Bava Batra 22b — the Talmud in English

One who comes to lean [a wall against it] may lean only if he distances it four cubits from it.

It is not speaking here of a wall that existed and fell. Rather, the explanation of the Mishna is: one whose wall’s boundary was adjacent to his fellow’s wall—that is, the place where it was fit to build his wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall—may not lean [a wall] unless he distances it four cubits.

Rava objected to him: But it teaches, “one whose wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall.”

It does not say that the boundary of his wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall.

Rather, Rava said: This is what it teaches: one whose wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall at a distance of four cubits, and it fell, may not lean another wall against it unless he distances it four cubits from it.

And the explanation of the Mishna is as we explained in the initial assumption. Rather, it is speaking of a case in which the first time he distanced the wall four cubits and afterward it fell, and he now wishes to rebuild it; concerning this the Mishna says that he must also distance it four cubits the second time.

What is the reason

for which he must distance [it] four cubits?

Because the duvsha here benefits that there.

The walking by foot in the four cubits adjacent to the wall benefits the wall by hardening the ground of the walls’ foundations, so that they will not collapse.

Rav said: They taught this only

that he must distance [it] four cubits

in the case of a garden wall,

where many people do not pass within the garden; and since they do not tread close to the wall on the inner side of the garden, it requires treading on the outer side.

But in the case of a courtyard wall, if he comes to lean [against it], he may lean [against it].

Since many people tread close to the wall on the inner side of the courtyard, treading on the outer side is not necessary. It follows that the Mishna speaks only of a garden wall.

Rabbi Oshaya says: Whether a garden wall or a courtyard wall, if he comes to lean [against it], he may not lean [against it].

And the Mishna speaks also of a courtyard wall.

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They do not disagree,

regarding the law, but they disagree concerning the explanation of the Mishna, as to which circumstance it is speaking of.

This one is in an old city, and that one is in a new city.

Rav speaks of an old city, which has already been trodden extensively; therefore a courtyard wall does not require duvsha. Whereas Rabbi Oshaya speaks of a new city, which has not been trodden extensively; therefore even a courtyard wall requires duvsha.

We learned:

we learned in our Mishna:

“The windows, whether above, whether below, or whether opposite them, [one must distance the wall] four cubits. And it was taught concerning it,

we learned concerning this in a beraita:

‘Above, so that he will not peer and see.’

For if the window is not four cubits high, he can lean on the wall and peer into his fellow’s domain through the windows.

‘Below, so that he will not stand and see,’

so that he will not stand on the wall and see through the windows.

‘And opposite them, so that he will not darken [them].’

So that he will not conceal the light that enters the windows.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

The reason is so that he will not darken [them],

the reason that he must distance [the wall] opposite them is only so that he will not darken [them];

but because of duvsha, no.

Because of duvsha he need not distance [it] four cubits. And it follows from this that if there are no windows, he need not distance [it] four cubits; and this is difficult from the first clause, which requires the tannai to distance [it] four cubits because of duvsha.

And the Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With one coming from the side.

Here it is speaking of a case in which the first wall runs from east to west, and the second wall is at the side, from north to south, with the end of its thickness opposite the window. He must distance [it] four cubits so that it will not darken [the window], but because of duvsha he need not distance [it], since it occupies only a small area, merely opposite the thickness of the wall.

And the Gemara asks:

And how much

is the measure by which he must distance [it] opposite them, according to the tannai of the beraita, who did not give a measure of four cubits, but only [said] so that he will not darken [them]?

Yeiva, the father-in-law of Ashyan bar Nadbakh, said in the name of Rav: The full width of a window.

The measure of “so that he will not darken [it]” is the full width of a window, which is less than four cubits.

The Gemara asks:

But he will peer!

Since the wall stands at the side, and is within four cubits of the window, even if he raises it four cubits, he can lean upon it and peer through the windows.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Zevid said: [It is speaking] when he slopes his wall.

It is speaking of a case in which he makes the wall sloping toward the side of the windows, so that it is not fit either to stand upon or to lean upon, since it is on a slope.

The Gemara asks:

But we learned in our Mishna [that it is] four cubits,

for we learned in our Mishna that the measure of the distancing opposite them is four cubits!? And the Gemara answers:

This is not difficult. Here, [it is speaking] of one side; there, [it is speaking] of two sides.

The beraita speaks of a case in which he makes one wall at the side of the windows; it follows that it does not darken [them] greatly, and therefore it is sufficient to distance [it] the full width of a window. Whereas the Mishna speaks of a case in which he makes two walls adjacent to the windows, opposite one another on the two sides of the window; it follows that they darken [them] greatly, and therefore he must distance [them] four cubits.

Come and hear

an objection to the above, for we learned in the following Mishna:

“And [one must distance] the wall from the mazḥeila four cubits, so that he will be able to set up the ladder.”

Their practice was to place upon the wall at the end of the roof, like a large pipe open at the top, along the entire wall; the water of the roof would flow into it and fall through it to the ground, and it was called a mazḥeila. And if his wall is adjacent to his fellow’s courtyard, with a mazḥeila upon it, and he had established a right to this, and the owner of the courtyard wishes to build a wall adjacent to his fellow’s wall upon which the mazḥeila rests, he must distance [it] four cubits, so that the owner of the mazḥeila will be able to place a ladder at an incline beside his wall, climb upon it, and repair his mazḥeila, clearing from it the earth and pebbles that fall into it and obstruct the flow of the water.

And the Gemara infers from here:

The reason is because of the ladder,

the reason that he must distance [it] is so that he will be able to set up a ladder;

but because of duvsha, no,

he need not distance [it]. And this is difficult from what was explained earlier, that he must distance [it] because of duvsha.

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a sloping mazḥeila.

The Mishna speaks of a case in which the roof’s ceiling was sloping and extended beyond the wall into the air of the courtyard, and the mazḥeila was at the end of the ceiling, extending beyond the wall into the courtyard.

For if it were because of duvsha, it goes and comes beneath it.

For if it were because of duvsha, he would not need to distance [the wall] four cubits from the mazḥeila, since he walks and comes beneath the mazḥeila, close to the wall. But because of setting up the ladder, he must distance [the wall] four cubits from the mazḥeila.

Mishna:

One must distance the ladder from the dovecote four cubits, so that the weasel will not leap.

If this person has a dovecote in his courtyard adjacent to the wall separating the two courtyards, and his fellow comes to set up a ladder in his own courtyard adjacent to the wall, he must distance it four cubits from the dovecote, so that the weasel—which is a small animal resembling a cat—will not leap from the ground to the ladder and from there to the dovecote, and kill the pigeons in the dovecote.

And [one must distance] the wall from the mazḥeila four cubits, so that he will be able to set up the ladder.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

Let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

shall we say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!?

For if it is Rabbi Yosei, he said: This one digs within his own [domain], and that one plants within his own [domain].

For Rabbi Yosei holds concerning the removal of damages that if one comes to plant a tree in his domain adjacent to his fellow’s pit, he need not distance [it] twenty-five cubits, because this one digs the pit within his own domain and that one plants the tree within his own domain, and the owner of the tree is not considered to have entered his fellow’s domain. And although the roots of the tree enter his fellow’s domain, nevertheless, since they do not enter immediately, but over the course of time, as they spread little by little, this is not considered his action; rather, it is as though they enter the other’s domain on their own.

If so, according to Rabbi Yosei, let us say here too that he need not distance the ladder from the dovecote, since he acts within his own [domain]; and the weasel’s leaping is merely indirect causation, and the matter is considered as though it entered the dovecote on its own.

And the Gemara rejects this:

You may even say [that it is] Rabbi Yosei,

the Mishna indeed follows even Rabbi Yosei;

for Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana,

when we were studying in Rav Kahana’s academy,

he would say: Rabbi Yosei concedes concerning his arrows.

Rabbi Yosei concedes in a case where the damage begins at the time the damaging object is placed, for in this the damage is considered his action, and it is like one who casts his arrows into his fellow’s domain.

Here too, there are times when, as he sets it down, a weasel is sitting in a hole, and it leaps.

Accordingly, the same applies in our Mishna: since it can sometimes happen that at the very moment he sets down the ladder, a weasel is sitting in a hole beneath the ladder, and when he sets down the ladder it immediately leaps onto the ladder and up to the dovecote, and since the damage comes immediately, the matter is considered “his arrows,” his own arrows. And since such a circumstance can occur, the Sages required him always to distance the ladder from the dovecote, and he cannot say, “I will guard [it] so that no damage will come to you.”

But the Gemara asks:

But it is indirect causation!

Why must he distance the ladder? After all, the weasel’s leaping and causing damage is merely indirect causation, since he did not bring the weasel here; he merely set down the ladder, and the weasel came on its own!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Tovi bar Matana said: This teaches that indirect causation in cases of damage is prohibited.

It is thereby proven that although if one damages his fellow through indirect causation he is exempt from payment, nevertheless, from the outset it is prohibited for him to cause damage through indirect causation. Therefore he must distance the ladder from the dovecote, so that he will not cause damage to his fellow.