Bava Batra 4

אהדר ליה כלילא דיילי נקרינהו לעיניה יומא חד אתא ויתיב קמיה אמר חזי מר האי עבדא בישא מאי קא עביד אמר ליה מאי אעביד ליה אמר ליה נלטייה מר אמר ליה כתיב גם במדעך מלך אל תקלל אמר ליה האי לאו מלך הוא אמר ליה וליהוי עשיר בעלמא וכתיב ובחדרי משכבך אל תקלל עשיר ולא יהא אלא נשיא וכתיב ונשיא בעמך לא תאר

Herod placed a garland made of porcupine hide on Bava ben Buta’s 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: “Do not curse the king, not even in your thoughts” (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: “And do not curse a rich person in your bedchamber” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). And even were he only a leader I would not curse him, as it is written: “And you shall not curse a leader among your people” (Exodus 22:27).

אמר ליה בעושה מעשה עמך והאי לאו עושה מעשה עמך אמר ליה מסתפינא מיניה אמר ליה ליכא איניש דאזיל דלימא ליה דאנא ואת יתיבנא אמר ליה כתיב כי עוף השמים יוליך את הקול ובעל כנפים יגיד דבר

Herod said to him: That halakha stated with regard to “a leader among your people,” 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: “For a bird of the sky shall carry the sound, and that which has wings shall tell the matter” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

אמר ליה אנא הוא אי הואי ידענא דזהרי רבנן כולי האי לא הוה קטילנא להו השתא מאי תקנתיה דההוא גברא אמר ליה הוא כבה אורו של עולם דכתיב כי נר מצוה ותורה אור ילך ויעסוק באורו של עולם דכתיב ונהרו אליו כל הגוים איכא דאמרי הכי אמר ליה הוא סימא עינו של עולם דכתיב והיה אם מעיני העדה ילך ויתעסק בעינו של עולם דכתיב הנני מחלל את מקדשי גאון עזכם מחמד עיניכם

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’s 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: “For the mitzva is a lamp, and the Torah is light” (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: “And all the nations shall flow [venaharu] unto it” (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: “And if it be committed through ignorance by the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24), should go and occupy himself with the eye of the world, the Temple, as it is written: “I will desecrate my Temple, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes” (Ezekiel 24:21).

אמר ליה מסתפינא ממלכותא אמר ליה שדר שליחא וליזיל שתא וליעכב שתא ולהדר שתא אדהכי והכי סתרית [ליה] ובניית [ליה] עבד הכי שלחו ליה אם לא סתרתה אל תסתור ואם סתרתה אל תבני ואם סתרתה ובנית עבדי בישא בתר דעבדין מתמלכין אם זיינך עלך ספרך כאן לא רכא ולא בר רכא הורדוס [עבדא] קלניא מתעביד

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].

מאי רכא מלכותא דכתיב אנכי היום רך ומשוח מלך ואי בעית אימא מהכא ויקראו לפניו אברך

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the word reikha? It denotes royalty, as it is written: “I am today a tender [rakh] and anointed king” (II 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: “And they cried before him, Avrekh” (Genesis 41:43).

אמרי מי שלא ראה בנין הורדוס לא ראה בנין נאה [מימיו] במאי בנייה אמר רבה באבני שישא ומרמרא איכא דאמרי באבני כוחלא שישא ומרמרא אפיק שפה ועייל שפה כי היכי דנקביל סידא סבר למשעייה בדהבא אמרו ליה רבנן שבקיה דהכי שפיר טפי דמיחזי כי אידוותא דימא

The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod’s 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.

ובבא בר בוטא היכי עבד הכי והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי יהושע בן לוי מפני מה נענש דניאל מפני שהשיא עצה לנבוכדנצר שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך וחטאיך בצדקה פרק ועויתך במחן ענין הן תהוי ארכא לשלותך וגו׳ וכתיב כלא מטא על נבוכדנצר מלכא וכתיב ולקצת ירחין תרי עשר וגו׳

The Gemara asks: And how did Bava ben Buta do this, i.e., give advice to Herod the wicked? But doesn’t 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: “Therefore, 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” (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” (Daniel 4:25). And it is written: “And at the end of twelve months” (Daniel 4:26). Only after a year was the prophecy fulfilled but not before that, apparently because Nebuchadnezzar heeded Daniel’s advice.

איבעית אימא שאני עבדא דאיחייב במצות ואיבעית אימא שאני בית המקדש דאי לא מלכות לא מתבני

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.

ודניאל מנלן דאיענש אילימא משום דכתיב ותקרא אסתר להתך ואמר רב התך זה דניאל הניחא למאן דאמר שחתכוהו מגדולתו אלא למאן דאמר שכל דברי מלכות נחתכין על פיו מאי איכא למימר דשדיוהו לגובא דארייוותא:

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Daniel was punished? If we say we know this because it is written: “And Esther called for Hatach, one of the king’s chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her” (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 [ḥatakh] 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 [ḥatakh] 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.

הכל כמנהג המדינה: הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי אתרא דנהיגי בהוצא ודפנא:

§ 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.

לפיכך אם נפל הכותל המקום והאבנים של שניהם: פשיטא לא צריכא דנפל לרשותא דחד מינייהו אי נמי דפנינהו חד לרשותא דידיה מהו דתימא ניהוי אידך המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה קא משמע לן:

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’t 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.

וכן בגינה מקום שנהגו לגדור מחייבין אותו: הא גופא קשיא אמרת וכן בגינה מקום שנהגו לגדור מחייבין אותו הא סתמא אין מחייבין אותו

§ 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.

אימא סיפא אבל בקעה מקום שנהגו שלא לגדור אין מחייבין אותו הא סתמא מחייבין אותו השתא סתם גינה אמרת לא סתם בקעה מיבעיא

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’s 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.

אמר אביי הכי קאמר וכן סתם גינה ובמקום שנהגו לגדור בבקעה מחייבין אותו אמר ליה רבא אם כן מאי אבל אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני וכן סתם גינה כמקום שנהגו לגדור דמי ומחייבין אותו אבל סתם בקעה כמקום שלא נהגו דמי ואין מחייבין אותו:

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.

אלא אם רצה כונס לתוך שלו ובונה ועושה חזית: מאי חזית אמר רב הונא אכפיה ליה לקרנא לבר ונעביד מלגיו עביד חבריה נמי מלבר ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי גייז ליה חבריה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא גיזוזא מידע ידיע

§ 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’s 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.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא מיכפא לקרנא מלגיו ונעבד מלבר גייז ליה חבריה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי לייף ליה חבריה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא ליפופא מידע ידיע והא מבחוץ קתני קשיא

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’t the mishna teach that he makes the border mark on the outside and not on the inside? The Gemara comments: This is a difficulty.

רבי יוחנן אמר

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

נשעייה באמתא מלבר וניעבד מלגיו עביד חבריה מלבר ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי דקפיל ליה חבריה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא קילופא מידע ידיע

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.

הוצא אמר רב נחמן סינופי יריכי מלבר וניעבד מלגיו עביד נמי חבריה מלבר ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי גייז ושדי ליה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא משריק ליה טינא השתא נמי אתי חבריה וקליף ליה קילופא מידע ידיע

The Gemara asks: If he builds a partition of palm branches, how does he make a border mark? Rav Naḥman 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.

אביי אמר הוצא לית ליה תקנתא אלא בשטרא:

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.

אבל אם עשו מדעת שניהם: אמר ליה רבא מפרזיקא לרב אשי לא יעשו לא זה ולא זה אמר ליה לא צריכא דקדים חד מנייהו ועבד דידיה ואי לא עביד חבריה אמר דידיה הוא

§ The mishna teaches: Nevertheless, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two people’s 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.

ותנא תקנתא לרמאי קא משמע לן אמר ליה ורישא לאו תקנתא לרמאי הוא

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’t the former clause of the mishna’s 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.

אמר ליה בשלמא רישא תנא דינא ומשום דינא תנא תקנתא אלא סיפא דינא קתני דקתני תקנתא אמר רבינא הכא בהוצי עסקינן לאפוקי מדאביי דאמר הוצא לית ליה תקנתא אלא בשטרא קא משמע לן דבחזית סגיא:

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.

מתני׳ המקיף את חבירו משלש רוחותיו וגדר את הראשונה ואת השניה ואת השלישית אין מחייבין אותו רבי יוסי אומר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל:

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’s 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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי דאמר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל לא שנא עמד ניקף לא שנא עמד מקיף

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.

איתמר רב הונא אמר הכל לפי מה שגדר חייא בר רב אמר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול

It was stated that the amora’im 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. Ḥiyya 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.

תנן המקיף את חבירו משלש רוחותיו וגדר את הראשונה ואת השניה ואת השלישית אין מחייבין אותו הא רביעית מחייבין אותו אימא סיפא רבי יוסי אומר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל

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’s 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.

בשלמא לרב הונא דאמר הכל לפי מה שגדר בה היינו דאיכא בין תנא קמא ורבי יוסי תנא קמא סבר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול אין ומה שגדר לא ורבי יוסי סבר הכל לפי מה שגדר

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.

אלא לחייא בר רב דאמר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול מאי איכא בין תנא קמא לרבי יוסי אי דמי קנים בזול לא קיהיב ליה מאי קיהיב ליה

But according to Ḥiyya 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?

אי בעית אימא אגר נטירא איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר אגר נטירא אין דמי קנים בזול לא ורבי יוסי סבר דמי קנים בזול

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’s 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’s share for all of the partitions in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds.

ואי בעית אימא ראשונה שניה ושלישית איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר רביעית הוא דיהיב ליה אבל ראשונה שניה ושלישית לא יהיב ליה ורבי יוסי סבר ראשונה שנייה ושלישית נמי יהיב ליה

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.

איבעית אימא מקיף וניקף איכא בינייהו דתנא קמא סובר טעמא דעמד ניקף דמגלגלין עליו את הכל אבל עמד מקיף אינו נותן לו אלא דמי רביעית

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.

ורבי יוסי סבר לא שנא ניקף ולא שנא מקיף אם עמד וגדר מגלגלין עליו את הכל

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.

לישנא אחרינא מקיף וניקף איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר אם גדר מקיף את הרביעית נמי יהיב ליה ורבי יוסי סבר אם עמד ניקף וגדר את הרביעית הוא דיהיב ליה דגלי דעתיה דניחא ליה אבל אם גדר מקיף לא יהיב ליה מידי

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.