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

Daf Yomi

July 1, 2024 | 讻状讛 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet聽Bava Batra is sponsored by聽Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z"l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Batra 6

Can one use a ma li l’shaker claim against a chazaka, as in the case where a creditor demands payment after the date of the loan was already due and the borrower claims that they returned a loan before loan’s due date? Do we believe the borrower since a better claim could have been made (that he/she paid back the loan on time) or is this not accepted since there is a chazaka, assumption that people do not repay loans before the due date? Three tannaitic sources are brought, two of them from our Mishna, to try to answer the question, but all attempts are rejected. If a dividing wall in a courtyard between two neighbors fell and one only wanted to rebuild to a height of four cubits and the other wanted it higher, one cannot force the other to share in the cost of the higher part of the wall. But if the neighbor who did not want to pay for the higher wall built a wall in their courtyard opposite the other at a higher height, indicating they want to connect the walls with a ceiling, they need to share the original wall’s cost. If the wall they built is shorter than the dividing wall (but above four cubits) or its length is shorter and only some of it is opposite the other wall, do they need to share the cost of the entire wall or only the part they will use? Rav Huna and Rav Nachman have different opinions on this issue. Although, there are particular cases where each side agrees with the other’s position. Rav Nachman and Rav Yosef also discuss different situations where one can assume or not assume that a neighbor agreed to permit usage of their wall to their neighbor. For example, if one permitted one’s neighbor to rest small beams on their wall (did not protest when the neighbor did that), does that mean they also would permit larger beams? If one rents a room in a large house, what other parts of the house can the renter use besides the room? If two neighbors live opposite each other, each is required to build a fence for the length of half their roof (each builds it on the half opposite the exposed half of the neighbor) to block the ability of each one to see into the other’s roof. Why is there a concern for neighbors looking in and not for people in the public domain looking in? What are the laws when a roof and a courtyard are at the same level opposite each other?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉


Or perhaps where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his share.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诇 砖驻讗 讜砖驻讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that one partner demanded that the other party pay the money after the time that the payment became due, i.e., after the wall was rebuilt, and the other partner said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, it is obvious that he is presumed to have given him the money. Rather, is it not a case where he said to him: I paid you within the time, i.e., before the payment became due? Apparently, even where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we say that the defendant can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, because the time to pay is upon the completion of each and every row. Therefore, it is as if he said: I paid you at the time that the payment became due.


转讗 砖诪注 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 住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讻讜壮 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the continuation of the mishna. The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the part of the wall that is above four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that was built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬 专讘谞谉


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that one partner demanded that the other party pay the money after the time that the payment became due, and he, the latter, said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, why is he not deemed credible? Rather, is it not that he said: I paid you within the time, before the payment became due? And with regard to this case, the mishna states that he is not deemed credible. Apparently, where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the defendant can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, since the reluctant neighbor says: Who says that the Rabbis will obligate me to pay for this additional part of the wall? In such a case he certainly does not pay before the payment becomes due. The mishna does not provide a proof one way or the other.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诐 讗诪专 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a mishna (Shevuot 38b): If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other one said to him in the presence of witnesses: Yes, that is so; and the next day the lender said to the borrower: Give me the money that you owe me, the halakha is as follows: If the borrower said: I already gave it to you, he is exempt. But if he said: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬:


The Gemara clarifies the matter: What, is it not that when he says: I already gave it to you, he is saying to him: I repaid you at the time that the payment became due; and when he says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is saying to him: I repaid you within the time, before the payment became due? And yet, the mishna teaches with regard to the latter case that he is liable. Apparently, where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, what does he mean when he says: Nothing of yours is in my possession? He is saying: There were never such matters; i.e., the purported loan never occurred. As the Master says: Anyone who says: I did not borrow, is treated as one who says: I did not repay, and since it is known by his own admission that he borrowed money, he is liable to pay.


住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住诪讱 诇驻诇讙讗 住诪讱 诇讻讜诇讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚住诪讱 住诪讱 诇诪讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讱 诇讗 住诪讱


搂 The mishna teaches: But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that was built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall. Rav Huna says: If he built another wall close to the first wall that was half the length or the height of the wall that was built higher than four cubits, it is as if he built it close to the height and length of the entire wall. Since he can easily add to his wall so that it will be equal in length or height to the wall the neighbor rebuilt, he must therefore pay half the cost of the entire rebuilt wall. And Rav Na岣an says: With regard to that which he built close, he built it close; with regard to that which he did not build close, he did not yet build it close. Accordingly, he is required to pay an additional share only for the part of the wall corresponding to the new wall he built.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘拽专谞讗 讜诇讜驻转讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讗驻专讬讝讗 讜讘拽讘注转讗 讚讻砖讜专讬


And Rav Huna concedes with regard to an attachment to the corner of his house that he is not required to pay half the cost of the entire rebuilt wall. If he built the extension of his house in this manner, it is not considered as if he built it close to the entire wall, as it is unlikely that he will add to it. And Rav Na岣an concedes that in a case in which he places a heavy beam [be鈥檃friza] on the wall that can support a roof, or carves into the wall indentations to fix beams in place, then even if he has not yet made use of the entire height of the wall, he has demonstrated his desire to do so in the future, and therefore he must pay half the cost of the entire wall.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬 讻讜讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 讛讬诪诇讟讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讬 驻讬讬住转 诇讬 诇讗 诇讬转专注 讗砖讬转讗讬


搂 The mishna teaches that if the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall. Rav Huna says: Even if openings in the wall were built on the side facing the reluctant partner and these openings are suited to serve as beam rests, this does not create a presumption that the reluctant partner contributed his share to the building of the wall. And this is the halakha even if the builder of the wall made sills for these openings. As the builder of the wall can say to his neighbor: I said to myself that when you will appease me and pay me for the construction of the wall, you might want to attach beams to it, and I do not want the foundations of my wall to be damaged by your fashioning new openings in it. Therefore, from the outset, I built the wall with these openings.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬 诇讻砖讜专讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬


With regard to the use of a neighbor鈥檚 wall, Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor鈥檚 wall, i.e., if one had used the wall in that manner in the past and the owner did not protest, so the one using it can maintain that he had acquired from the owner the right to do so, he has not acquired the privilege to place thick beams there. But if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams on the wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams there. Rav Yosef says: If he acquired the privilege to place thin beams, he also has acquired the privilege to place thick beams.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬 诇讻砖讜专讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬


There are those who say that Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor鈥檚 wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thick beams there; and if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams. This version of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement accords with the statement of Rav Yosef.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬


With regard to a similar matter, Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to let water drip from his roof into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let the water pour there through a drainpipe. If the neighbor did not protest about the water dripping from the roof into his courtyard, he would certainly allow him to build a drainpipe, which would limit the water to a single place. But if he acquired the privilege to let the water pour through a drainpipe into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has not acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof. And Rav Yosef says: Even if he acquired the privilege to let water pour there through a drainpipe, he also has acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 诇谞讟驻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讘诇 诇爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 注讘讚 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讜讘讚讗 讘爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬


There are those who say that Rav Na岣an said: If one acquired the privilege to let water pour through a drainpipe into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof; and if he acquired the privilege to let water drip from his roof into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let water pour there through a drainpipe. But he has not acquired the privilege to let water drip from a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. Rav Yosef said: He has acquired the privilege to let water drip there even from a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches. The Gemara comments: Rav Yosef performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches, allowing the neighbor to let water drip from there after he had acquired the privilege to use a drainpipe.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜


Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If one rents a room to another


讘讘讬专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖 讘讝讬讝讬讛 讜讘讻转诇讬讛 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘注讜讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讗讘诇 讘转专讘抓 讗驻讚谞讬 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讘抓 讗驻讚谞讬 讗讘诇 专讞讘讛 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讘转讬诐 诇讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 专讞讘讛 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讘转讬诐


in a large building with many residences, the renter may make use of the building鈥檚 projections and of the cavities in its external walls up to a distance of four cubits from his room, and he may make use of the thickness of the wall in a place where it is customary to do so. But as for making use of the building鈥檚 front garden [betarbatz], he may not do so. And Rav Na岣an himself said: He may make use of even the building鈥檚 front garden. But he may not use the yard that is at the back of the house. And Rava said: He may use even the yard that is at the back of the house.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讜专讗 讚诪讟诇诇转讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗讬 住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 注讚 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讘转专 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗讬 讞讘专讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛


Apropos the use of a wall between neighbors, Ravina says: If one鈥檚 beam supporting a covering for shade was resting on his neighbor鈥檚 wall for up to thirty days, there is no acquired privilege for him to continue using it, since the neighbor can claim that he had assumed that the beam was there only temporarily and for that reason he did not protest. But after thirty days, there is an acquired privilege. And if it was for a sukka that was being used for the mitzva on the festival of Sukkot, for up to seven days there is no acquired privilege for him to continue using it, since it is assumed that it is there for the mitzva and that after the Festival it will be removed. But if after seven days the neighbor did not protest, there is an acquired privilege for him to continue using it. And if the one using the beam attached it with clay, there is immediately such an acquired privilege.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讜讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讜诪注讚讬祝


Abaye says: If there were two houses on two sides of a public domain, this one, the owner of one of the houses, must build a fence for half his roof, and that one, the owner of the other house, must build a fence for half his roof. They must position the fences so that one fence is not opposite the other fence, and each one must add to his fence a little beyond the midway point, so that each one should not be able to see the activity on the other鈥檚 roof.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 讘注讬转 诇讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically the case of two houses on opposite sides of a public domain, considering that the same halakha should apply even if the two houses are separated by a private domain? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Abaye to mention a public domain, lest you say that one neighbor can say to the other: Ultimately, you need to conceal yourself from people in the public domain. Since in any event you have to build a fence across your entire roof, you cannot compel me to build a fence on my roof.


拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 讘讬诪诪讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讞讝讬转 诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬诐 讻讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 讞讝讬转 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讘讬谉 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 专讘讬诐 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞讜 讞讝讜 诇讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬谞讜 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 诪诪讬诇讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬转 诇讬


To counter this, Abaye teaches us that this is not so, because the second homeowner can say to the first in response: The public can see me only during the day, when pedestrians pass by, but they cannot see me at night. You, by contrast, can see me both during the day and at night. Alternatively, he can say: The public can see me from the street only when I am standing, but they cannot see me when I am sitting. You, by contrast, can see me both when I am standing and when I am sitting. And furthermore, the public can see me only when they look specifically at me, but they cannot see me when they do not look specifically at me, since the average pedestrian does not look up to see what is happening on the roofs. You, by contrast, can see me in any case, because you live opposite me.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讜讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讜诪注讚讬祝 驻砖讬讟讗


The Master, i.e., Abaye, said above: This one, the owner of one of the houses, must build a fence for half his roof, and that one, the owner of the other house, must build a fence for half his roof. They must position the fences so that one fence is not opposite the other fence, and each one must add to his fence a little beyond the midway point. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that each one must make a fence for half his roof?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 砖拽讜诇 讗讜讝讬谞拽讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 讗转 讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬转专注 讗砖讬转讱 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讬转专注 诇讬讛 讗砖讬转讗讬


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where one of them went ahead on his own and constructed a fence on half his roof, lest you say that the other can say to him: Take from me compensation for the expenditure [uzinka], and you build the entire fence, and in that way we will not invade one another鈥檚 privacy. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that the neighbor who built the fence for half his roof can say to him: What is the reason you do not want to build a fence? It is because the added weight will damage your house鈥檚 foundation. My foundation too will be damaged if I continue to build on my roof.


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 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讙讙 诇讙讙 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讝拽讜拽 诇诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛


Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If one鈥檚 roof is adjacent to his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he must build a fence on the roof four cubits high, so that he will not be able to see into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, but he is not required to build a fence between one roof and another roof. And Rav Na岣an himself says: He is not required to build a fence four cubits high on the roof, but he is required to build a partition that is ten handbreadths high.


诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘注讬谞谉 讗讬 诇谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 住讙讬讗 讗讬 诇讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讘讘转 专讗砖 住讙讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讘诪住讬驻住 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 [讗诪专 诪诪爪讜专讬 拽诪诪爪讬专谞讗] 讘诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: For what purpose, according to Rav Na岣an, does the neighbor have to build such a partition? If it is to prevent damage caused by exposure to the sight of others, we require a partition of four cubits. If it is to catch the neighbor as a thief, i.e., to set a boundary between the two properties so that any trespass will be construed as attempted theft, a mere partition of pegs suffices. And if it is to prevent kid goats and lambs from crossing from one roof to the other, a low partition that is high enough so that the goat or lamb will not be able to leap headlong from one roof to the other suffices. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is built to catch the neighbor as a thief. With a partition of pegs he can give an excuse and say that he was merely stretching himself, but with a partition of ten handbreadths he cannot give such an excuse.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞爪专讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛


The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If his courtyard was higher than the other鈥檚 roof, he is not required to attend to it. What, is it not teaching that he is not required to attend to it at all, i.e., that he need not build any type of fence? The Gemara answers: No, it means that he is not required to attend to building a partition of four cubits, but he must attend to building a partition of ten handbreadths, as maintained by Rav Na岣an.


讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讞转讜谉 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讜 讜注讜诇讛 讜注诇讬讜谉 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讜 讜注讜诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谉 诪住讬讬注 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讜谞讛


It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagree about the following case: If there are two adjoining courtyards, one higher than the other, Rav Huna says that the owner of the lower courtyard builds the wall separating the courtyards from his level and upward, and the owner of the upper courtyard builds the wall from his level and upward. And Rav 岣sda says: The owner of the upper courtyard assists the owner of the lower courtyard and builds from below, even including that part of the wall which is opposite the lower courtyard.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 讛专讬谞讬 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讬 讜注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讜


The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: If there were two adjoining courtyards, one higher than the other, the owner of the upper courtyard cannot say: I will build from my level and upward, but rather he assists the owner of the lower courtyard and builds from below. And if his courtyard is higher than the roof of his neighbor, he is not required to attend to it. The owner of the upper courtyard need not build a partition because people do not ordinarily use their roofs.


讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讞讚 讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 注讬诇讗讬 讜讞讚 讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 转转讗讬 讗讬转讘专 转转讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转转讗讬 诇注讬诇讗讬 转讗 讜谞讘谞讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 讚讗讬专谞讗


搂 It is related that two people were living in a two-story building; one was living in the upper story, and one was living in the lower one. The lower story began to collapse, its walls sinking into the ground to the point that it was no longer fit for dwelling. The owner of the lower story said to the owner of the upper story: Come and let us demolish the whole building and rebuild it together. The owner of the upper story said to him: I am living comfortably and am under no obligation to rebuild your residence.


  • Masechet聽Bava Batra is sponsored by聽Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z"l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Batra 鈥 2-8 鈥 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will begin with an introduction to Masechet Bava Batra. We will learn the law that neighbors must...
talking talmud_square

Bava Batra 6: Talmudic Building Code – Take 2

Rav Huna and Rav Yosef disagree over different types of chazakah of usage. Abaye teaches how to built houses next...
ayelet BAVA BATRA

Introduction to Masechet Bava Batra

Introduction to Masechet Bava Batra with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Listen here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroBavaBatraEnglish.mp3 Watch here: https://youtu.be/jezL_I3i-uo
siyum shas hanna thumb

The Value of Tractate Nezikin

Rabbanit Hanna Godinger (Dreyfuss) from Hadran's Siyum HsShas for Women, January 2020. This shiur is in Hebrew but subtitled in...

Bava Batra 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 6

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉


Or perhaps where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his share.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诇 砖驻讗 讜砖驻讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that one partner demanded that the other party pay the money after the time that the payment became due, i.e., after the wall was rebuilt, and the other partner said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, it is obvious that he is presumed to have given him the money. Rather, is it not a case where he said to him: I paid you within the time, i.e., before the payment became due? Apparently, even where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we say that the defendant can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, because the time to pay is upon the completion of each and every row. Therefore, it is as if he said: I paid you at the time that the payment became due.


转讗 砖诪注 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 住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讻讜壮 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the continuation of the mishna. The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the part of the wall that is above four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that was built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬 专讘谞谉


The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that one partner demanded that the other party pay the money after the time that the payment became due, and he, the latter, said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, why is he not deemed credible? Rather, is it not that he said: I paid you within the time, before the payment became due? And with regard to this case, the mishna states that he is not deemed credible. Apparently, where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the defendant can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, since the reluctant neighbor says: Who says that the Rabbis will obligate me to pay for this additional part of the wall? In such a case he certainly does not pay before the payment becomes due. The mishna does not provide a proof one way or the other.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诐 讗诪专 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a mishna (Shevuot 38b): If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other one said to him in the presence of witnesses: Yes, that is so; and the next day the lender said to the borrower: Give me the money that you owe me, the halakha is as follows: If the borrower said: I already gave it to you, he is exempt. But if he said: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬:


The Gemara clarifies the matter: What, is it not that when he says: I already gave it to you, he is saying to him: I repaid you at the time that the payment became due; and when he says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is saying to him: I repaid you within the time, before the payment became due? And yet, the mishna teaches with regard to the latter case that he is liable. Apparently, where there is a presumption against a person鈥檚 claim, we do not say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, what does he mean when he says: Nothing of yours is in my possession? He is saying: There were never such matters; i.e., the purported loan never occurred. As the Master says: Anyone who says: I did not borrow, is treated as one who says: I did not repay, and since it is known by his own admission that he borrowed money, he is liable to pay.


住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住诪讱 诇驻诇讙讗 住诪讱 诇讻讜诇讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚住诪讱 住诪讱 诇诪讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讱 诇讗 住诪讱


搂 The mishna teaches: But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that was built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall. Rav Huna says: If he built another wall close to the first wall that was half the length or the height of the wall that was built higher than four cubits, it is as if he built it close to the height and length of the entire wall. Since he can easily add to his wall so that it will be equal in length or height to the wall the neighbor rebuilt, he must therefore pay half the cost of the entire rebuilt wall. And Rav Na岣an says: With regard to that which he built close, he built it close; with regard to that which he did not build close, he did not yet build it close. Accordingly, he is required to pay an additional share only for the part of the wall corresponding to the new wall he built.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘拽专谞讗 讜诇讜驻转讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讗驻专讬讝讗 讜讘拽讘注转讗 讚讻砖讜专讬


And Rav Huna concedes with regard to an attachment to the corner of his house that he is not required to pay half the cost of the entire rebuilt wall. If he built the extension of his house in this manner, it is not considered as if he built it close to the entire wall, as it is unlikely that he will add to it. And Rav Na岣an concedes that in a case in which he places a heavy beam [be鈥檃friza] on the wall that can support a roof, or carves into the wall indentations to fix beams in place, then even if he has not yet made use of the entire height of the wall, he has demonstrated his desire to do so in the future, and therefore he must pay half the cost of the entire wall.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬 讻讜讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 讛讬诪诇讟讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讬 驻讬讬住转 诇讬 诇讗 诇讬转专注 讗砖讬转讗讬


搂 The mishna teaches that if the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall. Rav Huna says: Even if openings in the wall were built on the side facing the reluctant partner and these openings are suited to serve as beam rests, this does not create a presumption that the reluctant partner contributed his share to the building of the wall. And this is the halakha even if the builder of the wall made sills for these openings. As the builder of the wall can say to his neighbor: I said to myself that when you will appease me and pay me for the construction of the wall, you might want to attach beams to it, and I do not want the foundations of my wall to be damaged by your fashioning new openings in it. Therefore, from the outset, I built the wall with these openings.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬 诇讻砖讜专讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬


With regard to the use of a neighbor鈥檚 wall, Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor鈥檚 wall, i.e., if one had used the wall in that manner in the past and the owner did not protest, so the one using it can maintain that he had acquired from the owner the right to do so, he has not acquired the privilege to place thick beams there. But if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams on the wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams there. Rav Yosef says: If he acquired the privilege to place thin beams, he also has acquired the privilege to place thick beams.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讻砖讜专讬 诇讻砖讜专讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜专讚讬


There are those who say that Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor鈥檚 wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thick beams there; and if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams. This version of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement accords with the statement of Rav Yosef.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 诇讗 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬


With regard to a similar matter, Rav Na岣an says: If one acquired the privilege to let water drip from his roof into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let the water pour there through a drainpipe. If the neighbor did not protest about the water dripping from the roof into his courtyard, he would certainly allow him to build a drainpipe, which would limit the water to a single place. But if he acquired the privilege to let the water pour through a drainpipe into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has not acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof. And Rav Yosef says: Even if he acquired the privilege to let water pour there through a drainpipe, he also has acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇谞讟驻讬 诇谞讟驻讬 讗讞讝讬拽 诇砖驻讻讬 讗讘诇 诇爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 诇讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬 注讘讚 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讜讘讚讗 讘爪专讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讘谞讬


There are those who say that Rav Na岣an said: If one acquired the privilege to let water pour through a drainpipe into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let water drip there from his roof; and if he acquired the privilege to let water drip from his roof into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let water pour there through a drainpipe. But he has not acquired the privilege to let water drip from a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. Rav Yosef said: He has acquired the privilege to let water drip there even from a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches. The Gemara comments: Rav Yosef performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a hut whose roof is composed of willow branches, allowing the neighbor to let water drip from there after he had acquired the privilege to use a drainpipe.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜


Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If one rents a room to another


讘讘讬专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖 讘讝讬讝讬讛 讜讘讻转诇讬讛 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘注讜讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讗讘诇 讘转专讘抓 讗驻讚谞讬 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讘抓 讗驻讚谞讬 讗讘诇 专讞讘讛 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讘转讬诐 诇讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 专讞讘讛 砖讗讞讜专讬 讛讘转讬诐


in a large building with many residences, the renter may make use of the building鈥檚 projections and of the cavities in its external walls up to a distance of four cubits from his room, and he may make use of the thickness of the wall in a place where it is customary to do so. But as for making use of the building鈥檚 front garden [betarbatz], he may not do so. And Rav Na岣an himself said: He may make use of even the building鈥檚 front garden. But he may not use the yard that is at the back of the house. And Rava said: He may use even the yard that is at the back of the house.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讜专讗 讚诪讟诇诇转讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗讬 住讜讻讛 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 注讚 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讘转专 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讗讬 讞讘专讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛


Apropos the use of a wall between neighbors, Ravina says: If one鈥檚 beam supporting a covering for shade was resting on his neighbor鈥檚 wall for up to thirty days, there is no acquired privilege for him to continue using it, since the neighbor can claim that he had assumed that the beam was there only temporarily and for that reason he did not protest. But after thirty days, there is an acquired privilege. And if it was for a sukka that was being used for the mitzva on the festival of Sukkot, for up to seven days there is no acquired privilege for him to continue using it, since it is assumed that it is there for the mitzva and that after the Festival it will be removed. But if after seven days the neighbor did not protest, there is an acquired privilege for him to continue using it. And if the one using the beam attached it with clay, there is immediately such an acquired privilege.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讜讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讜诪注讚讬祝


Abaye says: If there were two houses on two sides of a public domain, this one, the owner of one of the houses, must build a fence for half his roof, and that one, the owner of the other house, must build a fence for half his roof. They must position the fences so that one fence is not opposite the other fence, and each one must add to his fence a little beyond the midway point, so that each one should not be able to see the activity on the other鈥檚 roof.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 讘注讬转 诇讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically the case of two houses on opposite sides of a public domain, considering that the same halakha should apply even if the two houses are separated by a private domain? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Abaye to mention a public domain, lest you say that one neighbor can say to the other: Ultimately, you need to conceal yourself from people in the public domain. Since in any event you have to build a fence across your entire roof, you cannot compel me to build a fence on my roof.


拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 讘讬诪诪讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讞讝讬转 诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬诐 讻讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 讞讝讬转 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讘讬谉 讻讬 讬转讬讘谞讗 专讘讬诐 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞讜 讞讝讜 诇讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬谞讜 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬 讗转 诪诪讬诇讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬转 诇讬


To counter this, Abaye teaches us that this is not so, because the second homeowner can say to the first in response: The public can see me only during the day, when pedestrians pass by, but they cannot see me at night. You, by contrast, can see me both during the day and at night. Alternatively, he can say: The public can see me from the street only when I am standing, but they cannot see me when I am sitting. You, by contrast, can see me both when I am standing and when I am sitting. And furthermore, the public can see me only when they look specifically at me, but they cannot see me when they do not look specifically at me, since the average pedestrian does not look up to see what is happening on the roofs. You, by contrast, can see me in any case, because you live opposite me.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讜讝讛 注讜砖讛 诪注拽讛 诇讞爪讬 讙讙讜 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讜诪注讚讬祝 驻砖讬讟讗


The Master, i.e., Abaye, said above: This one, the owner of one of the houses, must build a fence for half his roof, and that one, the owner of the other house, must build a fence for half his roof. They must position the fences so that one fence is not opposite the other fence, and each one must add to his fence a little beyond the midway point. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that each one must make a fence for half his roof?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 砖拽讜诇 讗讜讝讬谞拽讗 讜注讘讚讬讛 讗转 讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬转专注 讗砖讬转讱 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讬转专注 诇讬讛 讗砖讬转讗讬


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where one of them went ahead on his own and constructed a fence on half his roof, lest you say that the other can say to him: Take from me compensation for the expenditure [uzinka], and you build the entire fence, and in that way we will not invade one another鈥檚 privacy. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that the neighbor who built the fence for half his roof can say to him: What is the reason you do not want to build a fence? It is because the added weight will damage your house鈥檚 foundation. My foundation too will be damaged if I continue to build on my roof.


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 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪注拽讛 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讙讙 诇讙讙 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讝拽讜拽 诇诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛


Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If one鈥檚 roof is adjacent to his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, he must build a fence on the roof four cubits high, so that he will not be able to see into his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard, but he is not required to build a fence between one roof and another roof. And Rav Na岣an himself says: He is not required to build a fence four cubits high on the roof, but he is required to build a partition that is ten handbreadths high.


诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘注讬谞谉 讗讬 诇谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 住讙讬讗 讗讬 诇讙讚讬讬诐 讜讟诇讗讬诐 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讘讘转 专讗砖 住讙讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讘诪住讬驻住 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 [讗诪专 诪诪爪讜专讬 拽诪诪爪讬专谞讗] 讘诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: For what purpose, according to Rav Na岣an, does the neighbor have to build such a partition? If it is to prevent damage caused by exposure to the sight of others, we require a partition of four cubits. If it is to catch the neighbor as a thief, i.e., to set a boundary between the two properties so that any trespass will be construed as attempted theft, a mere partition of pegs suffices. And if it is to prevent kid goats and lambs from crossing from one roof to the other, a low partition that is high enough so that the goat or lamb will not be able to leap headlong from one roof to the other suffices. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is built to catch the neighbor as a thief. With a partition of pegs he can give an excuse and say that he was merely stretching himself, but with a partition of ten handbreadths he cannot give such an excuse.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞爪专讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇诪讞讬爪转 注砖专讛


The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If his courtyard was higher than the other鈥檚 roof, he is not required to attend to it. What, is it not teaching that he is not required to attend to it at all, i.e., that he need not build any type of fence? The Gemara answers: No, it means that he is not required to attend to building a partition of four cubits, but he must attend to building a partition of ten handbreadths, as maintained by Rav Na岣an.


讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讞转讜谉 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讜 讜注讜诇讛 讜注诇讬讜谉 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讜 讜注讜诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谉 诪住讬讬注 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讜谞讛


It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagree about the following case: If there are two adjoining courtyards, one higher than the other, Rav Huna says that the owner of the lower courtyard builds the wall separating the courtyards from his level and upward, and the owner of the upper courtyard builds the wall from his level and upward. And Rav 岣sda says: The owner of the upper courtyard assists the owner of the lower courtyard and builds from below, even including that part of the wall which is opposite the lower courtyard.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 讛专讬谞讬 讘讜谞讛 诪讻谞讙讚讬 讜注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讞爪专讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讜


The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: If there were two adjoining courtyards, one higher than the other, the owner of the upper courtyard cannot say: I will build from my level and upward, but rather he assists the owner of the lower courtyard and builds from below. And if his courtyard is higher than the roof of his neighbor, he is not required to attend to it. The owner of the upper courtyard need not build a partition because people do not ordinarily use their roofs.


讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讞讚 讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 注讬诇讗讬 讜讞讚 讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 转转讗讬 讗讬转讘专 转转讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转转讗讬 诇注讬诇讗讬 转讗 讜谞讘谞讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 讚讗讬专谞讗


搂 It is related that two people were living in a two-story building; one was living in the upper story, and one was living in the lower one. The lower story began to collapse, its walls sinking into the ground to the point that it was no longer fit for dwelling. The owner of the lower story said to the owner of the upper story: Come and let us demolish the whole building and rebuild it together. The owner of the upper story said to him: I am living comfortably and am under no obligation to rebuild your residence.


Scroll To Top