Bava Batra 7a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

the lower one to the upper one:

I will demolish it.

I will demolish the house and build it from my own resources.

The upper one said to him

I do not wish you to demolish and build, because

I have no place

I have no place

to dwell in it

to dwell in it in the meantime.

The lower one said to him,

the lower one,

I will rent for you

I will rent on your behalf with my money

a place

a place in which to dwell.

The upper one said to him,

the upper one, even if you rent a place for me, I do not agree to vacate my house, because

I have not troubled myself

I do not wish for this trouble.

The lower one said to him,

the lower one to the upper one: But

I cannot dwell

I cannot dwell in my house because of your dwelling, which has sunk into the airspace of my dwelling.

The upper one said to him,

the upper one: You can dwell in your house by

bending your belly

that you bend down to your belly

and enter

and enter the house,

and

and likewise, when you wish to leave,

bend your belly

bend down to your belly

and go out

and leave.

Rav Hama said,

the upper one

is legally entitled to prevent it!

And he is not obligated to trouble himself and vacate his dwelling.

And these words,

but all this applies only in a situation

that

although the house sank, still

the beams have not reached

the floor beams of the upper one have not reached

below ten

handbreadths within the airspace of the lower one’s dwelling.

But

if

they reached

they arrived

the beams

the floor beams of the upper one

below ten

handbreadths within the airspace of the lower one’s dwelling,

he can say

to him: The lower one can claim to the upper one: Since your floor has reached

below ten

handbreadths within my dwelling, you can no longer prevent me from demolishing the building, for below ten handbreadths it is

my domain

it is my own domain,

and

now

I am no longer subordinated to you

I am not subordinated to you not to demolish the building.

The early authorities explained the Gemara’s words as follows: In every building that has two stories, the owner of the lower story cannot demolish his dwelling, because he is subordinated to the owner of the upper story, since if he demolishes his dwelling, the upper story will fall. Concerning this the Gemara teaches that if the lower one cannot dwell in his dwelling, as in our case, where the lower dwelling does not have a height of ten handbreadths, his subordination is nullified in this situation, and he can demolish his dwelling.

And when they rebuild the dwelling, each one builds his dwelling with his own money, and the lower one is not obligated to pay the upper one for building the dwelling. See the note.

And these words,

but this entire law applies only in a situation

that they did not stipulate with one another

that the brothers stipulated nothing between themselves at the time of the division.

But

if

they stipulated with one another,

if the brothers stipulated between themselves at the time of the division that if the building sank, they would demolish it and rebuild it, then in this situation, if the building sank, even if the lower dwelling still has a height of ten handbreadths, nevertheless

demolish and build!

This law is speaking of a case in which they stipulated generally that when the house sank they would demolish it and rebuild it, but they did not stipulate between themselves how much it would sink. Therefore the Gemara continues to discuss how much the house must sink for the lower one to be able to compel the upper one and demolish the building.

And if they stipulated with one another,

in this situation, in which one stipulated with the other that if the building sank they would demolish it,

how much

must the building sink for the lower one to be able to compel the upper one to demolish the building?

The Rabbis said before Rabba, in the name of Mar Zutra son of Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of

his father,

Rav Naḥman,

that the measure of the height of an ordinary building is the combination of half its length and half its width. For example, a house whose length is ten cubits and whose width is twenty cubits has a height of fifteen cubits, which is half its length and half its width. And if the lower dwelling does not have this measure, the lower one can compel the upper one to demolish the building,

as that which we learned

that one who undertakes to build a house for another must make

its height

the height of the house

half its length and half its width!

Rabba said to them:

Do I

not tell you

I did not tell you that

you should not hang empty vessels

on Rav Naḥman,

as though Rav Naḥman had said empty words without reason, and Rav Naḥman did not say this; rather,

this is what Rav Naḥman said:

Even though they stipulated between themselves, the lower one cannot compel the upper one to demolish the dwelling, except in a situation in which the lower one cannot dwell in his dwelling

as people dwell

in the manner in which people dwell.

And how much

what is the measure in this regard?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said,

that the height of the lower dwelling must be such

so that

the ceiling of the house will not interfere with the lower one, to

enter

to carry upon his shoulder

a bundle of the kind used in Meḥoza

an average bundle of long reeds,

and then

to turn and walk about with this bundle throughout the entire house. And if his dwelling was lowered to the point that he cannot carry this load within the house, he can compel the upper one to demolish the building.

There was a certain man

an incident involving a man

who was building a wall,

who built a wall in his courtyard, and this wall was

behind the window

a window

of his fellow,

which was in his house in another courtyard.

His fellow said to him,

his fellow said to him: This wall that you built conceals the window of my house, and through this

you are darkening me

you have darkened my dwelling.

The wall-owner said to him,

the wall-owner,

I will block up for you here

I will close this window of yours that faces my wall

and

in exchange for this

I will make for you

I will make for you

a window

another window

above my wall

above the wall that I built. [The house was higher than the wall, and it was possible to make a window at the height of the house above the wall.]

The homeowner said to him,

the homeowner said to him: I do not wish you to make another window in my house, because by chiseling out the window

you will weaken my wall,

you will undermine the strength of the wall of my house.

The wall-owner said to him,

the wall-owner: If so,

I will demolish your wall,

I will demolish the entire upper part of the wall of your house

up to the place of the window,

up to the place of the window that I wish to make,

and

from there

I will build it

a new wall,

and I will make a window for you in the building,

and I will make a window for you in the building

above my wall

above the wall that I built, and in this way the wall of the building will not be destroyed.

The homeowner said to him,

the homeowner: I do not wish you to rebuild the upper part of the wall, because

a wall

a wall whose

lower part is old

whose lower part is old

and its upper part new

and whose upper part is new

does not stand

it does not endure and falls, because the new mortar does not adhere well to the old, dry mortar.

The wall-owner said to him,

the wall-owner: If so,

I will demolish it

I will demolish the wall of your house completely

down to the ground, and build it

all of it anew,

and I will make a window for you in it

and I will make a window in it above my wall.

The homeowner said to him,

the homeowner: I do not wish this, because

one new wall

one new wall

within an entirely old house

within an old house

does not stand

it does not endure.

The wall-owner said to him,

the wall-owner: If so,

I will demolish your entire house

I will demolish your entire house and rebuild it

and build for you

and build for you

a window

a window

in the building

within the new building.

The homeowner said to him,

the homeowner: I do not wish this, because

there is no place to dwell in

I have no place in which to dwell in the meantime.

The wall-owner said to him,

the wall-owner,

I will rent for you

I will rent for you with my money

a place

a place in which to dwell.

The homeowner said to him,

the homeowner,

I will not trouble myself

I do not wish to trouble myself by moving to another place in the meantime.

Rav Hama said: He is legally entitled to prevent it

the homeowner, and he is not obligated to vacate his dwelling even if the other one rents another house for him.

And we raise an objection:

Is this not the same matter!?

Have we not already learned this law above, that the homeowner is not obligated to vacate his house even if his neighbor rented another house for him in which to dwell?

And why do I need this again

why did they state this law again?

And we answer:

This teaches us

an additional novelty:

even though he does not use it

the homeowner in the house

except

only to store in it

straw

straw

and wood

wood

merely

nevertheless he can claim that it is troublesome for him to remove the wood and straw.

Those two

an incident involving two

brothers

brothers

who divided with one another

who divided their inheritance, one

of them

of them

received a splendid reception hall

received a beautiful reception hall as his inheritance,

and

one

received a garden

received a garden that was beside the reception hall. And light from the garden entered the reception hall.

He went,

he went

that one to whom there came

who took in his inheritance the

garden

a garden,

and he built a wall

and built a wall in it

at the entrance of the reception hall

at the entrance of the reception hall.

He said to him,

the owner of the reception hall said to him: This wall that you built conceals the light reaching the reception hall, and through this

you are darkening me

you have darkened my reception hall.

He said to him,

the owner of the garden said to him: Even though this wall conceals the light from the reception hall, I am not obligated to demolish it, because

I built in my own domain

I built this wall in my own domain, and I am not obligated to see to it that you have light in the reception hall.

Rav Hama said: He spoke correctly to him

the owner of the garden, and he is not obligated to demolish his dwelling. A person may build within his own property and darken his fellow’s dwelling, unless his fellow had established a presumption of light for three years; for then his neighbor may not darken his dwelling. And therefore, in this case, since the owner of the garden built the wall immediately after the division, and the owner of the reception hall had not maintained a presumption of light for three years, the owner of the garden is not obligated to see to it that the reception hall not be darkened.

And the early authorities raised a difficulty from the words of Rav Hama above, that one who builds a wall opposite a window of a house is obligated to demolish it; see the note.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different

from the law in this case, where Rav Hama said that he is not obligated to demolish his wall,

from that which was taught

from what we learned in a beraita, that

two brothers who divided

their father’s inheritance,

one of them took a vineyard field, and one of them took a white field

in which he

grew

grain. The owner of the vineyard can say to the owner of the field: I cannot plow all of my field, for in order that I can plow the vines beside the field, I need four cubits from the side so that the plow can enter [as we learned below, 26a, that the size of the plow is four cubits]. Therefore

the owner of the vineyard has

the right to bring his plow

four cubits into

within

the white field

of his brother, for it may be assumed

that they divided on this condition,

since otherwise the owner of the vineyard could not plow his field.

And Ravina raised a difficulty: Why, in this case, do we say that they divided on the condition that the owner of the vineyard should be able to bring the plow into the grain field, whereas in our matter do we not say that they divided on the condition that the owner of the garden should not darken his brother’s reception hall?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

There

in the case of brothers who divided a field and a vineyard, it speaks of a situation

that he compensated him for the difference

that at the time of the division the owner of the vineyard paid the owner of the field money for the difference between the value of the field and the value of the vineyard, because the vineyard is worth more than the field. Therefore, since he purchased the vineyard from the owner of the field, it can be said that along with the vineyard, the other also sold him the right to bring the plow into the field. But this reasoning applies only to a sale; here, however, there was no sale, but only a division of an inheritance.

And we raise a difficulty: From your words it is apparent that only in the case described in the beraita did the owner of the vineyard pay the owner of the field the difference in price between a field and a vineyard, and it is difficult:

But here, what of it that they did not compensate one another?

Does this mean that here the owner of the reception hall did not pay the owner of the garden? Is that possible, since

are we dealing

with fools,

that this one takes a reception hall and this one takes a garden

that one takes a reception hall in his inheritance and his brother takes only a garden

and they did not compensate one another?

And the owner of the reception hall did not pay the owner of the garden the difference in price between the reception hall and the garden. But surely the reception hall is worth more than the garden, because the reception hall is built and the garden is not built. Rather, it must necessarily be that he paid him, and it is again difficult: Why do we not say that he purchased it from him on the condition that the owner of the garden would not darken the reception hall?

He said to him: Granted,

even though

that

also here

they compensated one another

and the owner of the reception hall paid the owner of the garden the difference in price between the garden and the reception hall, nevertheless, he paid him only

the value of

the price of

the bricks, beams, and timbers

the bricks and beams of the house, because the reception hall is superior to the garden in that it contains bricks and beams, but

the value of the airspace was not included in the compensation!

And since there was no sale here except for the bricks and beams, and not for the airspace of the reception hall, the owner of the garden may again darken the reception hall, as Rav Hama holds: As long as the owner of the window had not maintained a presumption of light for three years, his neighbor may darken his dwelling.

And we raise a difficulty:

And let him say to him

the owner of the reception hall to the owner of the garden that this is a mistaken transaction, for the money that I gave you

originally

for the reception hall was only because it was that

you allotted me a reception hall,

whereas

now you make me

you have turned the reception hall into

a dark room

a dark room.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said,

His claim is not a claim, and this is not a mistaken transaction. For granted, if the form of the division had been that one took a reception hall with light and airspace, while his brother took a garden, then the owner of the reception hall could have claimed a mistaken transaction, since it turned out that he did not have a reception hall with light and airspace. But this is not so; rather, at the time of the division

he divided it merely by name

he divided it as something whose name is “reception hall,” and since even after the reception hall was darkened it is still called a “reception hall,” there is no claim of a mistaken transaction, for he had a reception hall and he has a reception hall. And similarly we learned in a beraita:

Was it not taught,

did we not learn that

one who says

to his fellow, an area of

a beit kor [

thirty seahs ]

of earth I sell you, even though

the area that he sold him

is only

of the size of

a letakh

half a kor , and the buyer knows that the householder has land of the size of half a kor that this land is called “a beit kor,”

they have fulfilled

and the sale takes effect, because

he did not sell him

an area of a beit kor

but

land

merely

that is called “a beit kor,” even though its size is not a beit kor.

And it is called

that this land is indeed called

“a beit kor”

And similarly, one who says to his fellow,

“I sell you an orchard,”

then

even though it contains no pomegranates,

they have fulfilled.

The sale takes effect, because

he did not sell him

an orchard with fruit

but

land

merely

that is an orchard,

and it is called

that this land is indeed called

an orchard.

And similarly, one who says to his fellow,

“I sell you a vineyard,”

and the buyer knows that the owner of the vineyard has a field without vines, and nevertheless this field is called “a vineyard,”

even though it contains no vines, they have fulfilled,

and the sale takes effect, because

he did not sell him

a vineyard with vines

but

he sold him land

merely

that is called “a vineyard,”

and it is called

that this land is indeed called

“a vineyard.”

It is explained in the words of the beraita that even though the buyer intended to purchase a vineyard with vines, or an orchard with pomegranates, and the like, nevertheless this is not a mistaken transaction, because in the end he received something called “a vineyard” or “an orchard,” and the like. If so, here too, even though the owner of the reception hall intended to pay for a lighted reception hall, this is not a mistaken transaction, because in the end he received something whose name is “reception hall.”

And we reject this:

Are the cases comparable?

The cases in the beraita are not similar to our case. For

there,

in the cases taught in the beraita,

he can say to him

the

seller can say to the buyer, “Perhaps I sold you,”

my intention was only to sell you something called “a vineyard” or “an orchard,” and the like, and I did not intend to give you a vineyard with vines or an orchard with pomegranates. But

here,

the owner of the garden cannot say to the owner of the reception hall, “I sold you only the name ‘reception hall,’ and not a lighted reception hall,” because

he can say to him

the owner of the reception hall can say to the owner of the dwelling: If you darken the dwelling, this will be a mistaken transaction, because

with this in mind they divided

what I took the reception hall on the understanding

that I would dwell in it

that I would dwell in this reception hall,

just as

our fathers dwelt in it,

just as our fathers dwelt in it, and since our fathers dwelt in a lighted reception hall, if you darken the reception hall, this will be a mistaken transaction. And this is a difficulty against Rav Hama, who said that the owner of the garden may darken the reception hall.