Bava Batra 6b — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: One who rents a house

a room

to his fellow ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in

within

a large mansion

a large house containing many rooms, behold, among the rights of the tenant is

to use its walls,

to use the outer side of the walls of the room rented to him, to place his belongings in the holes that are in the wall,

and

to hang his belongings

on its projections

on the projections hanging from the wall; and likewise, he may use the outer walls of the house even when they are not opposite the room rented to him,

up to

a distance of

four cubits

from the room rented to him.

And

if the room rented to him is on the uppermost floor, he may use

the thickness of the wall

to place belongings above the walls of the room,

where it is customary

to place belongings above the wall.

But in the courtyard

of the mansion, no —

the tenant cannot place his belongings in the walls of the garden made in front of the reception hall of the house, even if this garden is within four cubits of his room, because he is not at all meant to enter this garden, since this garden is made for the occupants of the reception hall. This law was stated by Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, as explained above.

And Rav Naḥman himself

himself

said,

the tenant may place his belongings

even in the courtyard of the mansion

in the garden made in front of the reception hall —

But

in

the open area behind the houses, no.

The tenant cannot place his belongings there, because the open area was not rented to him for use.

And Rava said,

the tenant may use

even

the

open area behind the houses.

Ravina said: With regard to this beam of a temporary shelter

one who places beams on top of his fellow’s wall in order to shade the ground beneath the beams,

up to thirty days

if the beams were there for fewer than thirty days,

it does not establish presumptive ownership,

and the owner of the beams cannot say to the owner of the wall, “Since you did not protest, it is a sign that I purchased from you this right forever,” because people do not ordinarily protest against one who uses their wall for fewer than thirty days. But

after thirty days,

after thirty days have passed and the owner of the wall did not protest against him,

it establishes presumptive ownership ,

from the fact that he did not protest, it is to be assumed that the owner of the wall sold him the right to place his beams on the wall, or gave him this right as a gift; therefore, the owner of the wall can no longer protest against him.

And if it is a sukka for a mitzva,

if he placed roofing on his fellow’s wall for the mitzva of sukka,

up to seven days it does not establish presumptive ownership,

and his fellow may protest against him, since his fellow knows that after Sukkot he will remove the roofing, and therefore did not protest against him.

But if he left the roofing

after

after

seven days, it establishes presumptive ownership

immediately, since once his fellow saw that the festival of Sukkot had passed and the other had not removed his beams, he should have protested against him immediately; and if he did not protest immediately, he can no longer protest against him ever.

And all this applies specifically when he placed the roofing in the manner in which it is ordinarily placed.

And if he attached it,

but if he attached the roofing

with clay

with mortar, in this he revealed his intention that he does not intend to remove the roofing after seven days, and the owner of the house must protest against him immediately; and if he did not protest against him

immediately

immediately,

it establishes presumptive ownership,

and he can no longer protest against him ever:

Abaye said: Two houses on the two sides of a public domain

and one sees into the roof of the other, both are obligated to erect a partition on the roof so that they will not harm one another through visual intrusion. And therefore

this one makes a parapet for half

of the length of

his roof, and this one makes a parapet for half

of the length of

his roof,

and they make the partition

not one opposite the other.

Each of them makes half the partition opposite the place where the other did not make a partition, so that by means of this there will be a complete partition between them,

and

each of them

extends,

lengthening the partition slightly beyond half his roof, so that he will not stand at the edge of the partition and see diagonally into his fellow’s roof .

And we raise a difficulty:

Why particularly

why did Abaye state this law specifically concerning two houses standing

in the public domain,

when

even

in two houses in

a private domain as well

they are obligated to erect a partition between them?

And we answer: Abaye stated his law concerning two houses in

the public domain

because

it was necessary for him

to introduce a particular innovation in this matter. For

it might have entered your mind

that there is no obligation to build a partition between two houses in the public domain, because

he might say to him:

one could argue to the other: Even if I make a partition, you will not be able to engage in private uses in the courtyard, since

in the end, you need

you need

to conceal yourself from the people of the public domain ,

and concerning this

he teaches us

Abaye that nevertheless he is obligated to make a partition, because

he says to him:

Even though I must conceal myself from the people of the public domain, nevertheless, those passing in the public

domain

only

see me during the day,

but

at night they do not see me,

whereas

you

you

see me both during the day and at night. And therefore you are obligated to erect a partition so that I can use the roof at night, when the people of the public domain do not see into my roof.

Therefore, you are obligated to erect a partition so that I can use my roof at night, when those in the public thoroughfare cannot see into my roof.

Alternatively,

another reason on account of which he is obligated to erect a partition, even though his fellow must conceal himself from those passing in the public domain, because he can argue to him: The public,

when I am standing,

at the time that I am standing,

see me,

they see me, but

when I am sitting,

at the time that I am sitting,

they do not see me,

whereas

you

you

see me whether I am standing

at the time that I am standing, and

whether I am sitting,

at the time that I am sitting. Therefore, you are obligated to erect a partition so that you will not see into my roof when I am sitting, since in such a situation I do not need to conceal myself in the public domain.

And he can further argue —

Even though the

public

also sees into my roof, nevertheless, only

when they look attentively,

when they examine carefully, then

they see me,

but

when they do not look attentively,

when they walk along their way and do not examine their surroundings,

they do not see me. Whereas

you

you

who pass across your roof without examining your surroundings,

in any event also see me,

even with an incidental glance you see me. Therefore, your damage is greater than the damage caused by the people of the public domain, and you must erect a partition to prevent this damage to me.

The Master said,

Abaye said above: Two houses on the two sides of a public domain,

this one makes a parapet for half his roof and this one makes a parapet for half his roof, not one opposite the other, and extends .

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it obvious!?

Is it not obvious that each of them must make half the partition? Would it enter your mind that one of them would be obligated to make the entire partition?

And we answer: What Abaye innovated, that each one makes half a partition on his roof,

it was necessary

only in a case

where one of them preceded,

where one of them acted first without consulting with his fellow

and made his own

and made half a partition on his roof.

It might have entered your mind

that in this situation

the other could say to him:

The one who did not make a partition could argue to the one who made it: Had you come to consult with me before making the partition, I would have said that I would make the entire partition on my roof and you would pay me half the expenses. Since you did not come to consult with me, from now on I do not want to build half a partition on my roof, because it is burdensome for me to seek workers for the small task of half a partition , and therefore

take half the expense

take half the expenses

and make the whole of it

and complete the entire partition on your roof —

he teaches us,

that he cannot make this argument. Because

he says to him,

the one who made the partition to the one who did not make it:

Why did you not make it?

Why do you not want to make a partition? Is it not

because your wall would be damaged,

so that the building wall will not be damaged by the weight of the partition? If so,

I too,

I am likewise concerned that if I complete the partition on my roof,

my wall will be damaged,

the building will be damaged by the weight of the partition .

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: A roof adjacent

to his fellow’s courtyard,

and the owner of the roof can see into the courtyard,

the owner of the roof makes

the owner of the roof

for

the roof

a parapet four cubits high

so that he will not cause the courtyard visual intrusion. [But the owner of the courtyard is not obligated to share in the construction of the partition, because the owner of the roof does not suffer visual intrusion, as will be explained below; see the note] .

But between roof and roof,

two adjacent roofs,

no,

the owners of the roofs are not obligated to make a partition between them, because there is no visual intrusion with regard to a roof. Since a roof is not ordinarily used frequently, when one does use it occasionally, he can take care not to be harmed by his fellow.

This ruling was stated by Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel,

but Rav Naḥman himself

personally

said

even though

he does not need to

build between roof and roof a partition of four

cubits, he does need a partition of ten

handbreadths!

The Gemara analyzes:

For what purpose?

Why must he make a partition of ten handbreadths?

If

Rav Naḥman holds that there is also visual intrusion between roof and roof, and therefore a partition is required, surely

for visual intrusion we require four cubits.

And

if

the purpose of the partition is to mark the boundary between them,

so that he would be caught as a thief

if one of them entered beyond the partition, his fellow would know that his purpose was theft, surely for this purpose

a low fence [

wooden stakes fixed in the ground]

is sufficient in general

as a partition to mark the boundary. And

if

the purpose of the partition is

for kids and lambs

so that they will not pass from one roof to the other, surely for this purpose

so that they will not leap suddenly

is sufficient,

as even a low partition suffices to prevent the animals from passing in the course of their movement.

The Gemara explains:

Actually,

the purpose of the partition is to mark the boundary between them,

so that he would be caught as a thief,

so that it would be known that one who enters beyond the partition intends to steal . However, a low fence, as raised in the earlier objection, is insufficient for this purpose, because

with a low fence he can evade him,

the one who entered can evade the accusation and say that he is not a thief, because

he can say, “I was stretching myself.”

While I was stretching my limbs, an object fell from my hand onto your roof, and I went to retrieve it; I did not intend to steal. But

with a partition of ten he cannot evade him.

Meytivi

an objection to Rav Naḥman, who said that a partition of ten handbreadths must be made between roof and roof.

For we learned in a baraita:

If

the ground of

his courtyard

is higher

than his fellow’s roof, one need not attend to him;

the owner of the courtyard is not obligated to make a partition, because the owner of the courtyard does not harm the owner of the roof, as explained above, since there is no visual intrusion with regard to a roof.

The Gemara analyzes:

Is it not

apparently the intent of the baraita that

one need not attend to him at all,

and the owner of the courtyard need not make even a partition of ten handbreadths, contrary to Rav Naḥman, who said that even with regard to a roof a partition of ten handbreadths is required?

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

Rather, the intent of the baraita is that although

one need not attend to the

partition of

four cubits, one must attend to a partition of ten

handbreadths.

It was stated: Two courtyards, one higher than the other;

where the ground of one courtyard is higher than the ground of the other, and there is visual intrusion from one courtyard into the other,

Rav Huna said: The lower party builds

alone

opposite him

from below,

and rises

until he reaches the level of the upper party’s ground.

And

from there,

the upper party builds

with the assistance of the lower party,

opposite him and rises —

The explanation of this law [according to Rashi’s approach] is as follows: Since there is visual intrusion from one courtyard into the other, both parties are obligated to erect a partition between the two courtyards. If they make a partition four cubits high in the upper courtyard, this partition will prevent visual intrusion in both directions. However, the upper party cannot be compelled to provide the entire area for the wall. Therefore, the lower party builds a foundation for the partition from below , and on this foundation the upper party builds a partition, with half of the partition built on the foundation constructed by the lower party and its other half built on the upper party’s ground. It follows that the partition that prevents visual intrusion is the partition that the upper party builds above, and therefore the lower party must share in the expense of this partition. But the upper party is not obligated to share in the expense of the wall that the lower party builds below, because the purpose of this wall is not to prevent visual intrusion, but only to create a place upon which the upper partition can be built. The upper party need not suffer a loss because the lower party’s courtyard is lower than his own . See the notes for a further elaboration.

а на этом основании верхний строит перегородку: половина перегородки возводится на основании, построенном нижним, а другая половина — на земле верхнего двора. Таким образом, перегородкой, предотвращающей ущерб от возможности видеть, является перегородка, которую верхний строит наверху; поэтому нижний обязан участвовать в расходах на эту перегородку. Но верхний не обязан участвовать в расходах на стену, которую нижний строит внизу, поскольку цель этой стены — не предотвратить ущерб от возможности видеть, а лишь создать основание, на котором будет построена верхняя перегородка. Верхний не обязан терпеть убыток только потому, что нижний двор находится ниже его двора . Дополнительное подробное объяснение см. в примечаниях.

And Rav Ḥisda said: The upper party assists from below

with the wall that the lower party builds, and from there continues

and builds

together with the lower party the upper partition. Since the upper party does not wish to build the entire wall in his courtyard, he therefore needs the wall that the lower party builds as a foundation for the wall, and consequently he must share in the expense of the first wall, because if there is no foundation, there is no building.

A baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s opinion:

With regard to two courtyards, one higher than the other, the upper party may not say, “I will build opposite my side and rise,” but rather he assists from below and builds.

And if his courtyard is higher than his fellow’s roof, he need not attend to him.

As explained above, the owner of the courtyard does not harm the owner of the roof.

There were these two,

an incident involving two brothers,

who were dwelling

in a house that they had inherited from their father:

one

of them

was the upper resident,

living on the upper floor,

and one

of his brothers

was the lower resident,

living on the lower floor.

The lower one sank

the lower one

and the walls of the building sank into the ground . As a result, the upper apartment sank into the lower apartment, to the point that the lower resident could not enter his home without bending down.

The lower one said to

the lower resident

the upper one,

to the upper resident,

“Come,”

come and let us demolish the entire building

and rebuild it

anew.

He said to him

the upper resident said to the lower resident:

“I am dwelling properly,”

for my apartment has not sunk into the ground; why should I demolish the building and construct a new one?