Bava Batra 7
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֶיסְתְּרֵיהּ אֲנָא וְאֶבְנְיֵיהּ״. אֲמַר: ״לֵית לִי דּוּכְתָּא לְמֵידַר בַּהּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא אוֹגַר לָךְ דּוּכְתָּא״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָא טָרַחְנָא״. ״לָא קָא מִתְּדַר לִי״. ״שׁוּף אַכְּרֵיסָךְ וְעוּל, וָשׁוּף אַכְּרֵיסָךְ וּפוֹק״.
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.
אָמַר רַב חָמָא: בְּדִינָא קָא מְעַכֵּב. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא מָטוּ כְּשׁוּרֵי לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל מָטוּ כְּשׁוּרֵי לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה רְשׁוּתָא דִידִי הוּא, וְלָא מְשַׁעְבַּד לָךְ.
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.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא אַתְנוֹ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל אַתְנוֹ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי – סָתְרִי וּבָנוּ.
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.
וְכִי אַתְנוֹ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי – עַד כַּמָּה? אָמְרוּ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, כְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: רוּמוֹ – כַּחֲצִי אׇרְכּוֹ וְכַחֲצִי רׇחְבּוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה, לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ: לָא תִּיתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ בּוּקֵי סְרִיקֵי בְּרַב נַחְמָן?! הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כִּי דְּדָיְירִי אִינָשֵׁי. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּעָיְילִי אִיסּוּרְיָתָא דְמָחוֹזָא, וְהָדַר.
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.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה בָּנֵי אֲשִׁיתָא אֲחוֹרֵי כַּוֵּוי דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ: קָא מַאַפְלַתְּ עֲלַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סָכַרְנָא לָךְ הָכָא, וְעָבֵידְנָא לָךְ כַּוֵּוי לְעֵיל מֵאֲשִׁיתַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא מַרַעְתְּ לֵיהּ לַאֲשִׁיתַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סָתַרְנָא לָךְ לַאֲשִׁיתָךְ עַד דּוּכְתָּא דְכַוֵּוי, וּבָנֵינָא לַהּ, וְעָבֵידְנָא לָךְ כַּוֵּוי בְּבִנְיָנָא – לְעֵיל מֵאֲשִׁיתַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲשִׁיתָא מִתַּתָּאָה עַתִּיקָא, וּמִלְּעֵיל חַדְתָּא – לָא קָיְימָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סָתַרְנָא לַהּ עַד לְאַרְעָא, וּבָנֵינָא לַהּ, וְעָבֵידְנָא לָךְ כַּוֵּוי בְּגַוַּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא אֲשִׁיתָא חַדְתָּא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בֵּיתָא עַתִּיקָא, לָא קָיְימָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ: סָתַרְנָא לַהּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ בֵּיתָא, וּבָנֵינָא לָךְ כַּוֵּוי בְּבִנְיָנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לִי דּוּכְתָּא לְמֵידַר בַּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָגַירְנָא לָךְ דּוּכְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא טָרַחְנָא. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: בְּדִין קָא מְעַכֵּב.
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.
הַיְינוּ הָךְ – וְהָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אֶלָּא תִּיבְנָא וּבֵי צִיבֵי בְּעָלְמָא.
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.
הָנְהוּ בֵּי תְרֵי אַחֵי דְּפָלְגִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי; חַד מַטְיֵיהּ אִסְפְּלִידָא, וְחַד מַטְיֵיהּ תַּרְבִּיצָא. אֲזַל הָהוּא דְּמַטְיֵיהּ תַּרְבִּיצָא, וְקָא בָנֵי אֲשִׁיתָא אַפּוּמָּא דְאִסְפְּלִידָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא מַאַפְלַתְּ עֲלַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּדִידִי קָא בָנֵינָא. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: בְּדִין קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָטַל שְׂדֵה כֶרֶם וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן נָטַל שְׂדֵה לָבָן – יֵשׁ לוֹ לְבַעַל הַכֶּרֶם אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן חָלְקוּ?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם דְּעַלּוּ לַהֲדָדֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא – מַאי, דְּלָא עַלּוּ לַהֲדָדֵי? וְכִי בְּשׁוּפְטָנֵי עָסְקִינַן – דְּהַאי שָׁקֵיל אִסְפְּלִידָא וְהַאי שָׁקֵיל תַּרְבִּיצָא, וְלָא עַלּוּ לַהֲדָדֵי?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְהִי דְּעַלּוּ לַהֲדָדֵי דְּמֵי לִיבְנֵי, כְּשׁוּרֵי וְהוּדְרֵי; דְּמֵי אַוֵּירָא לָא עַלּוּ לַהֲדָדֵי.
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.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מֵעִיקָּרָא אִסְפְּלִידָא פְּלַגְתְּ לִי, הַשְׁתָּא מְשַׁוֵּית לִי אִידְּרוֹנָא! אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא פְּלַג לֵיהּ.
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.
מִי לָא תַּנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר: ״בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא; וְהוּא דְּמִיתְקְרֵי ״בֵּית כּוֹר״. ״פַּרְדֵּס אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רִמּוֹנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא; וְהוּא דְּמִיתְקְרֵי ״פַּרְדֵּס״. ״כֶּרֶם אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ גְּפָנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא; וְהוּא דְּמִיתְקְרֵי ״כַּרְמָא״?!
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.
מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם, מָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ מוֹכֵר לְלוֹקֵחַ: שְׁמָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ; הָכָא, מָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי פְּלַגִי – דְּדָאֵירְנָא בֵּיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּדָרוּ אֲבָהָתַן.
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.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ
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,
מָר יָנוֹקָא וּמָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: נְהַרְדָּעֵי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ – אֵין לָהֶן לֹא דֶּרֶךְ זֶה עַל זֶה,
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.
וְלֹא חַלּוֹנוֹת זֶה עַל זֶה, וְלֹא סוּלָּמוֹת זֶה עַל זֶה, וְלֹא אַמַּת הַמַּיִם זֶה עַל זֶה, וְהִזָּהֲרוּ בָּהֶן שֶׁהֲלָכוֹת קְבוּעוֹת הֵן. וְרָבָא אָמַר: יֵשׁ לָהֶן.
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.
הָהוּא שְׁטָרָא דְיַתְמֵי, דְּנָפֵיק עֲלֵיהּ תְּבָרָא. אָמַר רַב חָמָא: אַגְבּוֹיֵי לָא מַגְבִּינַן לֵיהּ, וּמִיקְרָע לָא קָרְעִינַן לֵיהּ. אַגְבּוֹיֵי לָא מַגְבִּינַן לֵיהּ – דִּנְפַק תְּבָרָא עֲלֵיהּ. מִיקְרָע לָא קָרְעִינַן לֵיהּ – דְּכִי גָּדְלִי יַתְמֵי, דִּילְמָא מַיְיתוּ רְאָיָה וּמַרְעִי לֵיהּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרָבִינָא: הִלְכְתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּכוּלְּהוּ הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב חָמָא, לְבַר מִתְּבָרָא – דְּסָהֲדֵי בְּשַׁקָּרֵי לָא מַחְזְקִינַן.
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.
מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי אָמַר: בְּהָא נָמֵי הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב חָמָא; דְּאִם אִיתָא דִּתְבָרָא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּחַיֵּי אֲבוּהוֹן, וּמִדְּלָא אַפְּקֵיהּ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ זַיּוֹפֵי זַיְּיפֵיהּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִבְנוֹת בֵּית שַׁעַר וָדֶלֶת לֶחָצֵר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כׇּל הַחֲצֵרוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְבֵית שַׁעַר. כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִבְנוֹת לָעִיר חוֹמָה וּדְלָתַיִם וּבְרִיחַ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כׇּל הָעֲיָירוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְחוֹמָה.
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.
כַּמָּה יְהֵא בָּעִיר וִיהֵא כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר? שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. קָנָה בָּהּ בֵּית דִּירָה – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מִיָּד.
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.
גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּבֵית שַׁעַר מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא?! וְהָא הָהוּא חֲסִידָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל אֵלִיָּהוּ דַּהֲוָה מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ; עֲבַד בֵּית שַׁעַר, וְתוּ לָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא מִגַּוַּאי, הָא מִבָּרַאי.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא מִבָּרַאי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ דֶּלֶת, הָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דֶּלֶת. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ דֶּלֶת, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פּוֹתַחַת, הָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ פּוֹתַחַת. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פּוֹתַחַת, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּפוֹתַחַת דִּידֵיהּ מִגַּוַּאי, הָא דְּפוֹתַחַת דִּידֵיהּ מִבָּרַאי.
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.
כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִבְנוֹת בֵּית שַׁעַר וָדֶלֶת לֶחָצֵר. תַּנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּל חֲצֵרוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְבֵית שַׁעַר; אֶלָּא חָצֵר הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – רְאוּיָה לְבֵית שַׁעַר, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ סְמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְבֵית שַׁעַר. וְרַבָּנַן – זִימְנִין דְּדָחֲקִי בְּנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְעָיְילוּ וְאָתוּ.
§ 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.
כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לִבְנוֹת לָעִיר כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לָעִיר דְּלָתַיִם וּבְרִיחַ. וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּל הָעֲיָירוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְחוֹמָה; אֶלָּא עִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לַסְּפָר – רְאוּיָה לְחוֹמָה, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ סְמוּכָה לַסְּפָר – אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְחוֹמָה. וְרַבָּנַן – זִימְנִין דְּמִקְּרוּ וְאָתֵי גְּיָיסָא.
§ 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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֶׁהֵן גּוֹבִין, לְפִי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹבִין, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְפִי שֶׁבַח מָמוֹן גּוֹבִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְפִי מָמוֹן גּוֹבִין; וְאֶלְעָזָר בְּנִי, קְבַע בָּהּ מַסְמְרוֹת!
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֶׁהֵן גּוֹבִין, לְפִי קֵירוּב בָּתִּים הֵן גּוֹבִין, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְפִי מָמוֹן גּוֹבִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְפִי קֵירוּב בָּתִּים הֵן גּוֹבִין; וְאֶלְעָזָר בְּנִי, קְבַע בָּהּ מַסְמְרוֹת!
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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה רְמָא דְּשׁוּרָא אַדְּרַבָּנַן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבָּנַן לָא צְרִיכִי נְטִירוּתָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶסְפְּרֵם מֵחוֹל יִרְבּוּן״ – אֶסְפְּרֵם לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְצַדִּיקִים – דִּנְפִישִׁי מֵחָלָא; הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם״, צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָם ״מֵחוֹל יִרְבּוּן״?!
§ 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?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶסְפְּרֵם לְמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, מֵחוֹל יִרְבּוּן. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חוֹל, שֶׁמּוּעָט – מֵגֵין עַל הַיָּם; מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, שֶׁהֵם מְרוּבִּים – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁמְּגִינִּים עֲלֵיהֶם.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תֵּימָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: ״אֲנִי חוֹמָה וְשָׁדַי כַּמִּגְדָּלוֹת״; ״אֲנִי חוֹמָה״ – זוֹ תּוֹרָה, ״וְשָׁדַי כַּמִּגְדָּלוֹת״ –
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”;
