Bava Batra 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

A field owner named

Ronia, they surrounded him,

meaning, they enclosed

Ravina,

who had four fields surrounding his field, with a fence,

on all four sides.

Ravina said to

Ronia, whose field Ravina had enclosed:

Give me the amount that I spent on the fencing;

give me half the expenses of what I fenced, in accordance with Rav Huna’s statement above concerning Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in the Mishna, that everything is determined according to what he fenced. For this is the halakha.

He did not give him.

Ronia did not give Ravina his share of the fencing expenses, because he claimed that he had no need for a fence to protect his field.

Ravina returned and asked:

Give

me—give me at least

according to

the cost of

inexpensive reeds.

And this too,

he did not give him.

Ravina asked again:

Give me the wage of a watchman,

give me at least the wage of the watchman whom you saved yourself the expense of hiring—the amount it would have cost you to station a watchman by your field had I not built the fence.

He did not give him.

One day,

one day,

he was fencing the date palms,

Ronia was gathering dates while fencing the date palm in his field.

Ravina said to

Ravina

his sharecropper,

his sharecropper:

Go

you

take from him

and take some of Ronia’s dates,

an unripe cluster of dates,

a cluster of dates that had not ripened!

Ravina instructed his sharecropper to do this in Ronia’s presence.

He went to bring it,

Ravina’s sharecropper went to bring the cluster of dates from Ronia’s date palms.

He raised his voice against him,

Ronia raised his voice at him and rebuked him.

Ravina said to

Ravina said to Ronia: Since you shouted at my sharecropper, thereby

you have revealed that you are content,

that you are pleased to have the date palms guarded, so that people will not take their fruit, because you consider the fruit valuable.

Therefore, even if you are not afraid of thieves, as you claimed in order to exempt yourself from payment, you are nevertheless obligated to pay your share of the fence, because you benefit from it. For

even if it is only

because of

ordinary goats,

because of the goats that wander in the area, so that they will not enter and eat the dates,

does one not need guarding,

and do you not need a fence around your field to protect the dates from being eaten by goats?!

Ronia said to

Ronia:

Ordinary goats—to drive them away

is what is needed!

Ordinary goats need only to be kept away by shouting at them. In other words, shouting is sufficient to drive them away!

Ravina said to

Ravina:

And does one not need a man!?

Do you not need a watchman

to drive them away

by shouting at them? And if so, I saved you the expense of this watchman, so give me his wage!

He came before

Ronia came before

Rava

and asked what his law was.

Rava said to

Rava:

Go appease him with what he has been appeased.

Go and appease Ravina with what he has already agreed to accept from you, namely, only the wage of the watchman; this is preferable for you to paying him a share of the cost of the fence.

And if not,

if you do not do so,

I will judge you,

I will adjudicate your case

in accordance with Rav Huna according to Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that everything is determined according to what he fenced, and then

you will have to pay half the fencing expenses, since this is the halakha.

Another incident involving Ronia and Ravina:

Ronia bought land,

a field,

on Ravina’s boundary,

adjacent to the boundary of Ravina’s field .

Ravina considered removing him,

removing him by giving him the amount he had paid for the field,

because of the law of the neighboring property owner,

the law of a neighboring property owner .

Rav Safra, son of Rav Yiva, said to him

the son of Rav Yiva

to Ravina:

Do what is upright and good in the eyes of the Lord and do not remove him, since Ronia is a poor shoemaker. He purchases hides and gives them to a tanner to process, and then makes shoes from them to sell in the marketplace.

People say,

the people say:

Four

zuz

for a shoemaker, four

zuz—

for the tanner,

meaning, the shoemaker pays four zuz for the hide itself and an additional four zuz to the tanner. Consequently, his profit is extremely small. Therefore, do what is upright and good with him and leave him the field for his livelihood.

Mishna:

A wall

in the middle of the

courtyard

of partners

that fell, they compel him,

each of them, who causes his fellow damage through exposure to view,

to rebuild it

with his fellow

up to

the height of

four cubits.

This is sufficient to eliminate the damage caused by exposure to view. They cannot compel him to build it higher, even though it had originally been higher.

Once they have built it, each of them is presumed to have paid his share, since both are obligated to eliminate the damage caused by their exposure to view. If one of them claims that he built it alone at his own expense and that his fellow refused to assist him, he is not believed, since his fellow was obligated to participate with him and is therefore

presumed to have paid

his share

until

the claimant brings

e

vidence before witnesses

that

he had demanded it from him

and he did not pay

him.

However, if one built the wall

from four cubits upward, they do not compel him

to compel his fellow to participate. Only if, after the first person raised it,

the second attached to it

the second

another wall

opposite it, in order to place a ceiling across them from one wall to the other,

even though he did not yet place

a ceiling on it,

he is charged with the entire amount.

For he revealed that he is content with his fellow’s raising of the wall.

If he sued his fellow in court after the latter had attached another wall to his wall, saying to him, “Give me your share of what I raised,” and the other says, “I gave my share,” he is not believed. Rather, he is

presumed not to have paid until he brings evidence

from witnesses

that he paid.

Since his obligation to pay is not known and publicized to everyone, he is not likely to pay until his fellow sues him in court.

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said:

A lender

who sets a time for his fellow

the borrower to repay his debt, and when the time arrived he demanded payment from him,

and he said to him

the borrower:

I repaid you within the term, he is not believed!

For it is presumed that a person does not tend to repay before the repayment date,

and if only he would repay on time.

Abaye and Rava

disagreed with Reish Lakish,

as both of them said,

they both say:

A person is wont

to be

to repay within the term,

to repay before the due date. And the reason is:

Sometimes

there are times

when money comes his way,

when funds become available to him. And then

he says

to himself:

I will go and repay him,

I will go and repay my creditor—