Bava Batra 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman said:

and

a

sealed

window—that is, if one established a window opening onto a jointly owned courtyard for three years, and his partner came to the courtyard and sealed the window 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 its sealing. This is so even though he had previously established for three years the right to have a window open onto his fellow’s courtyard. The reason is

that a person would not ordinarily allow his source of light to be sealed before him—

and remain silent.

By remaining silent, he revealed his mind that the presumptive ownership he had previously established had not been established lawfully. Thus, the loss of the presumptive ownership takes effect immediately!

We learned in the Mishna:

If one acquired a house in another courtyard, he may not open it into the jointly owned courtyard:

The Gemara discusses this:

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 no longer the same degree of privacy there as there was previously.

But if this is the reason,

say the latter clause

of our Mishna, where we learned:

Rather, if he wishes, he may build a room within his house,

and he may build an upper story on top of his house,

and open it into his house.

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

but

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

increases the traffic for them,

for what difference is there whether the residents who will live in the upper story enter and exit through the courtyard, or whether they must pass through the house in order to enter the upper story?

He said

in explanation,

Rav Huna:

The Mishna is not speaking of adding a newly constructed room. Rather,

what

is the

“room”

mentioned by the Mishna? For example,

that he divided

the existing room and made it

into two

rooms. 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.

Likewise, with regard to an upper story, it is not speaking of his building an upper story on top of his house. Rather,

what is the

“upper story”

mentioned by the tanna in the Mishna? It is

an aptai,

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

In other words, indeed, he may not add to the area of the building, but he may divide the existing area into small rooms, and the Mishna means that he divides the existing room into two. Alternatively, he makes an upper story by building a roof at the midpoint of the room’s height, ascending to it from within the room; and this is the upper story that we learned about.

Mishna:

A person may not open into a jointly owned courtyard

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

an entrance opposite an entrance

of his partner’s house, which opens onto that same courtyard; rather, he must move it somewhat to one side or the other—

and

he may not open

a window opposite a window,

the reason being privacy, as will be explained in the Gemara.

If

the existing window that opens onto the jointly owned courtyard was

small—

he may not make it larger.

If the window was

one—

he may not make it two,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

But he may open into the public domain

that separates his house from his fellow’s house,

an entrance

in his house

opposite the entrance

of his fellow’s house on the other side of the public domain,

and a window

in his house

opposite the window

in his fellow’s house on the other side of the public domain.

And likewise, if

the

window that opens onto the public domain was

small—

he may make it larger.

And

likewise, if that window was

one—

he may make it two.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A person may not open into a jointly owned courtyard an entrance opposite an entrance, or a window opposite a window.

And we explain:

From where are these matters

[that is, from where is this law derived]?

He said,

explained

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

because

the verse says

[Numbers 24]:

“Balaam raised his eyes and 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

opposite

the other.

Balaam said

:

These people 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 larger:

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say

[to interpret our Mishna] as follows: If one had an entrance from his house into the courtyard, and the entrance was

four

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

he may not make it eight

, he may not make it eight cubits wide, because

he thereby takes eight in the courtyard,

for he consequently has an exclusive right of use over a width of eight cubits by a length of four cubits, and it emerges that he causes a loss to the other courtyard residents.

Rami bar Ḥama was of the opinion that the reason should not be interpreted as being privacy, for what difference is there whether it is small or large? In any event, he must maintain privacy from it.

But

if he had an entrance

of two

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

make it

an entrance

of four

cubits,

it is fine.

There is no objection to widening an entrance from two cubits to four cubits, since in any event he never takes less than four cubits of the courtyard’s width for each entrance, and consequently the courtyard residents suffer no loss.

Rava said to him,

to Rami bar Ḥama: Not as you think, that the reason for the Mishna is the area he takes in the courtyard opposite the entrance. Rather, the reason is as in the first clause: privacy. And although in any event he must maintain privacy from it, nevertheless

the partner can say to him,

the one widening the window or entrance:

“With a small entrance I can maintain privacy from you,

but

with a large entrance I cannot maintain privacy from you”,

[with a small entrance I can maintain privacy from you, whereas with a large entrance I cannot maintain privacy from you].

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rami bar Ḥama thought to say

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

If the entrance was

four

cubits wide, then

he may not make it two,

he may not divide this entrance into two entrances

of two cubits each.

He may not make two entrances of two cubits each, because

he takes eight

cubits

in the courtyard.

For by doing so, he takes eight cubits of the courtyard’s width, four cubits opposite each entrance, and it emerges that he causes a loss to the courtyard residents.

But

if the entrance was

eight

cubits wide, and he wishes

to make it two of four cubits each—

it is fine.

If the entrance was eight cubits wide and he wishes to divide it into two entrances of four cubits each, there is no objection, since even now he will take only eight cubits in the courtyard, four cubits for each entrance, and he does not cause a loss to the courtyard residents.

Rava said to him:

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

he can say to him: “With one entrance I can maintain privacy from you.”

But

with two

entrances

I cannot maintain privacy from you.

[From one entrance opening onto the courtyard I can maintain privacy from you, but not from two entrances]!

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And the Gemara explains the reason for this: because

he can say to him,

the one opening the entrance to the courtyard resident opposite him:

“Ultimately, do you not need to maintain privacy from the residents of the public domain?”

After all, in any event you must maintain privacy from the residents of the public domain.

Mishna:

One may not make a cavity beneath the public domain.

And what is this cavity?

Pits, ditches, and caves.

This is so even if he accepts upon himself liability for any damage that occurs, because people do not wish to be injured and to have to litigate over their property.

Rabbi Eliezer permits it,

provided that he covers them with a strong covering,

so that a wagon can pass

over them

loaded with stones.

One may not project beams

[small beams]

or balconies

[large beams projecting from the wall, across which beams are placed along the width of the wall]

into the public domain,

lest the residents of the public domain stumble over them.

Rather, if he wishes,

he may

recess

his wall bordering the public domain

into his own property—

and project

beams and balconies into the area he recessed.

If one acquired a courtyard containing projecting beams and balconies

that project into the public domain,

it retains its presumptive status;

he need not remove them, because we advance the following claim on behalf of the purchaser: Perhaps the seller recessed his wall into his own property and projected them from there.

Gemara:

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

And

we explain the reason of

the Rabbis,

who hold that he may not dig in the public domain even if he covers it with a strong covering: It is because

sometimes it weakens, and he is unaware

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

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not project beams and balconies:

There was an incident involving

Rabbi Ami, who

had

a projecting beam that extended into an alleyway

[he had a beam that projected into an alleyway],

and another man likewise had a beam that extended into the public domain

[and another man had a beam that projected into the public domain].

The man came

[the same man came]

before Rabbi Ami

to ask about his case.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami:

Go and cut it down

[go and cut down your beam]!

He said to him,

the man to Rabbi Ami:

But you too have one

[after all, you yourself have a projecting beam]!

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami: “

Mine projects into an alleyway

and

extends

there, and

the residents of the alleyway waive their claim against me,

but

yours,

after all,

projects into the public domain; who has waived his claim against you?”

[Mine projects into an alleyway, and the residents of the alleyway waive their claim against me; but yours projects into the public domain, and who waives his claim against you?]

There was an incident involving

Rabbi Yannai, who

had

a tree that leaned into the public domain; there was another man who likewise had a tree that leaned into the public domain

[and another man also had a tree leaning into the public domain].

The residents of the public domain came and were protesting against him

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

The man came

the same man

before Rabbi Yannai

to ask about his case

; he said to him,

Rabbi Yannai: