Bava Batra 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

But if he designates an entrance for it,

if he had an entrance in his house that was adjacent to the pit, and through this entrance he would cast the kernels and retrieve them, in this case

he has only four cubits in front of his entrance,

and he does not have four cubits on each side. Since he regularly approaches this pit through the entrance, just as a person has only four cubits in front of the entrance to his house, so too he has only four cubits opposite the entrance through which he goes to that pit.

Rav Huna said: An akhsadra,

a house without walls, whose roof rests upon four pillars,

does not have four cubits

in front of it in the courtyard. And the Gemara explains: For

what is the reason

what is the reason they said that the four cubits opposite the entrance of a house belong to the homeowner?

Because of unloading his burden,

so that he can unload his burden within those four cubits and bring it into the house, since he cannot bring the donkey with its burden inside the house. But

here,

in the case of an akhsadra,

it is possible for him to bring it inside,

as he can bring the donkey into the akhsadra, since it has no walls,

and

there

he unloads

its burden. It follows that he has no need for four cubits opposite the akhsadra.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection:

we learned in a beraita:

Both the entrances of houses and the entrances of akhsadraot have four cubits

in the courtyard opposite the entrance of the house. It is therefore stated explicitly in this beraita that the owner of an akhsadra has four cubits in the courtyard.

And we answer:

When that was taught

what we learned in the beraita, that an akhsadra also has four cubits in the courtyard, this applies only

to an akhsadra of the study hall,

this akhsadra has walls, but these walls are surrounded by windows, and for this reason it is called an “akhsadra” ; and the owner of this akhsadra has four cubits in the courtyard so that he can unload his burden there.

And we object: But

in the case of an akhsadra of the study hall, it is obvious

that the owner of that akhsadra has four cubits in the courtyard, since

it is a proper room

and is superior,

a complete room, and its law is like that of any house in the courtyard, whose owner has four cubits in the courtyard opposite the entrance to the house—

Rather,

the statement in the beraita that the owner of an akhsadra has four cubits in the courtyard refers

to a Roman akhsadra,

a house enclosed by low walls that do not reach the ceiling. The beraita teaches something novel concerning this type of akhsadra: Its owner has four cubits in the courtyard. But an akhsadra that has no walls at all does not grant its owner four cubits in the courtyard.

The Sages taught: A gatehouse,

a small house constructed at the entrance to the main hall, and likewise

an akhsadra, and

also

a balcony

from which one enters the upper story—

they have

the owner of the gatehouse and the owners of the akhsadra and balcony

four cubits

in the courtyard or balcony opposite the entrance to the house.

If there were five

houses opening onto a balcony,

meaning that several upper stories opened into the balcony, so that the owners of the upper stories would climb a ladder to the balcony and from there each would enter his own upper story,

they have

in the balcony

only four cubits in total

for all of them together. We do not say that each one has four cubits in the balcony, since all of them ascend and descend by the ladder and need only four cubits surrounding the ladder.

Rabbi Yohanan asked Rabbi Yannai:

If one has

a chicken coop

whose entrance faces the courtyard,

does he have four cubits

in the courtyard opposite the entrance to the coop,

or does he not have four cubits?

He said to him: What is the reason

what is the reason the Sages said that the homeowner has four cubits opposite the entrance to the courtyard? It is only

because of unloading his burden,

so that he can unload the burden from the donkey within those four cubits and bring the burden into the house. But

here,

in the case of a chicken coop, there is no need for four cubits in order to bring in the chickens, since the chicken

climbs up

to the top of the coop and from there enters the coop, and when it wishes to leave, it

climbs

to the top of the coop

and descends

outside it. Therefore, the owner of the coop does not have four cubits in the courtyard.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman: A house

that

is half roofed and half unroofed,

and whose entrance faces the courtyard:

does its owner have

the homeowner

four cubits

in the courtyard opposite the entrance to the house,

or does he not have four cubits?

He said to him: He does not have four cubits!

For

it is not necessary to say

that if

its roofed part is on the inside,

meaning that the roofed section is internal, while the outer side facing the courtyard, where the entrance to the house is located, is unroofed, and the inner side is roofed—in that case certainly the homeowner does not have four cubits in the courtyard,

as it is possible for him to enter inside and unload

for he can enter with the donkey through the roofed section into the unroofed section of the house and unload his burden there [since the entire reason four cubits were granted in the courtyard is that one does not ordinarily unload the donkey’s burden inside the house because of the utensils in the house; here, however, he can enter, because it is not customary to place utensils in the unroofed section].

Rather, even if its roofed part is toward the outside,

meaning that the outer side containing the entrance to the house is roofed, even in this case he is not granted four cubits in the courtyard, since

it is possible for him to enter inside

and turn the donkey toward the unroofed part of the house,

and

there

unload

the burden from the donkey.

Rav Huna asked Rav

Ami:

One of the residents of a lane

a mavoy is a narrow alley into which the entrances of several courtyards open, and one of the residents of the lane, whose entrance faces the lane,

who sought to turn his entrance toward another lane,

wishing to open a new entrance on the other side of his house, facing another lane, asked whether

the residents of

the

lane

the other one

can prevent him

from opening an entrance into their lane,

or cannot prevent him.

He said to him: The residents of the lane can prevent him!

For until now the owner of that house had no right to pass through their lane, whereas if he opens an entrance, he will pass through it.

Rav Huna further asked Rav Ami:

Billeting,

the king’s army that comes to the city, for which the residents of the city are responsible to provide lodging: How is the burden divided? Is it

divided according to the number of people,

so that a house containing many people is obligated to provide lodging for more soldiers,

or is it divided according to the number of entrances,

meaning that one whose house has many entrances must take in more soldiers?

He said to him: It is divided according to the number of people! —

It was taught likewise:

and so we learned in a beraita—

dung that is

produced

in a courtyard

because the homeowners cast dung from their houses into the courtyard, that dung

is divided according to the entrances,

and one who has more entrances takes more dung, since, as he has more entrances, presumably he cast more dung.

Billeting,

the king’s army that comes to the city, for which the residents of the city are responsible to provide lodging.

According to the number of people,

meaning that a house containing more people is obligated to take in more soldiers.

Rav Huna said: One of the residents of a lane

whose house entrance faces the lane,

who sought to close off the area opposite his entrance,

to enclose with a partition the four cubits that he has in the lane opposite the entrance to his house—[just as we learned above that the homeowner has four cubits in the courtyard opposite the entrance to his house, so too he has four cubits in the lane opposite the entrance to his house ]—

the residents of the lane can prevent him

from enclosing his four cubits with a partition,

because

by doing so he

increases the distance they must travel,

since when they walk through the lane they must go around his partition.

Meytivi—

an objection to Rav Huna, who said that the residents of the lane can prevent the homeowner from enclosing his four cubits in the lane with a partition.

We learned in a beraita—

five courtyards

one beside another, that

open onto a lane,

meaning that the entrance of each courtyard faces the lane, and the lane is closed on three sides, with no way to exit it except through one side:

all of them use

the area of the lane adjacent to the entrance, together

with

the

outer

courtyard, the one nearest the entrance to the lane. The owner of the outer courtyard cannot prevent them from passing near his courtyard, since all of them have the right to pass through this part of the lane in order to exit it.

And

also

the outer courtyard uses the area for itself

as well, but it has no right to the remaining, inner parts of the lane.

And the others,

the inner courtyards,

use

the section of the lane adjacent to the second courtyard

with

the owner of

the second

courtyard, since they have the right to pass there on their way to the entrance of the lane.

And the second courtyard uses the area for itself

in conjunction with the residents of the inner courtyards,

and

also

uses

the owner of the second courtyard

with the outer courtyard

the section of the lane adjacent to the outer courtyard—

It follows that

the

innermost courtyard uses the area for itself

alone in the section of the lane adjacent to it, since none of the residents of the courtyards has a right to that section of the lane;

and

besides this, it

uses it together with each and every one

in the sections of the lane adjacent to each courtyard, since on his way to the entrance of the lane, the resident of the innermost courtyard passes beside all the other courtyards.

I eto trudnost dlya Rav Huny, kotoryy skazal: vsegda vladeltsy domov mogut vosprepitstvovat svoim sosedyam v tom, chtoby oni obnesli peregorodkoy ikh chetyre amot, i dazhe vladeltsy domov, raspolozhennykh vozle vkhoda v mavoi, mogut vosprepitstvovat vladeltsu vnutrennego doma v tom, chtoby on obnes peregorodkoy svoi chetyre amot v mavoe. Togda kak zdes my uchim, chto u raspolozhennykh vozle vkhoda v mavoi net prava na vnutrennyuyu chast mavoya .

I otvetili:

Eto spor tannaev:

eto polozhenie zavisit ot spora tannaev. I khotya v baraite ukazano, chto u zhiteley vneshnikh dvorov net prava na vnutrennie chasti mavoya, eto ne yavlyaetsya trudnostyu dlya Rav Huny, potomu chto drugoy tanna schitaet, kak on.

Ved skazano v baraite:

u cheloveka, dver ego doma kotorogo vyhodila v mavoi,

kotoryy zakhotel perenesti svoi dver v drugoy mavoi,

to est zhelal otkryt novuyu dver s drugoy storony ego doma, vykhodyashchey v drugoy mavoi,

zhiteli mavoya mogut vosprepitstvovat emu

potomu chto do tekushchego momenta u vladeltsa etogo doma ne bylo prava prokhodit cherez ikh mavoi, a esli on otkroet dver, on smozhet tam prokhodit. No esli

u nego byl

ran’she dver, vykhodyvshaya v etot mavoi, tolko eta dver byla

zakryta,

to est vladeles doma zakryl ee,

i

spustya nekotoroe vremya

zakhotel

snova

otkryt ee,

v takom sluchae

zhiteli mavoya ne mogut vosprepitstvovat emu —

slova Rabbi.

I baraity prodolzhaet:

Rabi Shimon ben Elazar govorit: pyat dvorov, vykhodyashchikh v mavoi, vse

vladeltsy vsekh dvorov

polzuyutsya

vsem

mavoe vmeste

i vladeltsu vneshnego dvora, raspolozhennogo vozle vkhoda v mavoi, takzhe prinadlezhit pravo polzovat’sya ego vnutrenney chast’yu.

I Gemara udivlyaetsya:

otkuda vzyalis dvory?

K k chemu otnosyatsya slova Rabi Shimona ben Elazara, ved v etoy baraite voobsche ne upominalos eto polozhenie?

I otvetili:

V tekste ne khvataet

chasti slov baraity, privodyashchey k nam,

i vot kak ona dolzhna chitat’sya

: vot ee pravilnoe chtenie —

“I ravno pyat dvorov, vykhodyashchikh v mavoi, vse polzuyutsya vmeste s vneshnim dvorom, a vneshniy dvor polzuetsya samostoyatelno i t. d.”

kak my uchili vyshe, chto u vladeltsa vneshnego dvora net prava na vnutrennie chasti mavoya, —

slova Rabbi.

I po etomu povodu baraity prodolzhaet:

Rabi Shimon ben Elazar govorit: pyat dvorov, vykhodyashchikh v mavoi, vse polzuyutsya mavoe

i vladeltsu vneshnego dvora, raspolozhennogo vozle vkhoda v mavoi, prinadlezhit pravo polzovat’sya takzhe vnutrenney chast’yu mavoya.

Poluchaetsya, chto tanna’i sporyat o tom, imeet li vladelts vneshnego dvora pravo na vnutrennie chasti mavoya, i slova Rav Huny skazany po mneniyu Rabi Shimona ben Elazara:

Skazal uchitel —

my uchili v baraite: esli vladel’tsy doma zakhotel otkryt dver v drugoy mavoi, zhiteli mavoya mogut vosprepitstvovat emu i ne pozvolit ee otkryt; no esli

ona byla zakryta,

to est ran’she tam byla dver, no vladeles doma zakryl ee,

i

spustya nekotoroe vremya

zakhotel

snova

otkryt ee — zhiteli mavoya ne mogut vosprepitstvovat emu! —

Skazal Rava: ne skazano

v baraite, chto esli vladeles doma zakryl dver, a zatem snova zakhotel ee otkryt, zhiteli reshut ha-rabim ne mogut vosprepitstvovat emu,

a tolko

v tom sluchae,

kogda

v moment, kogda on ee zakryl, vladeles doma

ne razrushil ee stoyaki

to est ne udalil pritoloku, bokovoy stoyak i porog dveri. Tem samym on pokazal, chto ne otkazalsya ot etoy dveri i vposledstvii nameren ee otkryt.

No

esli v moment, kogda on zakryl dver,

on razrushil ee stoyaki,

togda

zhiteli mavoya mogut vosprepitstvovat emu

v tom, chtoby on snova ne otkryval dver: poskolku, zakryv dver i snesya ee stoyaki, on sdelal ee podobnoy sploshnoy stene, a kogda on teper’ prikhodit snova otkryt dver, eto ravno tomu, kak esli by on otkryval ee vpervye, i zhiteli mavoya mogut vosprepitstvovat emu.

Skazal Abaye Rave: privoditsya baraity, kotoraya podtverzhdaet tebya

v tom, chto dver’ schitaetsya zakrytoy tolko esli ee stoyaki byli sneseny.