Bava Batra 7b — the Talmud in English

They said to him ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha

the sons of Rav Hisda, to Rav Ashi:

What Rav Hama said, that he was from

Nehardea,

was

according to their view,

according to the view of Shmuel, who was also from Nehardea.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: The brothers who divided

two fields that their father had left them, and their father had been accustomed to enter one of the fields through the other field,

do not have a path through one another’s property.

One brother cannot demand that the other allow him to enter through his field, as their father had done.

Nor windows through one another’s property.

If they divided two houses, one may build a wall opposite his brother’s window, and the latter cannot object to the blocking of his light.

Nor ladders through one another’s property,

if one of them took a courtyard and a house, and his brother took the second story, the brother who took the upper story cannot place a ladder in his brother’s courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story.

Nor water channels through one another’s property.

If each of them took a field, and one of the fields was adjacent to a river, and their father had been accustomed to divert the water through one field into the other field, the brother who took the second field cannot bring water from the river through his brother’s field.

And be careful with them, for they are established halakhot!

That is, this is the halakha. And therefore Rav Hama said that the owner of the garden can darken his brother’s reception hall.

Shmuel’s reason is, [as explained below, 65a], that Shmuel follows the view of Rabbi Akiva: one who sells a house to his fellow and retains the courtyard for himself, “a seller sells generously,” and it is to be assumed that together with the house he also sold him the right to pass through the courtyard into the house. Likewise, when one sells an upper story to his fellow, it may be said that he also sold him the right to place a ladder in the courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story, and the like. The brothers who divided are like purchasers, as though one sold his portion to the other. Therefore, when one brother sold the courtyard to the other, he sold generously and did not reserve for himself a path through the courtyard. Likewise, when the owner of the upper story sold his brother the ground floor of the house and the courtyard, he did not reserve for himself the right to place a ladder in the courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story, and the like.

And Rav

said: They do have them,

and one brother can compel the other to give him a path through his field, or compel him not to darken his dwelling. He can compel him to allow him to place a ladder in his courtyard in order to ascend to the upper story, and he likewise compels him to allow him to transfer water through his field.

A certain document of orphans

a case involving orphans who inherited from their father a debt document,

against which a receipt had been produced

and when the orphans came to collect the debt, the debtor produced against the debt document a “receipt” [a document in which it is written that the debt had been repaid].

Rav Hama said: We do not collect with it,

the orphans do not collect with the document that their father left them,

and

on the other hand

we do not tear it,

we do not tear the document in the orphans’ possession!

And the Gemara explains Rav Hama’s words:

We do not collect with it

the orphans do not collect with the document that their father left them,

for

indeed

a receipt was produced against it

the debtor produced a receipt indicating that the debt had been repaid. And, on the other hand,

we do not tear it

the orphans’ document, because

when the orphans grow up, perhaps they will produce proof and invalidate it

it is possible that when the orphans grow up, they will produce proof that the receipt is forged.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Ravina: What is the halakha?

Is the halakha in this matter according to Rav Hama?

He said to him: In all of them, the halakha

in every place the halakha is

according to Rav Hama, except

apart from

the

case in which the debtor produced

a receipt

a receipt indicating that the debt had been repaid, because

we do not establish witnesses as liars

we do not regard the witnesses signed on the receipt as liars, and we accept the receipt and tear the debt document in the orphans’ possession.

But

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: In this

also

also in this case,

the halakha is according to Rav Hama,

because

if it is so,

if the matter is indeed true

that it is a valid receipt,

that the receipt is valid and not forged,

he should have produced it during their father’s lifetime

the debtor should have produced this receipt during the father’s lifetime and freed himself from the loan,

and from

this,

the fact that he did not produce it

he produced the receipt only after the father’s death,

learn from it: he forged it !

And, on the other hand, this is not conclusive proof that the document is forged; therefore, the orphans do not collect with the document in their possession, while, on the other hand, we do not tear the document, lest the receipt be forged.

Mishna:

A courtyard in which there are several houses, and the inhabitants of the courtyard wish to build a “gatehouse” [a structure in which a gatekeeper sits and distances the public from looking into the courtyard], and one of the inhabitants of the courtyard does not wish to participate in the expenses of the gatehouse,

we compel him

to participate with them and

to build a gatehouse,

and

likewise, if they wished to make

a door for the

entrance of the

courtyard

in order to lock it against thieves, we compel the one who does not wish to participate.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards are fit for a gatehouse

for only a courtyard adjacent to the public domain needs a gatehouse to prevent the damage of the public domain seeing into it; and if the courtyard is not adjacent to the public domain, we do not compel him to participate in the expenses of the gatehouse.

The inhabitants of the city who came to build a wall for the city, and one of the inhabitants of the city does not wish to participate in the expenses,

we compel him to build a wall for the city, and

likewise, we compel him to participate in

doors and a bolt

that they make in the city wall.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all towns are fit for a wall

for only a city adjacent to the border needs a wall, and if the city is not adjacent to the border, we do not compel him to participate in the expenses of the wall.

How much

time

shall

a person live

in a city and be like the inhabitants of the city

to bear the burden of building the wall, doors, and bolt?

Twelve months!

But all this applies specifically if he lived in the city as a tenant; but if he

purchased

a dwelling house

in it, even though he has not yet lived in it,

he is immediately like the inhabitants of the city

Besides the expenses of the wall, the inhabitants of the city are obligated to participate also in the other expenses of protection, such as the wages of those who guard the city and the other expenses of protection. And they are likewise obligated to participate in establishing a charity fund, as will be explained below, folio 8a. And the inhabitants of the city are likewise obligated to participate in the expenses of the synagogue, and of a Torah scroll and the Prophets and Writings, and likewise the other needs of the city.

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that we compel the member of the courtyard to build a gatehouse for the courtyard.

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean

that according to what is explained here, it emerges

that a gatehouse is an advantage.

It is a good thing, and we compel the member of the courtyard to build it.

And it is difficult:

But,

there was an incident involving

a certain pious man, with whom Elijah was accustomed

the prophet

to converse

to come to him. And after some time

he made

that pious man built

a gatehouse

for his courtyard,

and thereafter he did not converse with him.

Elijah no longer came to speak with him, because on account of the gatehouse the voice of the poor who cried outside the courtyard was not heard. If so, it is explained that one should not make a gatehouse.

And we answer:

It is not difficult; here,

the gatehouse made by that pious man was

inside

the courtyard, and such a gatehouse is not good, because it is the way of the poor man to cry outside the locked courtyard door, and the gatehouse inside the courtyard prevents the poor man’s voice from being heard inside the courtyard; whereas

there

the gatehouse of which our Mishna speaks is a gatehouse made

outside

the courtyard, and it has no door, so the poor man can enter the gatehouse and his voice will be heard inside the courtyard.

And if you wish, say—

both this and that

both in our Mishna and in the incident involving that pious man, in both cases the gatehouse was made

outside

the courtyard,

and

nevertheless

it is not difficult,

because

this

the gatehouse made by that pious man was made in such a manner

that it has

that the gatehouse has

a door,

and the poor man could not enter it and reach the courtyard door; whereas

this

the gatehouse of which our Mishna speaks was made in such a manner

that it does not have

no

door,

and the poor man could enter the gatehouse, reach the courtyard door, and cry there.

And

if you wish, say—

both this and that

both in our Mishna and in the incident involving that pious man, in both cases it was the case

that it has

that the gatehouse has

a door, and

nevertheless

it is not difficult,

because

this

the gatehouse of which our Mishna speaks was made in such a manner

that it has an opener,

which was like a handle for the door, and the poor man could open the door; whereas

this

the gatehouse made by that pious man was made in such a manner

that it does not have an opener,

for there was no handle for the door, and the poor man could not enter it.

And

if you wish, say—

both this and that

both in our Mishna and in the incident involving that pious man, in both cases they were made in such a manner

that they have an opener,

which was a handle for the door,

and

nevertheless

it is not difficult,

because

this

the gatehouse of which our Mishna speaks was made in such a manner

that its opener

the handle was

inside

on the outer side of the door, and the poor man could open the door and enter the gatehouse; whereas

this

the gatehouse made by that pious man was made in such a manner

that its opener was outside

for the handle was on the inner side of the door, and the poor man could not open it and enter:

We learned in the Mishna:

We compel him to build a gatehouse and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards are fit for a gatehouse

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards are suitable for a beit sha'ar.

And the Gemara brings a beraita explaining the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards are fit for a gatehouse; rather, a courtyard adjacent to the public domain is fit for a gatehouse

and the inhabitants of the courtyard can compel one another to participate in the expenses of the gatehouse,

but one that is not adjacent to the public domain is not fit for a gatehouse,

and they cannot compel him to build a gatehouse.

And

the reason of

the Sages,

who hold that every courtyard is fit for a gatehouse, is that

sometimes

it happens

that the members of the public domain are pressed and enter and come

near the courtyard; therefore there too one person can compel his fellow to build a gatehouse.

We learned further in the Mishna:

We compel him to build for the city

a wall, doors, and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all towns are fit for a wall:

And the Gemara brings a beraita explaining the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all towns are fit for a wall; rather, a city adjacent to the frontier

to the border

is fit for a wall

and the inhabitants of the city compel one another to build a wall,

but one that is not adjacent to the frontier is not fit for a wall,

and we do not compel him to build a wall.

And

the reason of

the Sages,

who hold that every city is fit for a wall, is because

sometimes an army is summoned and comes

sometimes it happens, and an army comes even against a city that is not a frontier city.

Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yohanan: When they collect

money from the inhabitants of the city for the city wall, how do they collect?

Do they collect according to persons,

so that one who has more persons in his house pays more,

or perhaps do they collect according to the value of property,

with the wealthy paying more than the poor?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Elazar:

They collect according to wealth!

And, Elazar my son, drive nails into this!

Be careful to rule this way and do not move from this halakha.

There are those who say—

Rabbi Elazar asked

Rabbi Yohanan: When they collect

money from the inhabitants of the city for the city wall, how do they collect?

Do they collect according to the proximity of the houses,

so that the owners of the houses near the wall pay more than the owners of houses farther from the wall, since the houses near the wall need the wall more than the other houses of the city,

or perhaps

according to

the

value

of property do they collect,

with the wealthy paying more than the poor?

Tosafot [s.v. “according to”] explained this possibility—that they collect according to the value of property—as referring to a case where there is no danger to life from the enemies, but only danger to property. Therefore they collect according to the value of property, since the more property one has, the more he needs protection. And Tosafot added [s.v. “according to”] that even according to the possibility that they collect according to the proximity of the houses, the intention is not that they collect only according to the proximity of the houses, but also according to the proximity of the houses. Therefore, although a wealthy person near the wall pays more than a wealthy person far from the wall, and likewise a poor person near the wall pays more than a poor person far from the wall, nevertheless the wealthy person far from the wall pays more than the poor person near the wall, since he needs more protection for his property. And see the note for additional approaches concerning this.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Elazar,

“According to the proximity of the houses they collect! And Elazar, my son, drive nails into this!”

Beware of ruling thus, and do not move from this halakha:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a imposed

the payment of the expenses

of the wall

the city wall, also

upon the Sages

together with all the residents of the city.

Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require guarding

the Sages do not require guarding, and therefore they should not be charged with the expenses of the city wall ,

as it is written: “I shall count them; they are more than the sand”

and this verse requires interpretation,

“I shall count them”—whom?

If you say: to the righteous

about whom the preceding verse speaks , and concerning this it is written in the verse, “they are more than the sand,” meaning

that they are more numerous than the sand

that the righteous are more numerous than the grains of sand—surely this is impossible, for

now, concerning all Israel it is written only

only

“like the sand that is upon the seashore,”

and it was not said that they are more numerous than the sand; therefore it is impossible that

the righteous themselves are more numerous than the sand?

Rather, this is what it says: “I shall count the deeds of the righteous”

and their deeds are so numerous that

they are more than the sand.

It follows that the deeds of the righteous were compared to sand,

and

one can derive

a kal va-chomer: just as sand, which is fewer

than the deeds of the righteous,

protects the sea

so that it does not inundate the world, as it is stated [in Jeremiah, chapter 8]: “who placed sand as the boundary of the sea”; therefore

the deeds of the righteous, which are more numerous

than the sand,

all the more so protect them.

And from here Reish Lakish learned that the Sages do not require guarding!

When he came

when Reish Lakish came

before Rabbi

Yohanan, he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan,

“Why do you not say to him

do not derive this law

from this

which is written in Song of Songs:

“‘I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers’?”

And Rabbi Yohanan interprets the verse,

“I am a wall”

this is Torah

which protects those who study it like a wall that protects the city ,