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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2017 | 讻状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 4

How did Herod who began as a slave end up being a king? 聽And how did he end up being the one who renovated the Beit Hamikdash? 聽What are the halachot in a garden or in a聽field where there is no custom? 聽In a case where one cannot force the other to build a wall, one builds it on one’s property exclusively and puts a sign on it. 聽What is the sign? 聽Why in the case where both build the wall does the mishna say to put up a sign on both sides?


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

讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻诇讬诇讗 讚讬讬诇讬 谞拽专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬谞讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗转讗 讜讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 注讘讚讗 讘讬砖讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诇讟讬讬讛 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讙诐 讘诪讚注讱 诪诇讱 讗诇 转拽诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛讜讬 注砖讬专 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘讞讚专讬 诪砖讻讘讱 讗诇 转拽诇诇 注砖讬专 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 谞砖讬讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专

Herod placed a garland made of porcupine hide on Bava ben Buta鈥檚 head, which pricked his eyes out. One day Herod came and sat before him without identifying himself in order to test him. He, Herod, said: See, Master, what this evil slave Herod is doing. Bava ben Buta said to him: What should I do to him? Herod said to him: The Master should curse him. Bava ben Buta said to him: But it is written: 鈥淒o not curse the king, not even in your thoughts鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20). Herod said to him: He is not a king, since he rules illegally. Bava ben Buta said to him: And even if he were merely a rich man I would not curse him, as it is written: 鈥淎nd do not curse a rich person in your bedchamber鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20). And even were he only a leader I would not curse him, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not curse a leader among your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗讝讬诇 讚诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗谞讗 讜讗转 讬转讬讘谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讬讜诇讬讱 讗转 讛拽讜诇 讜讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 讬讙讬讚 讚讘专

Herod said to him: That halakha stated with regard to 鈥渁 leader among your people,鈥 that is, to a fit Jew who acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law, and this one does not do the deeds of your people. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, I am afraid of him. Herod said to him: There is nobody who will go and tell him, since you and I are sitting here alone. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, it is written: 鈥淔or a bird of the sky shall carry the sound, and that which has wings shall tell the matter鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讬讚注谞讗 讚讝讛专讬 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讛讜 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讛 讗讜专讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞专 诪爪讜讛 讜转讜专讛 讗讜专 讬诇讱 讜讬注住讜拽 讘讗讜专讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讛专讜 讗诇讬讜 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 住讬诪讗 注讬谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 诪注讬谞讬 讛注讚讛 讬诇讱 讜讬转注住拽 讘注讬谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞谞讬 诪讞诇诇 讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 讙讗讜谉 注讝讻诐 诪讞诪讚 注讬谞讬讻诐

Herod said to him: I am he. Had I known that the Sages were so cautious I would not have killed them. Now, what is that man鈥檚 remedy, i.e., what can I do to repent for my sinful actions? Bava ben Buta said to him: He who extinguished the light of the world by killing the Torah Sages, as it is written: 鈥淔or the mitzva is a lamp, and the Torah is light鈥 (Proverbs 6:23), should go and occupy himself with the light of the world, the Temple, as it is written with regard to the Temple: 鈥淎nd all the nations shall flow [venaharu] unto it鈥 (Isaiah 2:2), the word venaharu alluding to light [nehora]. There are those who say that this is what he said to him: He who blinded the eye of the world, as it is written in reference to the Sages: 鈥淎nd if it be committed through ignorance by the eyes of the congregation鈥 (Numbers 15:24), should go and occupy himself with the eye of the world, the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淚 will desecrate my Temple, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes鈥 (Ezekiel 24:21).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪诪诇讻讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚专 砖诇讬讞讗 讜诇讬讝讬诇 砖转讗 讜诇讬注讻讘 砖转讗 讜诇讛讚专 砖转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 住转专讬转 [诇讬讛] 讜讘谞讬讬转 [诇讬讛] 注讘讚 讛讻讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗诐 诇讗 住转专转讛 讗诇 转住转讜专 讜讗诐 住转专转讛 讗诇 转讘谞讬 讜讗诐 住转专转讛 讜讘谞讬转 注讘讚讬 讘讬砖讗 讘转专 讚注讘讚讬谉 诪转诪诇讻讬谉 讗诐 讝讬讬谞讱 注诇讱 住驻专讱 讻讗谉 诇讗 专讻讗 讜诇讗 讘专 专讻讗 讛讜专讚讜住 [注讘讚讗] 拽诇谞讬讗 诪转注讘讬讚

Herod said to him: I am afraid of the Roman government, that they will not permit me to make changes in the Temple. Bava ben Buta said to him: Send a messenger who will travel there for a year, and remain there for another year, and take yet another year to return. In the meantime, you can demolish the Temple and rebuild it. He did so. Eventually, they sent a message to Herod from Rome: If you have not yet demolished it, do not demolish it; and if you have already demolished it, do not rebuild it; and if you have demolished it and already rebuilt it, you shall be counted among those who act wickedly, seeking counsel only after they have already acted. Even if you are armed and in command of a military force, your book, i.e., your genealogical record, is here. You are neither a king [reikha] nor the son of a king, but rather Herod the slave who has made himself a freeman [kelonya].

诪讗讬 专讻讗 诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗谞讻讬 讛讬讜诐 专讱 讜诪砖讜讞 诪诇讱 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽专讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘专讱

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the word reikha? It denotes royalty, as it is written: 鈥淚 am today a tender [rakh] and anointed king鈥 (II聽Samuel 3:39). And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word is learned from here, from the term describing Joseph after he was appointed viceroy to the king: 鈥淎nd they cried before him, Avrekh (Genesis 41:43).

讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 专讗讛 讘谞讬谉 讛讜专讚讜住 诇讗 专讗讛 讘谞讬谉 谞讗讛 [诪讬诪讬讜] 讘诪讗讬 讘谞讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讘谞讬 砖讬砖讗 讜诪专诪专讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讗讘谞讬 讻讜讞诇讗 砖讬砖讗 讜诪专诪专讗 讗驻讬拽 砖驻讛 讜注讬讬诇 砖驻讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞拽讘讬诇 住讬讚讗 住讘专 诇诪砖注讬讬讛 讘讚讛讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 砖讘拽讬讛 讚讛讻讬 砖驻讬专 讟驻讬 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讬讚讜讜转讗 讚讬诪讗

The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod鈥檚 building has never seen a beautiful building in his life. The Gemara asks: With what did he build it? Rabba said: With stones of white and green marble [umarmara]. There are those who say that he built it with stones of blue, white, and green marble. Alternate rows of stones sent out an edge a bit and drew in an edge a bit, so that they would better receive and hold the plaster. He considered covering it with gold, but the Rabbis said to him: Leave it, and do not cover it, since it is more beautiful this way, as it looks like the waves of the sea.

讜讘讘讗 讘专 讘讜讟讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 讚谞讬讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖讬讗 注爪讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讬 讬砖驻专 注诇讱 讜讞讟讗讬讱 讘爪讚拽讛 驻专拽 讜注讜讬转讱 讘诪讞谉 注谞讬谉 讛谉 转讛讜讬 讗专讻讗 诇砖诇讜转讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇讗 诪讟讗 注诇 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪诇讻讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇拽爪转 讬专讞讬谉 转专讬 注砖专 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And how did Bava ben Buta do this, i.e., give advice to Herod the wicked? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says: For what reason was Daniel punished? Because he offered advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as after sharing a harsh prophecy with him, it is stated: 鈥淭herefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, redeem your sins with charity and your iniquities with graciousness to the poor, that there may be a lengthening of your prosperity鈥 (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: 鈥淎ll this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar鈥 (Daniel 4:25). And it is written: 鈥淎nd at the end of twelve months鈥 (Daniel 4:26). Only after a year was the prophecy fulfilled but not before that, apparently because Nebuchadnezzar heeded Daniel鈥檚 advice.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讘讚讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 诪转讘谞讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that a slave like Herod is different since he is obligated in the mitzvot, and therefore Bava ben Buta had to help him repent. And if you wish, say the Temple is different, as without the help of the government it would not have been built.

讜讚谞讬讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬注谞砖 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽专讗 讗住转专 诇讛转讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛转讱 讝讛 讚谞讬讗诇 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞转讻讜讛讜 诪讙讚讜诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻诇 讚讘专讬 诪诇讻讜转 谞讞转讻讬谉 注诇 驻讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚砖讚讬讜讛讜 诇讙讜讘讗 讚讗专讬讬讜讜转讗

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Daniel was punished? If we say we know this because it is written: 鈥淎nd Esther called for Hatach, one of the king鈥檚 chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her鈥 (Esther 4:5), and Rav said: Hatach is Daniel. This works out well according to the one who says Daniel was called Hatach because they cut him down [岣takh] from his greatness and turned him into a minor attendant. But according to the one who says he was called Hatach because all governmental matters were determined [岣takh] according to his word, what is there to say? What punishment did he receive? The Gemara answers: His punishment was that they threw him into the den of lions.

讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build a wall of non-chiseled stone, or chiseled stone, or small bricks, or large bricks, they must build the partition with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What does the word everything serve to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add a place where it is customary to build a partition out of palm and laurel branches. In such a place, the partition is built from those materials.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转讗 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讞讚 诇专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讛讜讬 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is the case, since both neighbors participated in the construction of the wall? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha for a case where the entire wall fell into the domain of one of them. Alternatively, it is necessary in a case where one of them already cleared all the stones into his own domain. Lest you say that the other party should be governed by the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, that is, if the other party should have to prove that he had been a partner in the construction of the wall, the mishna teaches us that they are presumed to have been partners in the building of the wall, and neither requires further proof.

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 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 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 讛讗 住转诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

搂 The mishna continues: 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. The Gemara comments: This matter itself is difficult. On the one hand, you said: 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. One can infer that ordinarily, where there is no custom, the court does not obligate him to build a partition.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 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 讛讗 住转诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛砖转讗 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讗诪专转 诇讗 住转诐 讘拽注讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

But say the latter clause of the mishna: But with regard to an expanse of fields, 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. One can infer that ordinarily, where there is no custom, the court obligates him to build a partition. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Now that you said by inference that in an ordinary garden the court does not obligate him to build a partition, is it necessary to say that the court does not obligate him to build a partition in an ordinary field? Clearly in a field there is less of a need for a partition, as there is less damage caused by exposure to the gaze of others.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 讘讘拽注讛 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讻诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 讚诪讬 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 住转诐 讘拽注讛 讻诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 谞讛讙讜 讚诪讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

Abaye said that this is what the tanna is saying: And similarly with regard to an ordinary garden, and also in a place where it is customary to build a partition in an expanse of fields, the court obligates him to build a partition. Rava said to him: If so, what is the point of the word: But, mentioned afterward in connection with an expanse of fields, which seems to indicate that the issue of fields had not yet been addressed? Rather, Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: And similarly an ordinary garden is treated like a place where it is customary to build a partition, and therefore the court obligates him to build a partition. But an ordinary expanse of fields is treated like a place where it is customary not to build a partition, and therefore the court does not obligate him to build one.

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 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讻驻讬讛 诇讬讛 诇拽专谞讗 诇讘专 讜谞注讘讬讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 谞诪讬 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讙讬讝讜讝讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a border mark? Rav Huna said: He bends the edge of the wall toward the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him make it on the inside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might also make a mark on the outside, that is, on the side facing his own property, and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara responds: If so, that is, there is a concern about such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall makes a border mark on the outer side of the wall, his neighbor might cut it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara answers: Such a cut is noticeable and the deception will not work.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬讻驻讗 诇拽专谞讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讜谞注讘讚 诪诇讘专 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讬祝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讬驻讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讜讛讗 诪讘讞讜抓 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗

There are those who say that in answer to the question: What is the meaning of a border mark, Rav Huna said: He bends the edge of the wall toward the inside. The Gemara suggests: Let him make it on the outside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might cut it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara asks: If so, that is, there is a concern for such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall makes a border mark toward the inside, his neighbor might add a border mark on his own side and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara answers: An addition is noticeable and the deception will not work. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that he makes the border mark on the outside and not on the inside? The Gemara comments: This is a difficulty.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

谞砖注讬讬讛 讘讗诪转讗 诪诇讘专 讜谞讬注讘讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚拽驻讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讬诇讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The party who builds the wall should smear it with clay up to a cubit at the top of the wall on the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him do this on the inside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might also do it on the outside, that is, on the side facing his own property, and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara responds: If so, that is, if there is a concern for such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall smears it with clay on the outside, his neighbor can peel it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara explains: Peeling clay is noticeable and the deception will not succeed.

讛讜爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬谞讜驻讬 讬专讬讻讬 诪诇讘专 讜谞讬注讘讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 谞诪讬 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讙讬讬讝 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诪砖专讬拽 诇讬讛 讟讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 讞讘专讬讛 讜拽诇讬祝 诇讬讛 拽讬诇讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: If he builds a partition of palm branches, how does he make a border mark? Rav Na岣an said: He directs the tips of the branches to the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him do this to the inside. The Gemara states: If he so directs the branches, his neighbor might also do the same to the outside, that is, to the side facing his own property, and say: The partition is both mine and his. The Gemara objects: If so, that is, if there is concern for such deception, now also when the one who builds the partition directs the tips of the branches to the outside, the neighbor can cut off the tips and throw them away, and say: The partition is both mine and his. The Gemara counsels: He should smear the tips of the palm branches with clay. The Gemara comments: Now also, the neighbor might come and peel the clay off. The Gemara answers: Peeling is noticeable.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专讗

Abaye said: One who builds a partition of palm branches has no remedy to prove who erected it, except with a written document. The neighbor should draw up a document stating that he has no claim to the space or to the partition, because they belong exclusively to the other neighbor.

讗讘诇 讗诐 注砖讜 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讬注砖讜 诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rava from Parzika said to Rav Ashi: Neither this one nor that one should make a border mark. Rav Ashi said to him: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where one of them went ahead and made a border mark for himself, so that if his neighbor does not make one as well, the first one will say that it is entirely his.

讜转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 诇专诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 转拽谞转讗 诇专诪讗讬 讛讜讗

Rava from Parzika asked him: And is the tanna of the mishna teaching us a remedy to be used against a swindler? Rav Ashi said to him: But isn鈥檛 the former clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling also a remedy to be used against a swindler? That clause teaches that one who builds a wall should make a border mark to indicate that the wall is his.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讚讬谞讗 拽转谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讜爪讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讞讝讬转 住讙讬讗

Rava from Parzika said to him: Granted, in the former clause the tanna taught the halakha that if one wishes to build a partition between his own field and that of his neighbor, he does so at his own expense and on his own land, and due to the need to teach that halakha he also taught a remedy to be used against a swindler. But does he teach a halakha in the latter clause, so that he also teaches a remedy to be used against a swindler? Ravina said: Here, in the latter clause, we are dealing with a barrier made of palm branches. This is to the exclusion of the opinion of Abaye, who said: One who builds a partition of palm branches has no remedy to prove who erected it, except with a written document. He teaches us that a border mark suffices.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇砖 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person鈥檚 field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诪讚 诪拽讬祝

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that if he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions. The Gemara comments: It is no different if it was the owner of the surrounded field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side, and it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounding field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side. The halakha is the same in both cases.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following point. Rav Huna says that when Rabbi Yosei said the court obligates the owner of the inner field to pay his share for all of the partitions, he pays in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions. That is, the owner of the inner field must contribute his share according to the cost of the partition his neighbor built. 岣yya bar Rav says: He must pay his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, and no more. The owner of the surrounded field can claim he had no desire for a more substantial partition.

转谞谉 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇砖 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 专讘讬注讬转 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from what we learned in the mishna: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person鈥檚 field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition. By inference, if he also built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court does obligate the owner of the inner field to contribute to the building of the partition. The Gemara continues with its proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions. The first tanna and Rabbi Yosei seem to be stating the same ruling.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专 讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 讗讬谉 讜诪讛 砖讙讚专 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专

Granted, according to Rav Huna, who says that the owner of the inner field pays for all of the partitions in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions, this is the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei: The first tanna maintains that yes, he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, but not a larger sum in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions.

讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 拽讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

But according to 岣yya bar Rav, who says he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with the value of a partition fashioned from inexpensive reeds, what difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei? If according to the first tanna he does not give him his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, what does he give him?

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讗 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the wage of a watchman. The first tanna maintains that yes, since his field is safeguarded by the partition which surrounds it, the one who built the partition can demand payment of the wage of a watchman. He cannot, however, demand the cost of building the partition, not even the other鈥檚 share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he can demand the other鈥檚 share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

And if you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the partitions built on the first, second, and third sides of the inner field. The first tanna maintains that the owner of the inner field must give to his neighbor money for the partition built on the fourth side, but he is not required to give him money for the partitions built on the first, second, and third sides. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he must also give him money for the partitions built on the first, the second, and the third sides.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讬祝 讜谞讬拽祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讜讘专 讟注诪讗 讚注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 讚诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讘诇 注诪讚 诪拽讬祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 专讘讬注讬转

The Gemara suggests another difference between the two opinions: If you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the issue of whether the partition on the fourth side was built by the owner of the surrounding field or by the owner of the surrounded field. This is because the first tanna maintains that the reason the owner of the surrounded field must contribute his share of the entire expense is that he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of his field. Therefore, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions, because his actions demonstrate that he wants the partition between their fields. But if the owner of the surrounding field arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the owner of the surrounded field must give him only his share of the value of the partition of the fourth side.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讬拽祝 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪拽讬祝 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

And Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounded field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side, and it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounding field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side. If either one arose and built a partition on the fourth side, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the obligation to pay his share for all of the partitions.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪拽讬祝 讜谞讬拽祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诐 讙讚专 诪拽讬祝 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗诐 注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讚讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 讙讚专 诪拽讬祝 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara reports another version of this last answer: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the issue of whether the partition on the fourth side was built by the owner of the surrounding field or by the owner of the surrounded field. The first tanna maintains that even if the owner of the surrounding field built a partition on the fourth side, the owner of the surrounded field also gives him his share of the cost of the partitions. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that only if the owner of the surrounded field arose and built a partition on the fourth side does he give the owner of the surrounding field his share of the cost of the partitions. Why is that? Because he reveals that he is pleased with the partitions. But if the owner of the surrounding field built a partition on the fourth side, the owner of the surrounded field does not give him anything, as he can continue to claim that he has no interest in the partitions.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 4

讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻诇讬诇讗 讚讬讬诇讬 谞拽专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬谞讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗转讗 讜讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 注讘讚讗 讘讬砖讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诇讟讬讬讛 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讙诐 讘诪讚注讱 诪诇讱 讗诇 转拽诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛讜讬 注砖讬专 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘讞讚专讬 诪砖讻讘讱 讗诇 转拽诇诇 注砖讬专 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 谞砖讬讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专

Herod placed a garland made of porcupine hide on Bava ben Buta鈥檚 head, which pricked his eyes out. One day Herod came and sat before him without identifying himself in order to test him. He, Herod, said: See, Master, what this evil slave Herod is doing. Bava ben Buta said to him: What should I do to him? Herod said to him: The Master should curse him. Bava ben Buta said to him: But it is written: 鈥淒o not curse the king, not even in your thoughts鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20). Herod said to him: He is not a king, since he rules illegally. Bava ben Buta said to him: And even if he were merely a rich man I would not curse him, as it is written: 鈥淎nd do not curse a rich person in your bedchamber鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20). And even were he only a leader I would not curse him, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not curse a leader among your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗讝讬诇 讚诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗谞讗 讜讗转 讬转讬讘谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讬讜诇讬讱 讗转 讛拽讜诇 讜讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 讬讙讬讚 讚讘专

Herod said to him: That halakha stated with regard to 鈥渁 leader among your people,鈥 that is, to a fit Jew who acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law, and this one does not do the deeds of your people. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, I am afraid of him. Herod said to him: There is nobody who will go and tell him, since you and I are sitting here alone. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, it is written: 鈥淔or a bird of the sky shall carry the sound, and that which has wings shall tell the matter鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讬讚注谞讗 讚讝讛专讬 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讛讜 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讛 讗讜专讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞专 诪爪讜讛 讜转讜专讛 讗讜专 讬诇讱 讜讬注住讜拽 讘讗讜专讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讛专讜 讗诇讬讜 讻诇 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 住讬诪讗 注讬谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 诪注讬谞讬 讛注讚讛 讬诇讱 讜讬转注住拽 讘注讬谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞谞讬 诪讞诇诇 讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 讙讗讜谉 注讝讻诐 诪讞诪讚 注讬谞讬讻诐

Herod said to him: I am he. Had I known that the Sages were so cautious I would not have killed them. Now, what is that man鈥檚 remedy, i.e., what can I do to repent for my sinful actions? Bava ben Buta said to him: He who extinguished the light of the world by killing the Torah Sages, as it is written: 鈥淔or the mitzva is a lamp, and the Torah is light鈥 (Proverbs 6:23), should go and occupy himself with the light of the world, the Temple, as it is written with regard to the Temple: 鈥淎nd all the nations shall flow [venaharu] unto it鈥 (Isaiah 2:2), the word venaharu alluding to light [nehora]. There are those who say that this is what he said to him: He who blinded the eye of the world, as it is written in reference to the Sages: 鈥淎nd if it be committed through ignorance by the eyes of the congregation鈥 (Numbers 15:24), should go and occupy himself with the eye of the world, the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淚 will desecrate my Temple, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes鈥 (Ezekiel 24:21).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪诪诇讻讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚专 砖诇讬讞讗 讜诇讬讝讬诇 砖转讗 讜诇讬注讻讘 砖转讗 讜诇讛讚专 砖转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 住转专讬转 [诇讬讛] 讜讘谞讬讬转 [诇讬讛] 注讘讚 讛讻讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗诐 诇讗 住转专转讛 讗诇 转住转讜专 讜讗诐 住转专转讛 讗诇 转讘谞讬 讜讗诐 住转专转讛 讜讘谞讬转 注讘讚讬 讘讬砖讗 讘转专 讚注讘讚讬谉 诪转诪诇讻讬谉 讗诐 讝讬讬谞讱 注诇讱 住驻专讱 讻讗谉 诇讗 专讻讗 讜诇讗 讘专 专讻讗 讛讜专讚讜住 [注讘讚讗] 拽诇谞讬讗 诪转注讘讬讚

Herod said to him: I am afraid of the Roman government, that they will not permit me to make changes in the Temple. Bava ben Buta said to him: Send a messenger who will travel there for a year, and remain there for another year, and take yet another year to return. In the meantime, you can demolish the Temple and rebuild it. He did so. Eventually, they sent a message to Herod from Rome: If you have not yet demolished it, do not demolish it; and if you have already demolished it, do not rebuild it; and if you have demolished it and already rebuilt it, you shall be counted among those who act wickedly, seeking counsel only after they have already acted. Even if you are armed and in command of a military force, your book, i.e., your genealogical record, is here. You are neither a king [reikha] nor the son of a king, but rather Herod the slave who has made himself a freeman [kelonya].

诪讗讬 专讻讗 诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗谞讻讬 讛讬讜诐 专讱 讜诪砖讜讞 诪诇讱 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽专讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘专讱

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the word reikha? It denotes royalty, as it is written: 鈥淚 am today a tender [rakh] and anointed king鈥 (II聽Samuel 3:39). And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word is learned from here, from the term describing Joseph after he was appointed viceroy to the king: 鈥淎nd they cried before him, Avrekh (Genesis 41:43).

讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 专讗讛 讘谞讬谉 讛讜专讚讜住 诇讗 专讗讛 讘谞讬谉 谞讗讛 [诪讬诪讬讜] 讘诪讗讬 讘谞讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讘谞讬 砖讬砖讗 讜诪专诪专讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讗讘谞讬 讻讜讞诇讗 砖讬砖讗 讜诪专诪专讗 讗驻讬拽 砖驻讛 讜注讬讬诇 砖驻讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞拽讘讬诇 住讬讚讗 住讘专 诇诪砖注讬讬讛 讘讚讛讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 砖讘拽讬讛 讚讛讻讬 砖驻讬专 讟驻讬 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讬讚讜讜转讗 讚讬诪讗

The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod鈥檚 building has never seen a beautiful building in his life. The Gemara asks: With what did he build it? Rabba said: With stones of white and green marble [umarmara]. There are those who say that he built it with stones of blue, white, and green marble. Alternate rows of stones sent out an edge a bit and drew in an edge a bit, so that they would better receive and hold the plaster. He considered covering it with gold, but the Rabbis said to him: Leave it, and do not cover it, since it is more beautiful this way, as it looks like the waves of the sea.

讜讘讘讗 讘专 讘讜讟讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 讚谞讬讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖讬讗 注爪讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讬 讬砖驻专 注诇讱 讜讞讟讗讬讱 讘爪讚拽讛 驻专拽 讜注讜讬转讱 讘诪讞谉 注谞讬谉 讛谉 转讛讜讬 讗专讻讗 诇砖诇讜转讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇讗 诪讟讗 注诇 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪诇讻讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇拽爪转 讬专讞讬谉 转专讬 注砖专 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And how did Bava ben Buta do this, i.e., give advice to Herod the wicked? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says: For what reason was Daniel punished? Because he offered advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as after sharing a harsh prophecy with him, it is stated: 鈥淭herefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, redeem your sins with charity and your iniquities with graciousness to the poor, that there may be a lengthening of your prosperity鈥 (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: 鈥淎ll this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar鈥 (Daniel 4:25). And it is written: 鈥淎nd at the end of twelve months鈥 (Daniel 4:26). Only after a year was the prophecy fulfilled but not before that, apparently because Nebuchadnezzar heeded Daniel鈥檚 advice.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讘讚讗 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪诇讻讜转 诇讗 诪转讘谞讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that a slave like Herod is different since he is obligated in the mitzvot, and therefore Bava ben Buta had to help him repent. And if you wish, say the Temple is different, as without the help of the government it would not have been built.

讜讚谞讬讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬注谞砖 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽专讗 讗住转专 诇讛转讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛转讱 讝讛 讚谞讬讗诇 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞转讻讜讛讜 诪讙讚讜诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻诇 讚讘专讬 诪诇讻讜转 谞讞转讻讬谉 注诇 驻讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚砖讚讬讜讛讜 诇讙讜讘讗 讚讗专讬讬讜讜转讗

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Daniel was punished? If we say we know this because it is written: 鈥淎nd Esther called for Hatach, one of the king鈥檚 chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her鈥 (Esther 4:5), and Rav said: Hatach is Daniel. This works out well according to the one who says Daniel was called Hatach because they cut him down [岣takh] from his greatness and turned him into a minor attendant. But according to the one who says he was called Hatach because all governmental matters were determined [岣takh] according to his word, what is there to say? What punishment did he receive? The Gemara answers: His punishment was that they threw him into the den of lions.

讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗转专讗 讚谞讛讬讙讬 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build a wall of non-chiseled stone, or chiseled stone, or small bricks, or large bricks, they must build the partition with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What does the word everything serve to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add a place where it is customary to build a partition out of palm and laurel branches. In such a place, the partition is built from those materials.

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 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转讗 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讞讚 诇专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讛讜讬 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is the case, since both neighbors participated in the construction of the wall? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha for a case where the entire wall fell into the domain of one of them. Alternatively, it is necessary in a case where one of them already cleared all the stones into his own domain. Lest you say that the other party should be governed by the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, that is, if the other party should have to prove that he had been a partner in the construction of the wall, the mishna teaches us that they are presumed to have been partners in the building of the wall, and neither requires further proof.

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 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 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 讛讗 住转诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

搂 The mishna continues: 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. The Gemara comments: This matter itself is difficult. On the one hand, you said: 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. One can infer that ordinarily, where there is no custom, the court does not obligate him to build a partition.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 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 讛讗 住转诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛砖转讗 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讗诪专转 诇讗 住转诐 讘拽注讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

But say the latter clause of the mishna: But with regard to an expanse of fields, 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. One can infer that ordinarily, where there is no custom, the court obligates him to build a partition. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Now that you said by inference that in an ordinary garden the court does not obligate him to build a partition, is it necessary to say that the court does not obligate him to build a partition in an ordinary field? Clearly in a field there is less of a need for a partition, as there is less damage caused by exposure to the gaze of others.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 讘讘拽注讛 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 住转诐 讙讬谞讛 讻诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚讜专 讚诪讬 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 住转诐 讘拽注讛 讻诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 谞讛讙讜 讚诪讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜

Abaye said that this is what the tanna is saying: And similarly with regard to an ordinary garden, and also in a place where it is customary to build a partition in an expanse of fields, the court obligates him to build a partition. Rava said to him: If so, what is the point of the word: But, mentioned afterward in connection with an expanse of fields, which seems to indicate that the issue of fields had not yet been addressed? Rather, Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: And similarly an ordinary garden is treated like a place where it is customary to build a partition, and therefore the court obligates him to build a partition. But an ordinary expanse of fields is treated like a place where it is customary not to build a partition, and therefore the court does not obligate him to build one.

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 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讻驻讬讛 诇讬讛 诇拽专谞讗 诇讘专 讜谞注讘讬讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 谞诪讬 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讙讬讝讜讝讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a border mark? Rav Huna said: He bends the edge of the wall toward the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him make it on the inside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might also make a mark on the outside, that is, on the side facing his own property, and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara responds: If so, that is, there is a concern about such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall makes a border mark on the outer side of the wall, his neighbor might cut it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara answers: Such a cut is noticeable and the deception will not work.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬讻驻讗 诇拽专谞讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讜谞注讘讚 诪诇讘专 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讬祝 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讬驻讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讜讛讗 诪讘讞讜抓 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗

There are those who say that in answer to the question: What is the meaning of a border mark, Rav Huna said: He bends the edge of the wall toward the inside. The Gemara suggests: Let him make it on the outside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might cut it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara asks: If so, that is, there is a concern for such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall makes a border mark toward the inside, his neighbor might add a border mark on his own side and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara answers: An addition is noticeable and the deception will not work. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that he makes the border mark on the outside and not on the inside? The Gemara comments: This is a difficulty.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

谞砖注讬讬讛 讘讗诪转讗 诪诇讘专 讜谞讬注讘讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚拽驻讬诇 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讬诇讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The party who builds the wall should smear it with clay up to a cubit at the top of the wall on the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him do this on the inside. The Gemara explains: In that case, his neighbor might also do it on the outside, that is, on the side facing his own property, and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara responds: If so, that is, if there is a concern for such deception, now also when the person who builds the wall smears it with clay on the outside, his neighbor can peel it off and say: The wall is both mine and his. The Gemara explains: Peeling clay is noticeable and the deception will not succeed.

讛讜爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬谞讜驻讬 讬专讬讻讬 诪诇讘专 讜谞讬注讘讚 诪诇讙讬讜 注讘讬讚 谞诪讬 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇讘专 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讙讬讬讝 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诪砖专讬拽 诇讬讛 讟讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 讞讘专讬讛 讜拽诇讬祝 诇讬讛 拽讬诇讜驻讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注

The Gemara asks: If he builds a partition of palm branches, how does he make a border mark? Rav Na岣an said: He directs the tips of the branches to the outside. The Gemara suggests: Let him do this to the inside. The Gemara states: If he so directs the branches, his neighbor might also do the same to the outside, that is, to the side facing his own property, and say: The partition is both mine and his. The Gemara objects: If so, that is, if there is concern for such deception, now also when the one who builds the partition directs the tips of the branches to the outside, the neighbor can cut off the tips and throw them away, and say: The partition is both mine and his. The Gemara counsels: He should smear the tips of the palm branches with clay. The Gemara comments: Now also, the neighbor might come and peel the clay off. The Gemara answers: Peeling is noticeable.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专讗

Abaye said: One who builds a partition of palm branches has no remedy to prove who erected it, except with a written document. The neighbor should draw up a document stating that he has no claim to the space or to the partition, because they belong exclusively to the other neighbor.

讗讘诇 讗诐 注砖讜 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝讬拽讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讬注砖讜 诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rava from Parzika said to Rav Ashi: Neither this one nor that one should make a border mark. Rav Ashi said to him: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where one of them went ahead and made a border mark for himself, so that if his neighbor does not make one as well, the first one will say that it is entirely his.

讜转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 诇专诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 转拽谞转讗 诇专诪讗讬 讛讜讗

Rava from Parzika asked him: And is the tanna of the mishna teaching us a remedy to be used against a swindler? Rav Ashi said to him: But isn鈥檛 the former clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling also a remedy to be used against a swindler? That clause teaches that one who builds a wall should make a border mark to indicate that the wall is his.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讚讬谞讗 拽转谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘讛讜爪讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讞讝讬转 住讙讬讗

Rava from Parzika said to him: Granted, in the former clause the tanna taught the halakha that if one wishes to build a partition between his own field and that of his neighbor, he does so at his own expense and on his own land, and due to the need to teach that halakha he also taught a remedy to be used against a swindler. But does he teach a halakha in the latter clause, so that he also teaches a remedy to be used against a swindler? Ravina said: Here, in the latter clause, we are dealing with a barrier made of palm branches. This is to the exclusion of the opinion of Abaye, who said: One who builds a partition of palm branches has no remedy to prove who erected it, except with a written document. He teaches us that a border mark suffices.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇砖 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

MISHNA: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person鈥檚 field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诪讚 诪拽讬祝

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that if he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions. The Gemara comments: It is no different if it was the owner of the surrounded field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side, and it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounding field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side. The halakha is the same in both cases.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the following point. Rav Huna says that when Rabbi Yosei said the court obligates the owner of the inner field to pay his share for all of the partitions, he pays in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions. That is, the owner of the inner field must contribute his share according to the cost of the partition his neighbor built. 岣yya bar Rav says: He must pay his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, and no more. The owner of the surrounded field can claim he had no desire for a more substantial partition.

转谞谉 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖诇砖 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讜讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 专讘讬注讬转 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from what we learned in the mishna: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person鈥檚 field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition. By inference, if he also built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court does obligate the owner of the inner field to contribute to the building of the partition. The Gemara continues with its proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions. The first tanna and Rabbi Yosei seem to be stating the same ruling.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专 讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 讗讬谉 讜诪讛 砖讙讚专 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讙讚专

Granted, according to Rav Huna, who says that the owner of the inner field pays for all of the partitions in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions, this is the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei: The first tanna maintains that yes, he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, but not a larger sum in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with what the other person actually spent when he built the partitions.

讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 拽讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

But according to 岣yya bar Rav, who says he pays his share for all of the partitions in accordance with the value of a partition fashioned from inexpensive reeds, what difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei? If according to the first tanna he does not give him his share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds, what does he give him?

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讗 讗讬谉 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讚诪讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the wage of a watchman. The first tanna maintains that yes, since his field is safeguarded by the partition which surrounds it, the one who built the partition can demand payment of the wage of a watchman. He cannot, however, demand the cost of building the partition, not even the other鈥檚 share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he can demand the other鈥檚 share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

And if you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the partitions built on the first, second, and third sides of the inner field. The first tanna maintains that the owner of the inner field must give to his neighbor money for the partition built on the fourth side, but he is not required to give him money for the partitions built on the first, second, and third sides. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that he must also give him money for the partitions built on the first, the second, and the third sides.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讬祝 讜谞讬拽祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讜讘专 讟注诪讗 讚注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 讚诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讘诇 注诪讚 诪拽讬祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 专讘讬注讬转

The Gemara suggests another difference between the two opinions: If you wish, say there is a practical difference between them with regard to the issue of whether the partition on the fourth side was built by the owner of the surrounding field or by the owner of the surrounded field. This is because the first tanna maintains that the reason the owner of the surrounded field must contribute his share of the entire expense is that he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of his field. Therefore, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions, because his actions demonstrate that he wants the partition between their fields. But if the owner of the surrounding field arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the owner of the surrounded field must give him only his share of the value of the partition of the fourth side.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讬拽祝 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪拽讬祝 讗诐 注诪讚 讜讙讚专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇

And Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounded field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side, and it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounding field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side. If either one arose and built a partition on the fourth side, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the obligation to pay his share for all of the partitions.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪拽讬祝 讜谞讬拽祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诐 讙讚专 诪拽讬祝 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗诐 注诪讚 谞讬拽祝 讜讙讚专 讗转 讛专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讚讙诇讬 讚注转讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 讙讚专 诪拽讬祝 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara reports another version of this last answer: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the issue of whether the partition on the fourth side was built by the owner of the surrounding field or by the owner of the surrounded field. The first tanna maintains that even if the owner of the surrounding field built a partition on the fourth side, the owner of the surrounded field also gives him his share of the cost of the partitions. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that only if the owner of the surrounded field arose and built a partition on the fourth side does he give the owner of the surrounding field his share of the cost of the partitions. Why is that? Because he reveals that he is pleased with the partitions. But if the owner of the surrounding field built a partition on the fourth side, the owner of the surrounded field does not give him anything, as he can continue to claim that he has no interest in the partitions.

Scroll To Top