Bava Batra 57b — the Talmud in English

Here

our Mishna is not dealing with one who seeks to establish a presumption of ownership over his fellow’s courtyard, for such a person acquires a ḥazaka even in the cases described in the first clause; rather, our Mishna is dealing with a partner who seeks to establish a ḥazaka

in a courtyard belonging to partners—

which by its nature is not designated for these uses, but only for entering and exiting—

we are dealing with such a case,

and for that reason, the cases in the first clause differ from those in the latter clause:

For merely standing

alone]

the partners do not object to one another,

even though the courtyard is not designated for this purpose, whereas

they do object to one another regarding a partition;

and likewise, with regard to all the other cases listed in the first clause of our Mishna, it is not customary for partners to object, whereas in the cases listed in the latter clause, it is customary for them to object. And we raise an objection:

И

если

But do partners not object to merely standing

to one another!?

But we learned in tractate Nedarim:

в трактате Недарим:

Partners who vowed that they are prohibited from deriving benefit from one another,

they

are prohibited from entering the courtyard

as long as they have not divided the field, because each one also enters his fellow’s portion, and he is therefore prohibited from deriving benefit from him —

We have thus learned that partners object to one another’s entering, and the same applies to standing, for if they did not object, one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit would not be forbidden to enter the courtyard.

Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

,

,

Here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with a courtyard behind the houses, for

since the place is not designated for entering and exiting the house—

with regard to merely standing

of animals,

they do not object.

Но

,

but they do object regarding a partition;

whereas the Mishna in Nedarim is dealing with a courtyard in front of the houses, and there they object to one another even regarding a person’s entering, since the place is designated for entering and exiting the house.

Rav Pappa said: Both this and that—

—

are dealing with a courtyard belonging to partners

in front of the house,

and some object while others do not object

!

Therefore:

with regard to monetary matters—

that is, with regard to permitting the use of the courtyard for standing an animal without concern for theft,

we follow the lenient position,

and permit the partner to use it without obtaining permission, but his use does not establish a ḥazaka.

Whereas

with regard to a prohibition

vows] we follow

the stringent position,

and prohibit both of them from entering the courtyard.

Ravina said

to reconcile the Mishnayot in a different manner:

Actually,

our Mishna too is dealing with a courtyard in front of the houses, and

actually,

partners

do not object

to one another.

И

But if the Mishna in Nedarim troubles you, where we learned that a partner is prohibited from entering his fellow’s courtyard, it is not difficult:

Whose opinion is this

that Mishna?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even waiving

a matter to which people do not ordinarily object]

is prohibited for one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit;

therefore, even though the partners do not object to one another, the partner is nevertheless prohibited from entering the partners’ courtyard.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a:

With regard to all

permanent uses of a courtyard, such as keeping an animal there, or setting up an oven or a stove, which reduce the courtyard’s available space—

the partners may prevent one another

for if one wishes to make permanent use of the courtyard and his partner does not wish it, the partner may prevent him,

except with regard to laundry,

for the Sages enacted that he may do laundry in the courtyard even against the will of the partners, because

it is not the practice of the daughters of Israel to demean themselves by doing laundry

in the river, because they would have to stand there barefoot, exposing their legs while standing in the river.

Since women standing by the river doing laundry in an immodest manner were mentioned, the Gemara cites a statement related to this matter.

It is written: “

and he shuts his eyes from seeing evil”—

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said:

This is one who

walks along the bank of a river and

does not look

at women when they are standing

there

doing laundry

immodestly.

We raise an objection to this:

What are the circumstances,

in which Scripture praises one who shuts his eyes? It implies that if he does not shut his eyes, he is neither wicked nor righteous!?

?!

if there is another path

if he can walk by another route], then

he is wicked

when he walks along the riverbank, even if he shuts his eyes, since he should have distanced himself from an improper sight. And

if there is no other path

and he cannot walk by another route], then

he is compelled

if he looks as he walks, and the Merciful One exempts one who is compelled; why, then, does Scripture require him to shut his eyes!?

We answer:

Actually, there is no other path, and nevertheless he must compel himself

to force himself] to turn his eyes to the other side; and if he does so, Scripture praises him as a pious person, but if he does not do so, he is nevertheless not wicked.

Since Rabbi Bena’a’s statement was mentioned above, the Gemara cites additional teachings and deeds of Rabbi Bena’a.

Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Bena’a: What is the garment of a Torah scholar to be like?

Rabbi Bena’a said to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

It should be such that no flesh is visible beneath it,

meaning that the garment is long down to his foot, so that the foot is not visible even when he walks barefoot.

Rabbi Yoḥanan further asked Rabbi Bena’a:

A cloak

a garment with which one covers all the clothing he is wearing]

of a Torah scholar—what is it to be like?

He said to him:

It should be such that his garment is not visible beneath it,

beneath the cloak, even

a handbreadth.

Rabbi Yoḥanan further asked Rabbi Bena’a:

What is the table of a Torah scholar to be like?

He said to him:

Two-thirds

of the table—from the side of those seated at it—

should be covered

covered with a cloth called gedil in refined terminology because it is woven],

and one-third,

the outer portion,

should be exposed

uncovered],

and upon it—

on that third—

should be bowls and vegetables,

and it is preferable for that part of the table to be exposed so that the cloth will not become soiled—

And its ring

of the table [a sort of hook on which the table is hung after it is folded] should be

on the outside,

away from those seated at it, as the Gemara explains below.

We raise an objection to this:

But it is taught

in a beraita:

Its ring is on the inside!?

We answer:

It is not difficult:

This

which Rabbi Bena’a said, “Its ring is on the outside,” refers to a case

where there is a young child

there is a child] seated on the inside; the hook should not be placed there, so that the child will not play with it and cause the table to fall.

Whereas

this

which the beraita teaches, “Its ring is on the inside,” refers to a case

where there is no young child,

and it is preferable for it to be on the inside so that the attendant will not stumble over it.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that—

the statement of Rabbi Bena’a and the beraita—refer to a case

where there is no young child, and it is not difficult:

This—

the beraita, which teaches, “Its ring is on the inside”—refers to a case

where there is an attendant

there is an attendant at the meal], and it should be placed on the inside so that he will not stumble over it.

This—

which Rabbi Bena’a said, “Its ring is on the outside” \-

refers to a case

where there is no attendant,

and therefore it is preferable to place it on the outside so that those eating will not be injured by it.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are cases where there is an attendant

and no young child,

and it is not difficult:

This—

which Rabbi Bena’a said, “Its ring is on the outside” \-

during the day

by day], when the attendant can take care.

This—

which the beraita teaches, “Its ring is on the inside”—

at night

at night], when the attendant cannot take care.