Bava Batra 60a — the Talmud in English

Rav Nahman said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and

a window

that is sealed,

that is, if he established a window facing the courtyard of the partners for three years, and his partner came to the courtyard and sealed the window for him by building a wall opposite it,

immediately this constitutes presumptive ownership

of the sealing of the window, if the owner of the window remained silent and did not protest the sealing. This is so even though beforehand he had held it for three years so that he would have an open window facing his fellow’s courtyard. Because

a person is not accustomed to having his light sealed in front of him—

and remaining silent.

And if he remained silent, he revealed his opinion that the presumptive ownership he had established earlier had been established unlawfully! And it follows that the loss of the presumptive ownership is immediate!

We learned in the Mishna:

If he purchased a house in another courtyard, he may not open it into the courtyard of the partners:

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

he may not open it!?

Because he increases the traffic for them,

that is, he increases the number of passersby through the courtyard, and there is not the same privacy in it as there was previously.

But if this is the reason,

say the latter clause

of our Mishna, in which we learned:

Rather, if he wishes, he builds the room within his house,

and he builds an upper story above his house,

and opens it into his house.

And if the reason is because of the addition of people passing through the courtyard,

but

ultimately, if he builds an additional dwelling, in any event he

increases the traffic for him,

for what difference is there to me whether the residents who will live in the upper story go out and enter through the courtyard, or whether they need to pass through the house in order to enter the upper story!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Huna:

The Mishna is not speaking of adding the construction of a room, but

what

is the

“room”

that the Mishna said? For example,

that he divided

the existing room and made it

into two

rooms. For he adds nothing to the construction, and it is impossible to prohibit a person from bringing residents into his house, even if they are numerous.

And likewise concerning an upper story, it is not speaking of his building an upper story above his house, but

what is the

“upper story”

that the tan­ na said in the Mishna?

Aptai,

that he builds a platform within the height of the house itself.

That is, indeed he cannot add to the area of the building, but he can divide the existing area into small rooms, and the intention of the Mishna is to say that he divides the existing room into two. Or he makes an upper story by building a roof in the middle of the room’s height, and ascends to it from within the room, and this is the upper story that we learned.

Mishna:

A person may not open into the courtyard of the partners

[into a courtyard in which he is a partner], and his house opens into the courtyard,

an opening opposite an opening

of his partner’s house that opens into that same courtyard, but he must distance it somewhat to one side or the other—

and

not

a window opposite a window,

and the reason is privacy, as will be explained in the Gemara.

If

the existing window that opens into the courtyard of the partners was

small—

he may not make it large.

If the window was

one—

he may not make it two,

and this will be explained in the Gemara.

But he may open into the public domain

that separates between his house and his fellow’s house

an opening

in his house

opposite an opening

of his fellow’s house that is beyond the public domain,

and a window

in his house

opposite a window

in his fellow’s house that is beyond the public domain.

And likewise, if

the

window that opens into the public domain was

small—

he may make it large.

And

likewise, if that window was

one—

he may make it two.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A person may not open into the courtyard of the partners an opening opposite an opening, or a window opposite a window.

And we explain:

From where are these matters

[from where is this law derived]?

He said,

explained

Rabbi Yohanan,

because

the verse says

[Numbers 24]: “

And Balaam lifted his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling according to its tribes.”

What did he see,

Balaam?

He saw that the entrances of the tents

of Israel

were not aligned with one another,

opposite

one another.

Balaam said:

Balaam said:

These are worthy for the Divine Presence to rest upon them,

and he began and said: “How goodly are your tents, Jacob, your dwelling places, Israel.”

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was small, he may not make it large:

Rami bar Hama thought to say

[to explain our Mishna] as follows: If he had an opening from his house into the courtyard, and the opening was

four

cubits wide, which gives him an exclusive right of use in the courtyard opposite the entire width of the opening, for a length of four cubits,

he may not make it eight

wide, he may not make it eight cubits wide, because

he takes eight in the courtyard,

for through this he has an exclusive right of use over a width of eight cubits by four cubits, and it is found that he causes a loss to the members of the courtyard.

For Rami bar Hama was of the opinion that the reason should not be explained as privacy, since what difference is there whether it is small or large, since in any event he must conceal himself from it.

But

if he had an opening

of two

cubits, two cubits—then if he wishes to widen it and

make it

the opening

four

cubits,

it is well permitted.

There is no impediment to widening an opening of two cubits to four cubits, for he never takes less than four cubits in the width of the courtyard for every opening, and it follows that he has caused the members of the courtyard no loss at all.

Rava said to

Rami bar Hama: It is not as you think, that the reason for the Mishna is because of the area that he takes in the courtyard opposite the opening. Rather, the reason is as in the first clause, because of privacy. And although in any event he must conceal himself from it, nevertheless,

he can say to him,

the partner to the one widening the window or the opening:

With a small opening I can conceal myself from you,

but

with a large opening I cannot conceal myself from you,

[with a small opening I can conceal myself from you, whereas with a large opening I cannot conceal myself from you].

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was one, he may not make it two:

Rami bar Hama thought to say

[to explain the intention of the Mishna] according to his approach above:

If the opening was

four

cubits, then it is that

he may not make it two,

that he should not divide this opening into two openings

of two and two,

he may not make them two openings of two cubits each, because

he takes eight

cubits

in the courtyard.

For through this he takes eight cubits in the width of the courtyard, four cubits opposite each opening, and it is found that he causes a loss to the members of the courtyard.

But

if the opening was

eight,

and he wants

to make it four and four—

it is well permitted.

If the opening was eight cubits, and he wishes to divide it into two openings of four cubits each, there is no impediment, for even now he will take only eight cubits in the courtyard, four cubits for each opening, and he does not cause a loss to the members of the courtyard.

Rava said to him:

It is not so. Rather, the reason for the Mishna is because of privacy, and because

he can say to him: With one opening I can conceal myself from you.

But

with two

openings

I cannot conceal myself from you.

[From one opening that opens into the courtyard I can conceal myself from you, but not from two openings]!

We learned in the Mishna:

But he may open into the public domain an opening opposite an opening:

And the Gemara explains the reason for the matter: because

he says to him,

the one opening [his house] to the owner of the courtyard opposite him:

Ultimately, you need to conceal yourself from the members of the public domain.

For in any event you need to conceal yourself from the members of the public domain.

Mishna:

One may not make a cavity beneath the public domain.

And what is that cavity:

pits, ditches, and caves.

And even if he accepts upon himself all damage that will be caused, for people do not wish to be injured and to go to court over their monetary matters.

Rabbi Eliezer permits,

provided that he covers them with a strong covering,

so that a wagon can pass

over them

loaded with stones.

One may not extend projecting beams

[small beams],

or balconies

[large beams projecting from the wall, upon which beams are placed across the wall],

into the public domain,

lest the members of the public domain stumble over them.

Rather, if he wishes,

then he

recedes

his wall bordering the public domain

into his own property—

and extends

projecting beams and balconies into that area which he receded.

If he purchased a courtyard containing projecting beams and balconies

that project into the public domain,

it retains its presumptive status

and he need not remove them, because we make the following claim on behalf of the purchaser: Perhaps the seller brought [the wall] into his own property and extended [the beams].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not make a cavity beneath the public domain, pits, ditches, and caves; Rabbi Eliezer permits, so that a wagon can pass and be loaded with stones:

And

we explain the reason of

the Rabbis,

that he cannot dig in the public domain even if he covers it with a strong covering, because

sometimes it weakens and he is unaware

[sometimes the covering rots from within and collapses, and the one passing there does not take notice].

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not extend projecting beams and balconies:

An incident involving

Rabbi Ami,

who

had a projecting beam that extended into an alley

[he had a projecting beam that protruded into an alley],

and that other man also had a projecting beam that extended into the public domain

[and another person had a projecting beam that extended into the public domain].

He came

[that man came]

before Rabbi Ami

to ask about his law:

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Go, cut it down

[go and cut down your projecting beam]!

He said to him,

that man said to Rabbi Ami:

But Master also has

[behold, you yourself also have a protruding projecting beam]!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami said to him: “

Mine is for the alley

for it

extends,

and

the members of the alley waive their rights in my favor,

but

yours

behold, it

extends into the public domain; who has waived his rights in your favor,”

[mine protrudes into the alley, and the members of the alley waive their rights in my favor; but yours protrudes into the public domain, and who has waived his rights in your favor!?]

An incident involving

Rabbi Yannai,

who

had a tree leaning toward the public domain, and that other man also had a tree leaning toward the public domain

[and another person also had a tree leaning toward the public domain],

the members of the public domain came and were objecting to him

[and the members of the public domain came to protest against that man], because the branches of the tree harmed the camel and its rider.

He came

that man

before Rabbi Yannai

to ask about his law;

Rabbi Yannai said to him:

Rabbi Yannai: