Bava Batra 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

One who comes to place a wall adjacent to another wall may do so only if he distances it four cubits from the existing wall.

This is not referring to a case where there was a wall that fell. Rather, the explanation of the Mishna is as follows: If the boundary of his wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall—that is, the place where it was fitting for him to build his wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall—he may not place it adjacent to the wall unless he distances it four cubits.

Rava raised an objection to this: But it teaches, “If one’s 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: If one’s wall was adjacent to his fellow’s wall, at a distance of four cubits, and it fell, he may not place another wall adjacent to it unless he distances it four cubits from the fallen wall.

The explanation of the Mishna is as we explained in the initial understanding. However, it is referring to 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 again distance it four cubits the second time.

What is the reason

that he must distance it four cubits?

Because the treading here benefits that wall there.

The walking with one’s feet within the four cubits adjacent to the wall benefits the wall by hardening the ground beneath the foundations of the walls, so that they will not collapse.

Rav said: They taught

that one must distance it four cubits

only with regard to a garden wall,

where many people do not pass within the garden. Since they do not tread adjacent to the wall on the inner side of the garden, it requires treading on the outer side.

But with regard to a courtyard wall, if he comes to place it adjacent, he may place it adjacent.

Since many people tread adjacent 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 it is a garden wall or a courtyard wall, if he comes to place it adjacent, he may not place it adjacent.

The Mishna speaks of a courtyard wall as well.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: They do not disagree,

with regard to the law; rather, they disagree concerning the explanation of the Mishna, regarding the circumstances to which it refers.

One statement refers to an old city, and the other to a new city.

Rav speaks of an old city, which has already been heavily trodden, and therefore a courtyard wall does not require treading. Rabbi Oshaya, by contrast, speaks of a new city, which has not been heavily trodden, and therefore even a courtyard wall requires treading.

We learned:

we learned in our Mishna:

“The windows”—whether above, whether below, or whether opposite them, four cubits. And it was taught concerning this,

we learned a beraita concerning it:

“Above, so that he will not peer and see.”

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

“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 block the light.”

So that he will not block the light entering through the windows.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

The reason is so that he will not block the light,

the reason that he must distance the wall from opposite the windows is only so that he will not block the light;

but because of treading, no.

He need not distance it four cubits because of treading. It follows that if there are no windows, he need not distance it four cubits, which is difficult for the first clause, where the tanna requires distancing four cubits because of treading.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? A wall coming from the side.

Here we are dealing with a case in which the first wall runs from east to west, and the second wall comes from the side, from north to south, with the end of its width opposite the window. He must distance it four cubits so that it will not block the light, but he need not distance it because of treading, since this is only a small area, corresponding to the width of the wall.

The Gemara asks:

And how much

is the measure by which he must distance it from opposite the windows, according to the tanna of the beraita, who did not give a measure of four cubits, but only stated that it must be far enough so that it will not block the light?

Yevai, 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 block the light” 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 on it and peer through the windows.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Zevid said: It is referring to a wall whose top is sloped.

It is referring to a case in which he makes the wall sloping toward the windows, so that it is not suitable either for standing on or for leaning on, since it is inclined.

The Gemara asks:

But we learned in our Mishna, “Four cubits,”

for we learned in our Mishna that the measure of the distance from opposite the windows is four cubits!? The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult. Here it is from one direction; there it is from two directions.

The beraita speaks of a case in which he makes one wall at the side of the windows. It does not block the light to such an extent, and therefore it is sufficient to distance it the full width of a window. The Mishna, by contrast, speaks of a case in which he makes two walls adjacent to the windows, opposite each other on the two sides of the window. They block a great deal of light, and therefore he must distance them four cubits.

Come and hear

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

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

It was customary to place on the wall at the end of the roof something resembling a large pipe, open at the top, extending along the entire length of the wall. The water from the roof flowed into it and fell through it to the ground, and it was called a mazḥeila, a gutter. If his wall is adjacent to his fellow’s courtyard, and there is a gutter on it and he has established his right to it, and the owner of the courtyard wishes to build a wall adjacent to his fellow’s wall on which the gutter is situated, he must distance it four cubits. This is so that the owner of the gutter will be able to place a ladder at an incline against his wall, climb it, and repair his gutter by clearing away the earth and stones that fall into it and obstruct the flow of the water.

The Gemara infers from here:

The reason is because of the ladder,

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

but because of treading, no,

he need not distance it. This is difficult for what was explained earlier, that he must distance it because of treading.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? With a sloping gutter.

The Mishna speaks of a case in which the roof was sloped and extended beyond the wall into the airspace of the courtyard, and the gutter was at the end of the roof, extending beyond the wall into the courtyard.

For if it is because of treading, he walks and comes beneath it.

If the requirement were because of treading, he would not need to distance the wall four cubits from the gutter, since he walks back and forth beneath the gutter adjacent to the wall. Rather, because he needs to set up a ladder, he must distance it four cubits from the gutter.

Mishna:

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

If one person has a dovecote in his courtyard adjacent to the wall separating the two courtyards, and his fellow comes to place 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 gutter four cubits, so that he will be able to set up the ladder.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

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

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

For if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, he said: This one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property.

For Rabbi Yosei maintains, with regard to distancing oneself from sources of damage, that if one comes to plant a tree in his property adjacent to his fellow’s pit, he need not distance it twenty-five cubits. This is because the one digs the pit within his own domain, and the other plants the tree within his own domain, and the owner of the tree is not considered to have entered his fellow’s domain. Although the roots of the tree enter his fellow’s domain, since they do not enter immediately but only over time, as they spread gradually, this is not considered an act of the tree’s owner; rather, it is as though they enter the other’s domain on their own.

If so, according to Rabbi Yosei, it should likewise be said here that he need not distance the ladder from the dovecote, since he is acting within his own property, and the weasel’s leap is merely indirect causation; it is considered as though it entered the dovecote on its own.

The Gemara rejects this:

You may even say that it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

Actually, the Mishna is also in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

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 with regard to his arrows.

Rabbi Yosei concedes in a case where the damage begins at the time the damaging agent is placed, for then the damage is considered his act, like one who shoots his arrows into his fellow’s domain.

Here too, sometimes, at the moment that he places it, a weasel is sitting in a hole, and it leaps.

Accordingly, the same applies in our Mishna: Sometimes, at precisely the moment that he places the ladder, a weasel may be sitting in a hole beneath the ladder, and as soon as he places the ladder it leaps onto it and up to the dovecote. Since the damage occurs immediately, it is considered “his arrows,” his own arrows. Since such a situation is possible, the Sages required him in every case to distance the ladder from the dovecote, and he cannot say, “I will take care that no damage come to you.”

But the Gemara asks:

But it is merely indirect causation!

Why must he distance the ladder? The weasel’s leaping and causing damage is merely indirect causation, since he did not bring the weasel there; he only placed the ladder, and the weasel came on its own!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Tovi bar Matana said: That is to say, indirect causation with regard to damages is prohibited.

This proves that although if one damages his fellow through indirect causation he is exempt from payment, nevertheless, initially, 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.