Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 24, 2017 | 讻状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Batra 2

Study Guide Bava Batra 2. Relations between partners who want to divide property are discussed. 聽Can one force the other to build a wall – both to help with paying for it and for using the space in his property to build it. 聽The mishna is explained in two different ways and the gemara discusses each of these explanations. 聽The basis of the argument is do we say that looking into another’s courtyard is considered damages or not.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讞爪专 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讘谞讜转 讙讜讬诇 讙讝讬转 讻驻讬住讬谉 诇讘讬谞讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛

MISHNA: Partners who wished to make a partition [me岣tza] in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. What is this wall fashioned from? In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

讙讜讬诇 讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘讙讝讬转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讻驻讬住讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讘诇讘讬谞讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐

If they build the wall with non-chiseled stone, this partner provides three handbreadths of his portion of the courtyard and that partner provides three handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is six handbreadths. If they build the wall with chiseled stone, this partner provides two and a half handbreadths and that partner provides two and a half handbreadths, since such a wall is five handbreadths thick. If they build the wall with small bricks, this one provides two handbreadths and that one provides two handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is four handbreadths. If they build with large bricks, this one provides one and a half handbreadths and that one provides one and a half handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is three handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.

讜讻谉 讘讙讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘讘拽注讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讙讚讜专 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. But with regard to an expanse of fields [babbika], in a place where it is customary not to build a partition between two people鈥檚 fields, and one person wishes to build a partition between his field and that of his neighbor, the court does not obligate his neighbor to build such a partition.

讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讘讜谞讛 讜注讜砖讛 讞讝讬转 诪讘讞讜抓 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇讜

Rather, if one person wishes to erect a partition, he must withdraw into his own field and build the partition there. And he makes a border mark on the outer side of the barrier facing his neighbor鈥檚 property, indicating that he built the entire structure of his own materials and on his own land. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong only to him, as is indicated by the mark on the wall.

讗诐 注砖讜 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讝讬转 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐

Nevertheless, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two people鈥檚 fields, if they made such a partition with the agreement of the two of them, they build it in the middle, i.e., on the property line, and make a border mark on the one side and on the other side. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.

讙诪壮 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讜讚讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 讞讝专讛 讜谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专

GEMARA: The Sages initially assumed: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? It means a partition, as it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case where a partition of [me岣tzat] a vineyard which separates the vineyard from a field of grain was breached, resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard. The owner of the field of grain may say to the owner of the vineyard: Build a partition between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition was breached again, the owner of the field of grain may say to him again: Build a partition.

谞转讬讗砖 讛讬诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

If the owner of the vineyard neglected to make the necessary repairs and did not properly build a partition between the fields, the grain and grapes are rendered forbidden due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, and he is liable for the monetary loss. He must compensate the owner of the grain for the damage suffered, as it is the vineyard owner鈥檚 fault that deriving benefit from the grain is now prohibited.

讟注诪讗 讚专爪讜 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

According to the understanding that the term me岣tza means a partition, one can infer: The reason that they build a wall is that they both wished to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. But if they did not both wish to do so, the court does not obligate the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight, that is, the discomfort suffered by someone because he is exposed to the gaze of others while he is in his own private domain, is not called damage.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜转讛讬 诪讞爪转 讛注讚讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专爪讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

The Gemara objects to this conclusion: But say that the term me岣tza used in the mishna means a division, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the division of [me岣tzat] the congregation was鈥 (Numbers 31:43), referring to the half of the spoil that belonged to the entire congregation. According to this interpretation the mishna means: Since they wished to divide the jointly owned courtyard, they build a proper wall in the center even against the will of one of the partners. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is called damage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 砖专爪讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讜讚讗 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讗 讗讜转讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讜转诇

The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: If it is so that the term me岣tza means a division, the words: Who wished to make a division, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: Who wished to divide. Rather, what is the meaning of the term me岣tza? A partition. The Gemara retorts: If so, the words: They build the wall, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: They build it, since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara responds: Had the tanna taught: They build it, I would say that a mere partition of pegs [bimseifas] would suffice. He therefore teaches us that they build an actual wall, all in accordance with the regional custom.

讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗

The mishna teaches: Partners who wished to make a partition in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if they agree to build a wall it should be built in the middle? Why should one of them contribute more than the other?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 讜专爪讬讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转专爪讗讬 诇讱 讘讗讜讬专讗 讘转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讗 讗讬转专爪讗讬 诇讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where one of the partners went ahead and convinced the other that they should build a partition. Lest you say that the second can later say to the first when the latter comes to begin construction: When I was persuaded by you to build a partition, it was with regard to the airspace. I agreed to the erection of a minimal barrier that would result in a loss of open space in the courtyard. But I was not persuaded by you with regard to the use of the courtyard. I did not agree to forfeit any usable space on the ground in my share of the courtyard for the building of a wall. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that since they agreed to make a partition, they must each contribute a part of the courtyard for the building of the wall.

讜讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 (住讬诪谉 讙讬谞讛 讻讜转诇 讻讜驻讬谉 讜讞讜诇拽讬谉 讞诇讜谞讜转 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉)

搂 After having determined that the wording of the mishna is unproblematic only if the term me岣tza means a wall, it follows that damage caused by sight is not called damage. The Gemara asks: And is damage caused by sight in fact not called damage? The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs, which follow, that challenge this assumption: Garden, wall, compels, and they divide, windows, as Rav Na岣an.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻谉 讘讙讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. This indicates that invading one鈥檚 privacy by looking at him while he is in his private domain is called damage.

讙讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘拽诪讜转讬讛

The Gemara answers: A garden is different with regard to the halakha governing invasion of privacy, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to stand in another鈥檚 field and look at his crop while the grain is standing, because he casts an evil eye upon it and thereby causes him damage, and the same is true for a garden. Since the issue in this case is damage resulting from the evil eye, no proof can be brought with regard to the matter of damage caused by sight.

讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽转谞讬 讗讙讜讬诇 讜讙讝讬转

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, which suggests that a garden and a courtyard are governed by the same rationale. The Gemara answers: The term: And similarly, is stated not with regard to the reason for the obligation to construct a wall, but with regard to the halakha concerning non-chiseled and chiseled stones. A partition in a garden is built with the same materials used for the building of a wall in a courtyard, in accordance with regional custom.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讜转诇 讞爪专 砖谞驻诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞驻诇 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (5a): In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him again up to a height of four cubits. This indicates that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The case of a wall that fell is different; since a wall had already stood there, the court compels the owners to rebuild it as it was.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara expresses its astonishment: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it at all? The mishna is clearly referring to a wall that has fallen, which means that the joint owners have already agreed in the past to build a partition between their respective portions. The Gemara answers: He who asked the question maintains that the joint owners can be compelled to build a wall even in a case where a wall had not stood there before, to prevent any invasion of privacy. And the mishna does not address the case of a wall that fell to teach that only in such a case is there an obligation to build a wall. Rather, it was necessary to teach the latter clause, which states that even in a case where there had previously been a high wall the court does not obligate him to rebuild it higher than four cubits, because once there is a wall of four cubits there is no further invasion of privacy.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转 讘讬转 砖注专 讜讚诇转 诇讞爪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讝讬拽讗 讚专讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof that damage caused by sight is called damage, from what is taught in a mishna (7b): The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard, so that the courtyard not be open to the eyes of those standing in the public domain. Learn from it that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof to the halakha in the case of two neighbors, as the damage of being exposed to the gaze of the general public, which has unimpeded sight of what is happening in the courtyard, is different and certainly called damage.

讜讚讬讞讬讚 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞爪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讛讗 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讻讜转诇 诇讗 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is exposure to the sight of an individual not considered damage? Come and hear a proof that it is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (11a): One divides a courtyard at the request of one of the co-owners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, that is, the same minimal dimensions for each of the co-owners. This means that if there is enough for this one and enough for that one, they do divide the courtyard at the request of one of the owners. What, is it not so that the courtyard must be divided with a wall that will prevent one neighbor from seeing the other? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is divided with a mere partition of pegs through which one can still see.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 诪诇诪注诇谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讬抓 讜讬专讗讛 诪诇诪讟谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讜讬专讗讛 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗驻讬诇

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof that damage caused by sight is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (22a): One who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor鈥檚 house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite. And a baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: Concerning the requirement of a distance above, the wall must be high enough so that one cannot peer into the window and see into the window; concerning the requirement of a distance below, the wall must be low so that he will not be able to stand on top of it and see into the window; and concerning the requirement of a distance opposite, one must distance the wall from the windows so that it will not darken his neighbor鈥檚 house by blocking the light that enters the house through the window. This indicates that there is a concern about the damage caused by exposure to the gaze of others.

讛讝讬拽讗 讚讘讬转 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: The damage of being exposed to the sight of others while in one鈥檚 own house is different, as people engage in activities in their homes that they do not want others to see. By contrast, a courtyard is out in the open and it is possible that the residents are indifferent to being observed.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 诇讘注诇 讛讙讙 诇讚讬讚讬 拽讘讬注讛 诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 拽讘讬注讛 诇讱 转砖诪讬砖转讱 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛讬 注讬讚谞讗 住诇讬拽讗 讜讗转讬转

The Gemara challenges this distinction: Come and hear a proof, as Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If one鈥檚 roof is adjacent to another鈥檚 courtyard, he must make a parapet around the roof four cubits high so that he will not be able to see into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. This indicates that the damage of being exposed to the eyes of others even in a courtyard is called damage. The Gemara refutes this proof: The situation is different there, as the owner of the courtyard can say to the owner of the roof: I make use of my courtyard on a regular basis. You, by contrast, do not make use of your roof on a regular basis, but only infrequently. Consequently, I do not know when you will go up to the roof,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讞爪专 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讘谞讜转 讙讜讬诇 讙讝讬转 讻驻讬住讬谉 诇讘讬谞讬谉 讘讜谞讬谉 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛

MISHNA: Partners who wished to make a partition [me岣tza] in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. What is this wall fashioned from? In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

讙讜讬诇 讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘讙讝讬转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讻驻讬住讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讘诇讘讬谞讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐

If they build the wall with non-chiseled stone, this partner provides three handbreadths of his portion of the courtyard and that partner provides three handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is six handbreadths. If they build the wall with chiseled stone, this partner provides two and a half handbreadths and that partner provides two and a half handbreadths, since such a wall is five handbreadths thick. If they build the wall with small bricks, this one provides two handbreadths and that one provides two handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is four handbreadths. If they build with large bricks, this one provides one and a half handbreadths and that one provides one and a half handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is three handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.

讜讻谉 讘讙讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 讘讘拽注讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讙讚讜专 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. But with regard to an expanse of fields [babbika], in a place where it is customary not to build a partition between two people鈥檚 fields, and one person wishes to build a partition between his field and that of his neighbor, the court does not obligate his neighbor to build such a partition.

讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讘讜谞讛 讜注讜砖讛 讞讝讬转 诪讘讞讜抓 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇讜

Rather, if one person wishes to erect a partition, he must withdraw into his own field and build the partition there. And he makes a border mark on the outer side of the barrier facing his neighbor鈥檚 property, indicating that he built the entire structure of his own materials and on his own land. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong only to him, as is indicated by the mark on the wall.

讗诐 注砖讜 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讝讬转 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讻讜转诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讛讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬讛诐

Nevertheless, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two people鈥檚 fields, if they made such a partition with the agreement of the two of them, they build it in the middle, i.e., on the property line, and make a border mark on the one side and on the other side. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.

讙诪壮 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讜讚讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 讞讝专讛 讜谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专

GEMARA: The Sages initially assumed: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? It means a partition, as it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case where a partition of [me岣tzat] a vineyard which separates the vineyard from a field of grain was breached, resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard. The owner of the field of grain may say to the owner of the vineyard: Build a partition between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition was breached again, the owner of the field of grain may say to him again: Build a partition.

谞转讬讗砖 讛讬诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

If the owner of the vineyard neglected to make the necessary repairs and did not properly build a partition between the fields, the grain and grapes are rendered forbidden due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, and he is liable for the monetary loss. He must compensate the owner of the grain for the damage suffered, as it is the vineyard owner鈥檚 fault that deriving benefit from the grain is now prohibited.

讟注诪讗 讚专爪讜 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

According to the understanding that the term me岣tza means a partition, one can infer: The reason that they build a wall is that they both wished to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. But if they did not both wish to do so, the court does not obligate the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight, that is, the discomfort suffered by someone because he is exposed to the gaze of others while he is in his own private domain, is not called damage.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜转讛讬 诪讞爪转 讛注讚讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专爪讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

The Gemara objects to this conclusion: But say that the term me岣tza used in the mishna means a division, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the division of [me岣tzat] the congregation was鈥 (Numbers 31:43), referring to the half of the spoil that belonged to the entire congregation. According to this interpretation the mishna means: Since they wished to divide the jointly owned courtyard, they build a proper wall in the center even against the will of one of the partners. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is called damage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 砖专爪讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讜讚讗 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讗 讗讜转讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讜转诇

The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: If it is so that the term me岣tza means a division, the words: Who wished to make a division, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: Who wished to divide. Rather, what is the meaning of the term me岣tza? A partition. The Gemara retorts: If so, the words: They build the wall, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: They build it, since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara responds: Had the tanna taught: They build it, I would say that a mere partition of pegs [bimseifas] would suffice. He therefore teaches us that they build an actual wall, all in accordance with the regional custom.

讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讗诪爪注 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗

The mishna teaches: Partners who wished to make a partition in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if they agree to build a wall it should be built in the middle? Why should one of them contribute more than the other?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 讜专爪讬讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转专爪讗讬 诇讱 讘讗讜讬专讗 讘转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讗 讗讬转专爪讗讬 诇讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where one of the partners went ahead and convinced the other that they should build a partition. Lest you say that the second can later say to the first when the latter comes to begin construction: When I was persuaded by you to build a partition, it was with regard to the airspace. I agreed to the erection of a minimal barrier that would result in a loss of open space in the courtyard. But I was not persuaded by you with regard to the use of the courtyard. I did not agree to forfeit any usable space on the ground in my share of the courtyard for the building of a wall. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that since they agreed to make a partition, they must each contribute a part of the courtyard for the building of the wall.

讜讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 (住讬诪谉 讙讬谞讛 讻讜转诇 讻讜驻讬谉 讜讞讜诇拽讬谉 讞诇讜谞讜转 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉)

搂 After having determined that the wording of the mishna is unproblematic only if the term me岣tza means a wall, it follows that damage caused by sight is not called damage. The Gemara asks: And is damage caused by sight in fact not called damage? The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs, which follow, that challenge this assumption: Garden, wall, compels, and they divide, windows, as Rav Na岣an.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻谉 讘讙讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. This indicates that invading one鈥檚 privacy by looking at him while he is in his private domain is called damage.

讙讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 诇注诪讜讚 讘砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘拽诪讜转讬讛

The Gemara answers: A garden is different with regard to the halakha governing invasion of privacy, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to stand in another鈥檚 field and look at his crop while the grain is standing, because he casts an evil eye upon it and thereby causes him damage, and the same is true for a garden. Since the issue in this case is damage resulting from the evil eye, no proof can be brought with regard to the matter of damage caused by sight.

讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽转谞讬 讗讙讜讬诇 讜讙讝讬转

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, which suggests that a garden and a courtyard are governed by the same rationale. The Gemara answers: The term: And similarly, is stated not with regard to the reason for the obligation to construct a wall, but with regard to the halakha concerning non-chiseled and chiseled stones. A partition in a garden is built with the same materials used for the building of a wall in a courtyard, in accordance with regional custom.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讜转诇 讞爪专 砖谞驻诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞驻诇 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (5a): In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him again up to a height of four cubits. This indicates that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The case of a wall that fell is different; since a wall had already stood there, the court compels the owners to rebuild it as it was.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara expresses its astonishment: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it at all? The mishna is clearly referring to a wall that has fallen, which means that the joint owners have already agreed in the past to build a partition between their respective portions. The Gemara answers: He who asked the question maintains that the joint owners can be compelled to build a wall even in a case where a wall had not stood there before, to prevent any invasion of privacy. And the mishna does not address the case of a wall that fell to teach that only in such a case is there an obligation to build a wall. Rather, it was necessary to teach the latter clause, which states that even in a case where there had previously been a high wall the court does not obligate him to rebuild it higher than four cubits, because once there is a wall of four cubits there is no further invasion of privacy.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转 讘讬转 砖注专 讜讚诇转 诇讞爪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讛讝讬拽讗 讚专讘讬诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof that damage caused by sight is called damage, from what is taught in a mishna (7b): The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard, so that the courtyard not be open to the eyes of those standing in the public domain. Learn from it that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof to the halakha in the case of two neighbors, as the damage of being exposed to the gaze of the general public, which has unimpeded sight of what is happening in the courtyard, is different and certainly called damage.

讜讚讬讞讬讚 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞爪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讛讗 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讻讜转诇 诇讗 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is exposure to the sight of an individual not considered damage? Come and hear a proof that it is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (11a): One divides a courtyard at the request of one of the co-owners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, that is, the same minimal dimensions for each of the co-owners. This means that if there is enough for this one and enough for that one, they do divide the courtyard at the request of one of the owners. What, is it not so that the courtyard must be divided with a wall that will prevent one neighbor from seeing the other? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is divided with a mere partition of pegs through which one can still see.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 诪诇诪注诇谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讬抓 讜讬专讗讛 诪诇诪讟谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讜讬专讗讛 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗驻讬诇

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof that damage caused by sight is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (22a): One who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor鈥檚 house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite. And a baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: Concerning the requirement of a distance above, the wall must be high enough so that one cannot peer into the window and see into the window; concerning the requirement of a distance below, the wall must be low so that he will not be able to stand on top of it and see into the window; and concerning the requirement of a distance opposite, one must distance the wall from the windows so that it will not darken his neighbor鈥檚 house by blocking the light that enters the house through the window. This indicates that there is a concern about the damage caused by exposure to the gaze of others.

讛讝讬拽讗 讚讘讬转 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: The damage of being exposed to the sight of others while in one鈥檚 own house is different, as people engage in activities in their homes that they do not want others to see. By contrast, a courtyard is out in the open and it is possible that the residents are indifferent to being observed.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讞爪专 诇讘注诇 讛讙讙 诇讚讬讚讬 拽讘讬注讛 诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 拽讘讬注讛 诇讱 转砖诪讬砖转讱 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛讬 注讬讚谞讗 住诇讬拽讗 讜讗转讬转

The Gemara challenges this distinction: Come and hear a proof, as Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If one鈥檚 roof is adjacent to another鈥檚 courtyard, he must make a parapet around the roof four cubits high so that he will not be able to see into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. This indicates that the damage of being exposed to the eyes of others even in a courtyard is called damage. The Gemara refutes this proof: The situation is different there, as the owner of the courtyard can say to the owner of the roof: I make use of my courtyard on a regular basis. You, by contrast, do not make use of your roof on a regular basis, but only infrequently. Consequently, I do not know when you will go up to the roof,

Scroll To Top