Bava Batra 4b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

He should plaster with mortar one cubit from the outside,

he should plaster with mortar the upper cubit at the top of the wall from the outside.

The Gemara asks:

And let him do it from within,

and let him do this from inside?

And the Gemara answers:

His fellow will do it from outside,

his fellow, too, will do this from outside,

and say: It is mine and his,

it is mine and his.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

if this is so, that we are concerned about deception on the part of his fellow,

now also,

now too, when he plasters one cubit from the outside,

his fellow will peel it,

his fellow will peel this,

and say,

and claim:

It is mine and his!

The Gemara answers:

Peeling is known —

the peeling is known and recognizable to everyone!

And the Gemara explains how one makes a hazit for a partition of branches:

Branches,

if they made a partition from branches, how does one make a hazit for it?

Rav Nahman said: The ends of the branches outward.

He should direct the ends of the branches so that they bend outward, toward his fellow’s side.

The Gemara asks:

And let him do it from within,

let him do it from inside; that is, let him direct them inward?

And the Gemara answers as before:

His fellow will also do it from outside,

his fellow, too, will do it from outside and direct them toward his side,

and say,

and claim:

It is mine and his,

the partition is mine and his.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

if this is so, that we are concerned about deception,

now also,

now too, even though he makes it outward,

he will cut them and throw them away,

he will cut the ends of the branches and throw them away.

And say: It is mine and his!

The Gemara answers:

He will plaster it with clay,

he will plaster it with clay in such a manner that his fellow will not be able to cut them and throw them away. And if he does this, it will be recognizable.

But the Gemara objects:

Now also,

now too there is a concern:

his fellow will come,

that his fellow will come

and peel it,

and peel off the clay?!

The Gemara answers:

Peeling is known,

the peeling is known and recognizable.

Abaye said: A partition of branches has no remedy,

a partition of branches has no remedy by means of a hazit, since any sign that he makes, his fellow will come and make likewise. Or he will peel off the clay and it will not be recognizable.

Rather,

its remedy is only

in a document.

If one of them made the partition, he should record the matter in a document and bring witnesses who will confirm with their signatures that this was so. And if both of them made it, witnesses should testify to this and sign the document.

And at the conclusion of the Mishna we learned: “But if they made it with the consent of both of them, they build the wall in the middle. And they make a hazit here and there, etc.”:

Rava of Parzika said to Rav Ashi:

why do both of them need to make a hazit?

Let them make it neither for this one nor for that one.

And we will know in any event that it belongs to both of them, since if one had made it alone, he would have made a hazit on the outside.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi

said to him: It is necessary,

the tanna needed to teach us this only in a case

where one of them preceded and made his own.

where one of them preceded and made a hazit on his side.

And if his fellow did not make it,

then, if his fellow does not also make a hazit,

he will say,

the first one will say:

It is his,

that it is his.

But Rava wondered:

And

for does the

tanna

of our Mishna

an enactment

an enactment

for a deceiver [

against the deceiver]

come to teach us!?

as its teaching!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi

said to him: And

for does

the first part—is it not an enactment for a deceiver!?

And is the first part of our Mishna, which says “and he makes a hazit on the outside,” not an enactment against a deceiver, so that the second one should not say, “It belongs to both of us”? Rather, it is necessarily the case that the tanna stated an enactment against the deceiver both in the first part and in the latter part.

He said to him,

Rava said: There is a difference between the first part and the latter part, and therefore you cannot give this answer.

Granted, the first part,

properly

the tanna teaches a law,

the tanna teaches the law concerning an open field: since it is not customary to enclose it, he cannot compel him, but withdraws into his own property and builds.

And because of the law, he teaches the enactment.

Because of the law that he teaches, he also states the enactment for it: that he makes a hazit because of the deceiver.

But

concerning what is stated in the

latter part,

there is cause for wonder: Is it that

a law is being taught!?

And does the tanna teach a particular law in it, so that we can say

that he teaches an enactment,

that because of it he also teaches the enactment?! Surely it is clear that if they build the wall with the consent of both of them, they should build it from the property of both! It follows that he is not stating his words except for the sake of the enactment.

Ravina said: Here we are dealing with branches,

here we are dealing with a partition of branches. And the novelty in the tanna’s words is

to exclude Abaye’s position,

to exclude what Abaye said above, who said

“A partition of branches has no remedy except in a document.”

He comes to teach us,

therefore the tanna teaches us here

that a hazit is sufficient.

A hazit is sufficient!

Mishna:

One who surrounds

the field of

his fellow

with a fence

on three of its sides, and fenced the first, the second, and the third

who acquired three fields around his fellow’s field on its three sides and fenced all three of them, with the result that this middle field is surrounded on three sides,

they do not compel him,

the middle one, to participate in the expenses, because an ordinary open field is considered a place where it is customary not to fence.

Rabbi Yose says: If he stood

the one who is surrounded

and fenced also

the fence

on the fourth side —

they impose upon him,

upon the one who is surrounded,

the entire amount .

He must give his share of the expenses of the first three fences. For by fencing the open fourth side, the one who was surrounded revealed that he is pleased with what his fellow initially fenced. Therefore he must participate in the expenses.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi

Yose, who says: If he stood and fenced the fourth side, they impose upon him the entire amount. It makes no difference,

and it makes no difference whether

the one who is surrounded stood

and fenced, in which case there is reason to obligate him because he revealed that the fence benefits him,

it makes no difference

and it makes no difference whether

the one who surrounds stood

and fenced, thereby completing the benefit of the one who is surrounded from all the fences, since from now onward animals will be unable to enter his field from any side—in every case, they impose upon him the entire amount!

It was stated: Rav Huna said:

what Rabbi Yose said, that they impose upon him

“the entire amount,”

means

according to what he fenced.

All the expenses that the first one spent in building the fences, the one who is surrounded now repays him half. But

Hiyya bar Rav said:

he does not participate according to what the one who surrounds spent; rather, everything is calculated

according to

the price of

cheap reed costs.

For he claims: “A simple reed fence is sufficient for me for my field, and I do not want the expense of an expensive stone fence.” And now it discusses their words in light of the words of our Mishna:

We learned:

we learned in the Mishna:

“One who encircles his fellow on three sides, and fenced the first, the second, and the third”—

they do not make him liable

the enclosed one to pay.

And it follows:

the fourth—

they do make him liable!

But if so,

say the latter clause: Rabbi Yosei says: “If he arose and fenced the fourth”—

they make him bear the entire expense.

The Gemara attempts to understand the dispute of the tannaitic authorities in the Mishna [the Sages and Rabbi Yosei] according to the two opinions:

Granted,

the matter is understandable

according to Rav Huna, who says

they make him liable

“everything is according to what he fenced there”; this is the difference between the first Tanna and Rabbi Yosei,

this is the difference between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei, for

the first Tanna holds

that even when he arose and fenced the fourth, he does not pay him according to what he fenced, but

according to the cost of reeds at a reduced price, not—

indeed

! And

however, according to

what he fenced—

no.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: “Everything is according to what he fenced.”

And for this reason the Sages use the expression “they make him liable,” whereas Rabbi Yosei uses the expression “they make him bear everything.”

Rather,

according to the view of

Hiyya bar Rav, who says: “everything,”

that is, everything

according to the cost of reeds at a reduced price.

And this is Rabbi Yosei’s view. It is difficult:

What difference is there

what dispute is there

between the first Tanna and Rabbi Yosei?

But

if

even

the cost of reeds at a reduced price

not

does he give him,

he does not give him,

what does he give him?

What does he give him, then!?

The Gemara resolves this in three ways:

If you wish, say:

if you wish, say a resolution:

“The wages of a watchman—that is the difference between them.”

With regard to payment for protection. That is, a small wage given to a watchman for that period when the field is standing with its crops and then requires protection, there is a difference between them.

The first Tanna holds: “The wages of protection, yes,”

payment for protection—yes, they make him liable for it if he fenced the fourth. But

“the cost of reeds at a reduced price, no!”

And Rabbi Yosei holds:

he must give

the cost of reeds at a reduced price,

and it is not sufficient to pay the cost of protection.

And if you wish, say:

with regard to the obligation to pay at the end also for the

first, second, and third, that is the difference between them,

there is a difference between them.

The first Tanna holds:

if he arose and fenced, it is specifically for the fence of the

fourth that he gives him,

he must give him.

But

for the

first, second, and third, he does not give him.

He does not pay him retroactively, because he had already emerged innocent from liability for them in court when the encircler fenced them and demanded that he pay.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: “For the first, second, and third also he gives him.”

He also pays him for them according to the cost of reeds, whether the encircler fenced them or the enclosed one fenced them.

If you wish, say: “The encircler and the enclosed one—that is the difference between them.”

The difference between them is whether specifically the enclosed one must fence the fourth in order to become liable for all of them, or perhaps it makes no difference which of them fences, since in any event the enclosed one has a benefit from the fencing.

For the first Tanna holds: “The reason”

the reason that he becomes liable is because

“the enclosed one arose—that is when they make him bear the entire expense,”

since he revealed his intention.

But

if

the encircler arose

and fenced the fourth as well, and there was no positive revelation of intention on the part of the enclosed one regarding the first three, from which he had already been exempted,

he gives him only the cost of the fourth.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: “It makes no difference,”

it makes no difference whether

the enclosed one, it makes no difference

whether

the encircler,

in any event:

if he arose and fenced—

they make him bear the entire expense.

Another version:

another wording explains it in the reverse manner:

“The encircler and the enclosed one—that is the difference between them”—

there is a difference between them.

The first Tanna holds: “If the encircler fences the fourth, he also gives him.”

And Rabbi Yosei holds:

specifically

“if the enclosed one arose and fenced the fourth, that is when he gives him,”

because

he revealed his intention,

that he revealed his intention

that it is agreeable to him,

that the fence is agreeable to him.

But if the encircler fenced it, he gives him nothing,

he does not give him anything.

The Gemara brings an incident concerning the encircler and the enclosed one: