on the door-posts; and the setting up of a ladder to the roof if he wished one. These things he could take with him when he left (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 314, based on a baraita to B. M. 101b). On a farm rented either for a fixed rent or on shares, the landlord furnished all the fencing (Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 320). Hence there was very little room for dispute over tenants' fixtures; and the codes are silent about them.