Bava Batra 99b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Rabbi Elazar said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

because of suspicion concerning his wife.

So that the owner of the house would not suspect his wife of [relations] with the owner of the pit. Therefore the Sages instituted that the owner of the house should also make a lock for the pit, so that the owner of the pit would not be able to come to draw water from the pit at a time when the owner of the house is not present in his house.

Mishna:

One who has a garden inside his fellow’s garden,

and the owner of the outer garden agreed to give him a path through his field, he

enters at the time when people ordinarily enter, and leaves at the time when people ordinarily leave.

For it is known that the owner of the outer garden agreed to give the owner of the inner garden a path only when he has a great need, since the trampling of feet causes considerable damage to the garden.

And he may not bring merchants into it.

The owner of the inner garden may not bring merchants into his garden who will purchase vegetables from his garden.

Nor may he enter through it into another field.

If he does not need to enter his garden, and wishes to pass through it only in order to shorten his route to another field, he is forbidden to pass through his fellow’s garden. For his fellow subordinated the path to his use only for the purpose of tending the garden and gathering the vegetables, and not for another purpose. This is also the reason that he is forbidden to bring merchants there.

And the outer owner,

the owner of the outer garden,

sows the path.

He is permitted to sow the path, since we are certain that, because the path passes through the middle of his garden, he certainly did not intend to give it to him entirely, to the extent that he would be unable to sow there. If

the court gave him

to the owner of the inner garden

a path from the side,

a path that passes along the side of the outer garden and not through its middle,

with the consent of both of them,

that both of them agreed to this, then he

enters

into it

at the time he wishes, and leaves

from it

at the time he wishes.

And he brings merchants into it.

Since it is with the consent of both of them, and the path is also at the side and does not harm him so greatly, presumably he gave him the path entirely, so that he could use it for all his needs.

However,

he may not enter through it into another field.

For he agreed to give it to him only for the needs of his garden, and not in order to shorten his route from it to another field.

Both this one and that one,

both the owner of the outer garden and the owner of the inner garden,

are not permitted to sow it.

Since the path is at the side, they designated it for walking alone.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

One who says to his fellow:

A watercourse for a beit hashalakhin

a water channel for irrigating a beit hashalakhin field, which is a field that requires much water,

I sell to you

within my field—

he gives him two cubits within it.

The watercourse itself must be two cubits wide, so that it can contain much water sufficient for the beit hashalakhin. And he must also give him

one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side,

on both sides,

for its banks,

so that he can repair from that ground the walls of the watercourse if they collapse.

If he said to him:

A watercourse for a beit hakilon,

a water channel for watering animals and washing clothing and vessels,

I sell to you,

and it is not so large,

he gives him one cubit within it,

for its width must be one cubit.

And half a cubit on this side and half a cubit on that side for its banks.

And we examine it:

And those banks,

the area outside the watercourse designated for strengthening the banks,

who sows them?

Who has the right to sow them, the owner of the field or the owner of the watercourse?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The owner of the field sows them.

As in the case of our Mishna, concerning a path that the owner of the outer garden gives to the owner of the inner garden, so too here: the owner of the field indeed subordinated this ground to him for strengthening the watercourse when necessary, but he did not relinquish his right to sow there entirely.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: The owner of the field plants them.

He may plant trees there alone.

And the Gemara explains their dispute:

The one who says that he sows them, all the more so

that he can

plant them,

since trees damage the ground less than seeds.

And the one who says that he plants them

will maintain that he may plant only trees there, because the roots of trees penetrate deeply and do not damage the upper ground.

But

to sow them—no!

Because the roots of seeds are

penetrating and spreading,

they spread laterally and penetrate the upper layer of the ground, and they damage the banks of the watercourse.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A watercourse whose banks have entirely disappeared

whose walls have collapsed,

is repaired from that field

he takes earth from the adjacent field to repair its walls.

For

it is known that its banks disappeared only into that field.

For it is presumed that the earth of the walls dispersed into the adjacent field. Therefore he may take earth from there to repair the banks.

Rav Pappa challenged this: Let him say to him,

let the owner of the field say to the owner of the watercourse:

“Your waters lowered it into your ground!”

It was your water that washed the earth of the walls into the depth of the watercourse, and you may not take anything from my field!

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

This is not the reason; rather, it is because

the owner of the field accepted it upon himself on this condition,

that if the banks of the watercourse fall, he may take earth from his field, since if not from here, from where will he take earth to repair the banks? And when he sold him the watercourse, he resolved to transfer to him also earth from his field whenever he would need to repair the banks.

Mishna:

One whose public road passed through his field,

for example, the public had established the practice of passing there from time immemorial, or the owner of the field had given it to them himself, and now he wishes to cancel it, and therefore

he took it

from them

and gave them

a path that passes

from the side

of his field:

What he gave, he gave,

and they have possession of the new path. But as for the old path that he wished to take for himself,

they did not attain it.

He did not acquire it; rather, the first path as well remains in the possession of the public.

A private path,

one who sells his fellow a path within his field must give him a path of a width of

four cubits,

so that a wagon whose width is this measure can pass there.

A public road,

if he sold him a path for the public, he must give him a path of a width of

sixteen cubits,

as the Sages learned in tractate Shabbat [99a] from the wagons of the Tabernacle, that this is the measure for a public road.

The king’s road has no measure.

For the king breaks through fences and the houses of other people in order to clear a path for himself, so that he will not need to turn to the right or to the left.

The funeral road,

one who sells his fellow a path within his field in order to transfer the deceased through it to his grave,

has no measure

in width; rather, he must establish for him a path through which all those accompanying the deceased can pass.

The standing place,

one who sells his fellow a place in which to make a “standing place.” It was customary that when returning from the cemetery after accompanying the deceased, they would sit near the cemetery and comfort the mourner there or weep there over the deceased; they would rise from there, continue walking a little, and sit down again, and so seven times. These places are called “standing places.”

The judges of Tzippori said

that the measure of the standing place is

a house of four kav.

An area in which four kav can be sown. It is fifty cubits long by thirty-three and one-third cubits wide [according to the calculation of “two se’a like the courtyard of the Tabernacle,” where the place for sowing two se’a is one hundred cubits by fifty cubits]. That is, approximately a square of forty by forty cubits.

Gemara:

And we examine it:

Why did he not attain his own?

Why does the Mishna say that he not only forfeited the new path that he gave the public, but also forfeited the old path that he wished to receive in exchange?

Apparently, the reason is that although according to the law he is permitted to make this exchange even against the will of the public, since the public loses nothing by this, and in such a case one compels [another] concerning the measure of Sodom, therefore the public acquired the new path according to the law; nevertheless, he also forfeits the old path, despite the fact that he acquired it lawfully, because the public had already become accustomed to passing through it, and he is unable to summon each and every one of them to a Torah court to prevent him from walking through it. And raise an objection: Since he cannot summon the public to court, let him administer justice for himself:

“Let him take a club and sit down.”

Let him take a staff, sit down on the old path, and drive away those who pass through it—!?

Can it be learned from this

that

a person does not administer justice for himself,

that a person is not permitted to administer justice for himself

even in a case of loss,

when he has a loss—for example, in our case, where he loses the old road. Yet it is an established principle for us that in a case of loss, a person is permitted to administer justice for himself!

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:

In fact, a person may administer justice for himself in a case of loss; rather, here, according to the basic law, he cannot take the old road from the public, because the Sages instituted that a person may not exchange the road of the public for them, even if he gives them a road as good as the old one,

as a decree lest he give them a winding road

which is not as convenient as the previous one, and they will not notice this [for the pot of partners is neither hot nor cold]. And the Sages were greatly concerned for the welfare of the public; therefore, they determined that even if he exchanged it for a good road, the public would not thereby lose their previous road [below, the Gemara will explain: if so, why should the owner of the property lose the new road that he gave them, since it is a mistaken transaction]].

Rav Mesharsheya, the son of Rava, said:

the law of the Mishna applies only

when he gives them a winding road.

Therefore he cannot take from them the previous road, which is better than it. But if he exchanged it for a good road, then he acquires the old road, and he may administer justice for himself and prevent the public from using it any longer.