Bava Batra 7

אמר ליה איסתריה אנא ואבנייה אמר לית לי דוכתא למידר בה אמר ליה אנא אוגר לך דוכתא אמר ליה לא טרחנא לא קא מתדר לי שוף אכריסך ועול ושוף אכריסך ופוק

The owner of the lower story said to him: I will dismantle the structure and rebuild it. The owner of the upper story said: But then I will have no place to live while you are renovating. The owner of the lower story said to him: I will rent a place for you to live for the duration. The owner of the upper story said to him: I do not want to bother with moving. The owner of the lower story said to him: But I cannot live in my apartment in this condition, as the walls have sunk into the ground. The owner of the upper story said to him: That is not my problem. Crawl on your stomach to go in, and crawl on your stomach to go out.

אמר רב חמא בדינא קא מעכב והני מילי דלא מטו כשורי למטה מעשרה אבל מטו כשורי למטה מעשרה מצי אמר ליה למטה מעשרה רשותא דידי הוא ולא משעבד לך

Rav Ḥama said: By law, the owner of the upper story can prevent his downstairs neighbor from rebuilding. The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only when the beams supporting the second story have not reached lower than ten handbreadths from the ground. But if those beams have reached lower than ten handbreadths from the ground, the owner of the lower story can say to the owner of the upper story: Below ten handbreadths is my domain and my domain is not bound to you to support your residence.

והני מילי דלא אתנו גבי הדדי אבל אתנו גבי הדדי סתרי ובנו

The Gemara further comments: And this statement, that the owner of the upper story can prevent his downstairs neighbor from rebuilding, applies only when they did not stipulate with each other that if the house sinks they will rebuild the house anew. But if they made such a stipulation with each other, they must dismantle the house and rebuild it.

וכי אתנו בהדי הדדי עד כמה אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבה משמיה דמר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן דאמר משמיה דרב נחמן כאותה ששנינו רומו כחצי ארכו וכחצי רחבו אמר להו רבה לאו אמינא לכו לא תיתלו ביה בוקי סריקי ברב נחמן הכי אמר רב נחמן כי דדיירי אינשי וכמה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כי היכי דעיילי איסוריתא דמחוזא והדר

The Gemara asks: And if they made such a stipulation with each other, to what extent must the ceiling of the lower story drop before they implement the stipulation? The Sages said before Rabba in the name of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Rav Naḥman: Like that which we learned in a mishna (98b): If one takes upon himself to build a house for another person, without stipulating its dimensions, its height must be equal to the sum of half its length and half its width. Rabba said to them: Did I not tell you not to hang empty pitchers on Rav Naḥman, meaning not to attribute foolish opinions to him? Rather, this is what Rav Naḥman said: As people normally live, and no more. And how much space is that? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The ceiling of the lower story must be high enough so that one could bring in bundles of reeds of the type made in Meḥoza and be able to turn around.

ההוא גברא דהוה בני אשיתא אחורי כווי דחבריה אמר ליה קא מאפלת עלי אמר ליה סכרנא לך הכא ועבידנא לך כווי לעיל מאשיתאי אמר ליה קא מרעת ליה לאשיתאי אמר ליה סתרנא לך לאשיתך עד דוכתא דכווי ובנינא לה ועבידנא לך כווי בבנינא לעיל מאשיתאי אמר ליה אשיתא מתתאה עתיקא ומלעיל חדתא לא קיימא

It is further related that a certain man built a wall outside the windows of his neighbor. The neighbor said to him: You are blocking the light with your wall and darkening my house. The one who built the wall said to him: I will seal your windows here and make new windows for you in your wall above the wall that I am building. The neighbor said to him: By doing so you will damage my wall. The one who built the wall said to him: I will demolish your wall until the level of the windows and rebuild it, and then I will make windows for you in the new part of the building above my wall. The neighbor said to him: A wall that is old at the bottom and new at the top will not endure.

אמר ליה סתרנא לה עד לארעא ובנינא לה ועבידנא לך כווי בגוה אמר ליה חדא אשיתא חדתא בכוליה ביתא עתיקא לא קיימא אמר ליה סתרנא לה לכוליה ביתא ובנינא לך כווי בבנינא אמר ליה לית לי דוכתא למידר בה אמר ליה אגירנא לך דוכתא אמר ליה לא טרחנא אמר רב חמא בדין קא מעכב

The one who built the wall said to him: I will demolish the wall until the ground and entirely rebuild it, and then I will make windows for you in it above my wall. The neighbor said to him: One new wall in an old house will not endure. The one who built the wall said to him: I will demolish your entire house and put windows in the new building that I will erect in its place. The neighbor said to him: But in the meantime I will have no place to live. The one who built the wall said to him: I will rent a place for you to live. The neighbor said to him: I do not want to bother with moving. Rav Ḥama said: By law, the neighbor can prevent him from building the wall.

היינו הך והא תו למה לי הא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דלא משתמש אלא תיבנא ובי ציבי בעלמא

The Gemara asks: This case is identical to that case; this case is very similar to the previous case of the owner of the upper story who can prevent the owner of the lower story from rebuilding. Why do I need this additional case? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even if he uses the house only for storing straw and wood, he can still maintain that blocking the light causes him damage and can prevent the neighbor from erecting the wall.

הנהו בי תרי אחי דפלגי בהדי הדדי חד מטייה אספלידא וחד מטייה תרביצא אזל ההוא דמטייה תרביצא וקא בני אשיתא אפומא דאספלידא אמר ליה קא מאפלת עלי אמר ליה בדידי קא בנינא אמר רב חמא בדין קאמר ליה

The Gemara further relates: There were two brothers who divided their father’s estate between them. One received a hall [aspelida] in his share and one received a garden. The one who received the garden went and built a wall in front of the opening of the hall. His brother said to him: You are blocking the light with your wall and darkening my house. The one who received the garden said to him: I am building on my property. Rav Ḥama said: By right he said that to him, as it is permitted for him to build there.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי מאי שנא מהא דתניא שני אחין שחלקו אחד מהן נטל שדה כרם ואחד מהן נטל שדה לבן יש לו לבעל הכרם ארבע אמות בשדה לבן שעל מנת כן חלקו

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this different from that which is taught in a baraita: If two brothers divided their father’s estate between them, one of them taking a vineyard and the other one taking a grain field, the owner of the vineyard has the right to an area four cubits wide in the grain field for the purpose of working the vineyard, since it was on that condition that they divided the estate. Why in this case does the owner of the hall not have the right to make use of the light coming in from the garden?

אמר ליה התם דעלו להדדי אבל הכא מאי דלא עלו להדדי וכי בשופטני עסקינן דהאי שקיל אספלידא והאי שקיל תרביצא ולא עלו להדדי אמר ליה נהי דעלו להדדי דמי ליבני כשורי והודרי דמי אוירא לא עלו להדדי

Rav Ashi said to him: There, the reason is that they made an assessment with each other with regard to the value of the fields, arranging for compensation if one received more than the other, and they took the work area into account. Ravina asked: But what did they do here? Did they not make an assessment with each other? Are we dealing with fools, that this one took the valuable hall and the other one took the much less valuable garden without making an assessment with each other? Rav Ashi said to him: Although they assessed with each other the value of the bricks, the beams, and the boards, they did not assess with each other the value of the airspace. With regard to that, each one retained full rights to his respective airspace.

ולימא ליה מעיקרא אספלידא פלגת לי השתא משוית לי אידרונא אמר רב שימי בר אשי שמא בעלמא פלג ליה

The Gemara says: And let the one who received the hall say to the other: Initially, you gave me a well-lit hall; now you are making it into a small dark room [idrona]. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: He gave him only a place that is called a hall by name, that is, a place that is called a hall even though it is no longer used that way.

מי לא תניא האומר בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך אף על פי שאינו אלא לתך הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמיתקרי בית כור פרדס אני מוכר לך אף על פי שאין בו רמונים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמיתקרי פרדס כרם אני מוכר לך אף על פי שאין בו גפנים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמיתקרי כרמא

Rav Ashi continues: Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor of dirt, it becomes his even if it is only a letekh, i.e., a half-kor, and the sale is not void, because he sold him only a place that is called a beit kor by name. The Gemara comments: And this ruling applies only as long as the land he is selling him is actually called a beit kor. Similarly, if he says to him: I am selling you an orchard, it becomes his even if it lacks pomegranates, because he sold him only a place that is called an orchard by name. The Gemara comments: And this applies only as long as the land he is selling is actually called an orchard. And similarly, if he says to him: I am selling you a vineyard, it becomes his even if it lacks grapevines, because he sold him only a place that is called a vineyard by name. The Gemara comments: And this applies only as long as the land he is selling is actually called a vineyard.

מי דמי התם מצי אמר ליה מוכר ללוקח שמא זביני לך הכא מצי אמר ליה אדעתא דהכי פלגי דדאירנא ביה כי היכי דדרו אבהתן

The Gemara rejects this argument: Are these cases comparable? There, the seller can say to the buyer: I sold you only a place that is called that by name; here, the one who received the hall can say to his brother: I took this portion as my share on condition that I would live there the way our fathers lived there, and that you would not change that by blocking the light entering through the windows.

אמרו ליה

With regard to Rav Ḥama’s ruling that it is permitted for the brother who received the garden to build a wall in front of the hall, they said to him,

מר ינוקא ומר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי נהרדעי לטעמייהו דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל האחין שחלקו אין להן לא דרך זה על זה

i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of-way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field.

ולא חלונות זה על זה ולא סולמות זה על זה ולא אמת המים זה על זה והזהרו בהן שהלכות קבועות הן ורבא אמר יש להן:

Shmuel continues: Nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other’s property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other’s property. And be careful with these, since they are established halakhot. Rava says: The brothers do have all of the aforementioned rights. Rav Ḥama agrees with Shmuel’s opinion, that each brother can do as he pleases on his own property without the other one preventing him from doing so.

ההוא שטרא דיתמי דנפיק עליה תברא אמר רב חמא אגבויי לא מגבינן ליה ומיקרע לא קרעינן ליה אגבויי לא מגבינן ליה דנפק תברא עליה מיקרע לא קרעינן ליה דכי גדלי יתמי דילמא מייתו ראיה ומרעי ליה

Since Rav Ḥama’s rulings were mentioned, the Gemara cites another halakhic ruling in his name. There was a certain promissory note inherited by orphans from their father, stating that somebody owed them money, against which a receipt was produced by the borrower, stating that the debt was already paid. Rav Ḥama said: We cannot use the note to collect the debt on behalf of the orphans, nor can we tear it up. The Gemara explains: We cannot collect with the note because a receipt against it was produced by the borrower; and we cannot tear the note up because perhaps when the orphans grow up they will bring proof that the receipt was forged and undermine it.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרבינא הלכתא מאי אמר ליה בכולהו הלכתא כרב חמא לבר מתברא דסהדי בשקרי לא מחזקינן

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Ravina: What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: In all the cases in this discussion, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, except for the case of the receipt, because we do not presume that the witnesses are liars. Since witnesses signed the receipt, the court trusts that the debt was paid and they tear up the promissory note.

מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי אמר בהא נמי הלכתא כרב חמא דאם איתא דתברא מעליא הוא איבעי ליה לאפוקי בחיי אבוהון ומדלא אפקיה שמע מינה זיופי זייפיה:

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: In this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, because the validity of the receipt is in doubt. As, if it is so that it is a valid receipt, the borrower should have produced it during their father’s lifetime. And since he did not produce it at the proper time, we learn from this that he may have forged it. Even though this is not an absolute proof, it is sufficient reason not to tear up the promissory note.

מתני׳ כופין אותו לבנות בית שער ודלת לחצר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל החצרות ראויות לבית שער כופין אותו לבנות לעיר חומה ודלתים ובריח רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל העיירות ראויות לחומה

MISHNA: The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall.

כמה יהא בעיר ויהא כאנשי העיר שנים עשר חדש קנה בה בית דירה הרי הוא כאנשי העיר מיד:

With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.

גמ׳ למימרא דבית שער מעליותא היא והא ההוא חסידא דהוה רגיל אליהו דהוה משתעי בהדיה עבד בית שער ותו לא משתעי בהדיה לא קשיא הא מגואי הא מבראי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that making a gatehouse is beneficial? But wasn’t there that pious man, with whom the prophet Elijah was accustomed to speak, who built a gatehouse, and after-ward Elijah did not speak with him again? The objection to the building of a gatehouse is that the guard who mans it prevents the poor from entering and asking for charity. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, the case presented in the mishna, is referring to a gatehouse built on the inside of the courtyard, in which case the poor can at least reach the courtyard’s entrance and be heard inside the courtyard; that, the story of the pious man and Elijah, involves a gatehouse that was built on the outside of the courtyard, completely blocking the poor’s access to the courtyard’s entrance.

ואי בעית אימא הא והא מבראי ולא קשיא הא דאית ליה דלת הא דלית ליה דלת אי בעית אימא הא והא דאית ליה דלת ולא קשיא הא דאית ליה פותחת הא דלית ליה פותחת אי בעית אימא הא והא דאית ליה פותחת ולא קשיא הא דפותחת דידיה מגואי הא דפותחת דידיה מבראי:

And if you wish, say instead that in both cases the gatehouse was built outside the courtyard, and yet this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a door to the gatehouse, so that the poor cannot be heard inside the courtyard, while in the other case there is no door. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a door, and still this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a key needed to open the door, and the key is not available to the poor people, whereas in the other case, there is no key needed. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a key needed, and even so this is not difficult: In the one case the key is on the inside, so that the poor cannot reach it, while in the other case of the mishna, the key is on the outside.

כופין אותו לבנות בית שער ודלת לחצר: תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל חצרות ראויות לבית שער אלא חצר הסמוכה לרשות הרבים ראויה לבית שער ושאינה סמוכה לרשות הרבים אינה ראויה לבית שער ורבנן זימנין דדחקי בני רשות הרבים ועיילו ואתו:

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse. Rather, a courtyard that adjoins the public domain requires a gatehouse to prevent people from peering in. But a courtyard that does not adjoin the public domain does not require a gatehouse. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a courtyard does not adjoin the public domain, people in the public domain sometimes are forced toward the courtyard due to crowding in the public domain, and come and enter the courtyard.

כופין אותו לבנות לעיר כו׳: תנו רבנן כופין אותו לעשות לעיר דלתים ובריח ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא כל העיירות ראויות לחומה אלא עיר הסמוכה לספר ראויה לחומה ושאינה סמוכה לספר אינה ראויה לחומה ורבנן זימנין דמקרו ואתי גייסא

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. The Sages taught in a baraita: The residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to build double doors and a crossbar for the city. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities require a wall. Rather, a city that adjoins the state border requires a wall, whereas a city that does not adjoin the state border does not require a wall. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a city does not adjoin the border, it sometimes happens that invading troops come into the area. Therefore, it is always good for a city to be protected by a wall.

בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרבי יוחנן כשהן גובין לפי נפשות גובין או דילמא לפי שבח ממון גובין אמר ליה לפי ממון גובין ואלעזר בני קבע בה מסמרות

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When the residents of the city collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the number of people living in each house, or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the net worth of each person, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this, i.e., this is an established halakha, and you must not veer from it.

איכא דאמרי בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרבי יוחנן כשהן גובין לפי קירוב בתים הן גובין או דילמא לפי ממון גובין אמר ליה לפי קירוב בתים הן גובין ואלעזר בני קבע בה מסמרות

There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When they collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, so that those people who live closer to the wall pay more? Or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this.

רבי יהודה נשיאה רמא דשורא אדרבנן אמר ריש לקיש רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא דכתיב אספרם מחול ירבון אספרם למאן אילימא לצדיקים דנפישי מחלא השתא כולהו ישראל כתיב בהו כחול אשר על שפת הים צדיקים עצמם מחול ירבון

§ It is related that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia once imposed payment of the tax for the wall even on the Sages. Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require protection, as it is written: “How precious are your dear ones to me, O God…If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psalms 139:17–18). If I should count whom? If we say this is referring to the righteous, and the verse is saying that they are greater in number than the grains of sand, this is difficult. Now if it is written about all of Israel: “As the sand which is upon the seashore” (Genesis 22:17), can the righteous themselves, who are a part of Israel, be greater in number than the grains of sand? How can they possibly outnumber the grains of sand upon the seashore?

אלא הכי קאמר אספרם למעשיהם של צדיקים מחול ירבון וקל וחומר ומה חול שמועט מגין על הים מעשיהם של צדיקים שהם מרובים לא כל שכן שמגינים עליהם

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: If I should count the deeds of the righteous, they are greater in number than the grains of sand. And it follows by an a fortiori inference: If the grains of sand, which are fewer in number, protect the shore from the sea, barring it from flowing inland (see Jeremiah 5:22), do not all the more so the deeds of the righteous, which are greater in number, protect them? Consequently the Sages do not need additional protection.

כי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא תימא ליה מהא אני חומה ושדי כמגדלות אני חומה זו תורה ושדי כמגדלות

When Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and reported the exchange to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the reason that you did not quote this verse to him: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10), which may be explained as follows: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”;