Bava Batra 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

They said to him

Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha

the sons of Rav Ḥisda, to Rav Ashi:

What Rav Ḥama said, that he was from

Nehardea,

was

in accordance with their view,

i.e., in accordance with the view of Shmuel, who was also from Nehardea.

As Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: When brothers divide

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

they have neither a right of passage 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 overlooking one another’s property.

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

. Nor ladders resting on one another’s property,

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

. Nor water channels serving 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 to 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 . Therefore, Rav Ḥama said that the owner of the garden may darken his brother’s hall.

Shmuel’s reason is [as explained below, 65a] that Shmuel follows the view of Rabbi Akiva, that when one sells a house to another and retains the courtyard for himself, “one who sells, sells generously,” and it is assumed that as part of the sale of the house he also sold him the right to pass through the courtyard into the house. Similarly, when one sells an upper story to another, it may be said that he also sold him the right to place a ladder in the courtyard in order to climb to the upper story, and so forth. Brothers who divide property 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 retain for himself a right of passage through the courtyard. Similarly, when the owner of the upper story sold his brother the ground floor of the house and the courtyard, he did not retain for himself the right to place a ladder in the courtyard in order to climb to the upper story, and so forth.

And Rav

said: They do have such rights,

and one brother can compel the other to give him a right of passage 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 climb to the upper story, and he can likewise compel him to allow him to convey water through his field:

There was a certain document belonging to orphans

the case involved orphans who inherited a debt document from their father,

against which a receipt was produced

and when the orphans came to collect the debt, the borrower produced against the debt document a shovar, a document stating that the debt had been repaid

Rav Ḥama said: We do not collect with it

the orphans do not collect the debt by means of the document their father left them,

and

conversely,

we do not tear it

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

The Gemara explains Rav Ḥama’s statement:

We do not collect with it

the orphans do not collect by means of the document their father left them,

because

there is, after all,

a receipt produced against it

the borrower produced a receipt indicating that the debt had been repaid. Conversely,

we do not tear it

the orphans’ document, because

perhaps, when the orphans come of age, they will produce evidence and invalidate it

it is possible that when the orphans grow up, they will bring evidence that the receipt is forged

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

Is the halakha in this matter in accordance with Rav Ḥama?

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

in every case the halakha is

like Rav Ḥama, except

apart from

the

case in which the borrower produced

a receipt,

a document indicating that the debt had been repaid, because

we do not establish that witnesses are liars

we do not presume that the witnesses who signed the receipt are liars; we accept the receipt and tear up the debt document in the orphans’ possession.

But

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

also

even in this case

the halakha is like Rav Ḥama,

because

if it is so,

if the matter is indeed true,

that it is a valid receipt,

that the receipt is genuine and not forged,

he should have produced it during their father’s lifetime

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

and from

the fact

that he did not produce it

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

infer from this that he forged it !

Conversely, this is not conclusive proof that the document is forged. Therefore, the orphans do not collect with the document in their possession, but neither do we tear up the document, lest the receipt be forged

. MISHNA:

In a courtyard containing several houses, where the residents of the courtyard wish to build a beit sha'ar [a structure in which a gatekeeper sits and prevents the public from looking into the courtyard], and one of the residents of the courtyard does not wish to participate in the expenses of the beit sha'ar,

we compel him

to participate with them and

build a beit sha'ar.

And

likewise, if they wish 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 suitable for a beit sha'ar

because only a courtyard adjacent to the public domain requires a gate to prevent visual damage from those in the public domain; if the courtyard is not adjacent to the public domain, he cannot be compelled to participate in the expenses of the beit sha'ar.

When the residents of a city come to build a wall around the city, and one of the residents does not wish to participate in the expenses,

we compel him to build the city wall, and

likewise, we compel him to participate in

the doors and the bolt

that they make in the city wall.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities are suitable for a wall

because only a city adjacent to the border requires a wall; if the city is not adjacent to the border, he cannot be compelled to participate in the expenses of the wall.

How much

time

must

a person reside

in a city to be considered one of the people of the city

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

Twelve months!

But this applies specifically when he lives in the city as a tenant. However, if he

purchases

a dwelling there,

even though he has not yet lived in it,

he is immediately considered one of the people of the city .

In addition to the expenses of the wall, the residents of the city must participate in the other expenses of security, such as the wages of those who guard the city and other security expenses. They must likewise participate in establishing a charity fund, as explained below, 8a. The residents of the city must also participate in the expenses of the synagogue, and of a Torah scroll and the Books of the Prophets and the Writings, as well as the other needs of the city.

GEMARA:

It is evident from the Mishna that we compel a resident of the courtyard to build a beit sha'ar for the courtyard.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean

that according to what is stated here, it follows

that a beit sha'ar is advantageous?

It is a beneficial thing, and we compel a resident of the courtyard to build it.

But this is difficult:

But

there was an incident involving

a certain pious man, with whom Elijah was accustomed

the prophet

to converse

and come to him. After some time,

he made

that pious man

a beit sha'ar

for his courtyard,

and afterward he no longer conversed with him.

Elijah no longer came to speak with him, because on account of the beit sha'ar the voices of the poor crying out outside the courtyard could not be heard inside it. If so, it is evident that one should not build a beit sha'ar.

And we answer:

This is not difficult; here

the beit sha'ar made by that pious man was

inside

the courtyard. Such a beit sha'ar is not beneficial, because a poor person generally cries out outside the locked courtyard door, and a beit sha'ar inside the courtyard prevents the poor person’s voice from being heard inside the courtyard. Whereas

here,

the beit sha'ar discussed in our Mishna is made

outside

the courtyard. It has no door, so the poor person can enter the beit sha'ar, and his voice can be heard inside the courtyard.

Alternatively,

both here and there

both in our Mishna and in the incident involving that pious man, in both cases the beit sha'ar was made

outside

the courtyard.

And

even so,

this is not difficult, because

the

here

beit sha'ar made by that pious man was constructed in such a way

that it had

a

door

and the poor person could not enter it and reach the courtyard door. Whereas

here,

the beit sha'ar discussed in our Mishna was constructed in such a way

that it did not have

a

door,

so the poor person could enter the beit sha'ar, reach the courtyard door, and cry out there.

And

alternatively,

both here and there

both in our Mishna and in the incident involving that pious man, in both cases the beit sha'ar

had

a

door, and

even so,

this is not difficult, because

the

here

beit sha'ar discussed in our Mishna was constructed in such a way

that it had a latch, like a handle on the door, enabling the poor person to open the door. Whereas

which was like a handle on the door, so the poor person could open the door. Whereas

here,

the beit sha'ar made by that pious man was constructed in such a way

that it had no latch, so there was no handle on the door and the poor person could not enter it.

so there was no handle on the door and the poor person could not enter it.

And

alternatively,

both here and there

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

that they had a latch,

which served as a handle for the door.

And

even so,

this is not difficult, because

the

here

beit sha'ar discussed in our Mishna was constructed in such a way

that its latch

was

inside, on the outer side of the door, enabling the poor person to open the door and enter the beit sha'ar. Whereas

on the outer side of the door, so the poor person could open the door and enter the gatehouse. Whereas

here,

the beit sha'ar made by that pious man was constructed in such a way

that its latch was on the outside, on the inner side of the door, so the poor person could not open it and enter.

on the inner side of the door, so the poor person could not open it and enter.

We learned in the Mishna:

We compel him to build a beit sha'ar and a door for the courtyard.

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

The Gemara cites a beraita explaining the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards are suitable for a beit sha'ar; rather, a courtyard adjacent to the public domain is suitable for a beit sha'ar.

The residents of the courtyard can compel one another to participate in the expenses of the beit sha'ar.

But one that is not adjacent to the public domain is not suitable for a beit sha'ar,

and they cannot compel him to build a beit sha'ar.

And

the reason of

the Rabbis,

who maintain that every courtyard is suitable for a beit sha'ar, is that

sometimes

it happens

that those in the public domain are pressed for space and enter and pass alongside

the courtyard. Therefore, even there one person can compel his fellow to build a beit sha'ar.

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 cities are suitable for a wall.

The Gemara cites a beraita explaining the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities are suitable for a wall; rather, a city adjacent to the border

is

suitable for a wall,

and the residents of the city can compel one another to build a wall around the city.

But one that is not adjacent to the border is not suitable for a wall,

and they cannot compel him to build a wall around the city.

And

the reason of

the Rabbis,

who maintain that every city is suitable for a wall, is that

sometimes an army happens to come and attack,

even a city that is not a border city.

Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yohanan: When they collect

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

Do they collect according to the number of persons,

so that one who has more people in his household pays more,

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

so that the wealthy person pays more than the poor person?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Elazar:

They collect according to property!

And, my son Elazar, drive this point home!

Take care to rule accordingly and do not depart from this halakha.

Some say—

Rabbi Elazar asked

Rabbi Yohanan: When they collect

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

Do they collect according to the proximity of the houses,

so that the owners of houses nearer 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 in the city,

or perhaps

do they collect

according to

the value

of property,

so that the wealthy person pays more than the poor person?

Tosafot [s.v. lefi] explained this possibility—that they collect according to the value of property—as referring to a case in which 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 protection one requires. Tosafot [s.v. lefi] added 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 that they collect according to the proximity of the houses as well. Therefore, although a wealthy person whose house is near the wall pays more than a wealthy person whose house is far from the wall, and a poor person whose house is near the wall pays more than a poor person whose house is far from the wall, nevertheless, the wealthy person whose house is far from the wall pays more than the poor person whose house is near the wall, since he requires more protection for his property. See the note for additional approaches to this matter.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Elazar,

“They collect according to the proximity of the houses! And, Elazar, my son, drive this firmly into your mind!”

Be careful to rule this way and do not depart from this halakha:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia 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 protection

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

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

And this verse requires interpretation:

“I can count them”—whom does this refer to?

If you say it refers to the righteous

to whom the preceding verse refers , and concerning them the verse states, “They are more numerous than the sand,” meaning

that they are more numerous than the sand

that the righteous are more numerous than grains of sand—is this possible? For

now, concerning all Israel it is written only

only

“like the sand that is upon the seashore,”

and it does not say that they are more numerous than the sand. If so, it is impossible that

“the righteous themselves are more numerous than the sand.”

Rather, this is what it is saying: “I can count the deeds of the righteous,”

and their deeds are so numerous that

they are more numerous than the sand.

Thus, the deeds of the righteous are compared to sand,

and

one may derive a

kal va-chomer: If the sand, which is fewer

than the deeds of the righteous,

protects the sea

from overflowing and inundating the world, as it is stated [Jeremiah, chapter 5], “which I have set as the boundary of the sea,” then

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 protection!

When

Reish Lakish came

before Rabbi

Yohanan, he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan,

“Why did you not tell him

not teach him this law

from this

which is written in the Song of Songs:

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

And Rabbi Yohanan explains the verse,

“I am a wall”

this refers to Torah

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