Bava Metzia 108a — the Talmud in English

And if not, they would not manage!

If those sailors in any event need to pass to the other bank of the river opposite, because they cannot pull the ship along my side of the river, since farther along the riverbank there are the gentile’s trees, then they gain nothing from cutting down my trees. For why would they return to my side, rather than continue pulling the ship along the riverbank opposite me?

Rabba bar Rav Naḥman was traveling on a ship,

he was traveling in a ship

, he saw a certain forest,

a wooded area

that stood on the bank of the river,

planted on the riverbank and causing damage to the public.

He said to them

to those who were with him: This forest

, whose is it,

who is its owner?

They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna.

He said

Rabba bar Rav Naḥman concerning this: About this it is stated [Ezra 9

]: “And the hand of the officials and the deputies was foremost in this trespass.”

And Rabba bar Rav Naḥman did not know that the reason Rabba bar Rav Huna had not cut it down was that farther along the riverbank there were fields belonging to gentiles, who did not want them cut down; therefore, he was not obligated to cut down the trees on the riverbank.

Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said

to his attendants:

Cut them down, cut them down

the trees that obstruct the public!

Rabba bar Rav Huna came

to his field

, and found that it had been cut.

He said: May the one who cut it down

my field

—may his branches be cut down!

May his branches be cut down. And his intention was that the sons of the one who cut it down should die.

They said: Throughout all the years of Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rabba bar Rav Naḥman had no surviving offspring!

Rav Yehuda said: Everyone is obligated

to assist in building

the city gate,

the city gate

, and even orphans

money is taken from them for the construction of a gate and wall for the city.

But the Sages, no,

they do not assist and do not pay for things intended for protection.

What is the reason?

Because

the Sages do not require protection,

for their Torah protects them, as it is written [Proverbs 6]: “When you lie down, it shall watch over you.” Therefore, they have no need for a wall and a gate for protection.

But

for digging a well,

digging a spring for the purpose of drinking, they collect from everyone

and even from the Sages

because this is a need of everyone.

And we said this

that the Sages are obligated to assist with digging a spring

only

when money is collected for the digging

and it is not done by a communal labor force,

that all the residents of the city do not go out to dig the spring.

But when all the residents of the city go out

as a communal labor force, they do not

go out with them to dig

, for the Sages are not people suited to go out as a communal labor force,

as it is demeaning for them, and they are exempt.

Rav Yehuda said:

A river that flows and waters the fields: Some fields are located upstream, and they receive the spring water first; and some are located farther on, downstream, where the water reaches them after the upper fields have been irrigated.

If stones fell into the river in the section belonging to the upstream fields, reducing the speed of its flow, and it is necessary

to dig,

to dig out its channel anew

of the river,

and to clean it and remove the stones that fell into it, by law

the downstream ones,

those located downstream, should be

assistants to the upstream ones,

to repair the river channel. For the downstream ones benefit from repairing the river, since its flow will thereby increase and more water will reach them.

But if the flow of the river was blocked in the section belonging to the downstream ones, and they wish to open the blockage so that the river will continue in its course, and the water will not remain in their domain and ruin the crops, then

the upstream ones,

those whose fields are above

do not assist the downstream ones,

because it is preferable for the upstream ones that it remain blocked at the downstream section, so that the river will slow the course of its waters, and the water will thereby remain in their domain for a longer time. And since the upstream ones have no benefit from opening the blockage at the downstream section, they are exempt from assisting them.

And all this applies to a river flowing between the fields, which benefits both the upstream and the downstream ones

, but it is the opposite with rainwater,

rainwater flowing in a channel down the slope of the city, which is not needed either by the residents of the upper part of the city or by those living in its lower part. Therefore, if the channel was blocked near those living in the upper part of the city, those living below, downstream, are not obligated to assist the upstream ones in opening the blockage, since the downstream ones have no benefit from opening the channel; therefore, they are exempt from assisting.

But if the channel was blocked in the section belonging to the downstream ones, and the water may rise over the banks of the channel and damage the entire city, both the downstream and the upstream sections, the upstream ones are obligated to assist the downstream ones in opening the channel so that the water will flow out.

It was also taught likewise: Five gardens

one above the other

, which draw water from one spring, and the spring was damaged

in the domain of the uppermost one, and the water stopped for all of them

, all of them repair it together with the uppermost one,

but if the spring was damaged in the domain of the lowermost one, those above it are not obligated to assist it,

the lowermost one is found to repair it together with all of them,

with every field above it where the spring was damaged in its domain.

And

if the spring was damaged in its domain,

it repairs it for itself.

And likewise, five courtyards

one above the other

, from which water flowed

foul water

into one drain, and the drain was damaged

below, and all of them could be damaged if the water remained in their domain

, all of them repair it together with the lowermost one.

But if it was damaged in the domain of the uppermost one, those below it are not obligated to assist it, because they have no benefit from opening the flow of the drain from the uppermost one onward.

The uppermost one is found to repair it together with all of them,

when it was stopped below it

, and

if it was stopped in its domain,

it repairs it for itself,

and no one assists it.

Shmuel said:

In the time of the Persians, it was the custom that all ownerless lands were ownerless property, and anyone who wished to seize and hold them was permitted to do so, provided that he paid a tax to the king. Therefore,

one who seized land on the riverbank,

on the riverbank, the place where ships dock, whose holding of it is at the expense of the public

, is brazen,

it is an act of insolence, because by holding the riverbank he harms the public, preventing them from using it

, but we do not remove him,

since according to the local custom

he

acquired the field lawfully.

But nowadays,

now

that the Persians write

for one who comes to purchase a field on the riverbank

: “Acquire for yourself

the field

up to

the middle of the river, to the place where

the water reaches the necks of horses,”

to the depth at which the horse stands with its neck in the water, if one came and purchased the land on the riverbank and did not use the place that the public needs, so as not to harm them, and another came and wished to take possession of that same place that the public needs

, we also remove him,

for we say to him: The first purchaser already acquired this place; he simply does not use it so as not to harm the public, and no other person can now take possession of that place.

The Law of the Adjoining Landowner

One who has land adjoining the land of another person, who has put it up for sale, has, by virtue of being a neighbor, precedence in purchasing that land. He is called a bar metzra, the son of the same boundary [border] between the two fields.

And if it has already been sold to another person, the bar metzra has the power to compel him to sell him the field under the law of the adjoining landowner.

And this right of the adjoining landowner to precede every person, the Sages derived from that which is written [Deuteronomy 6:18]: “And you shall do what is upright and good.” Since the adjoining landowner benefits from the adjoining field being in his possession, while, on the other hand, the other purchaser can find another field, the Sages instituted that where this one benefits and the other suffers no loss, it is part of what is upright and good that the adjoining landowner have precedence in purchasing the field.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

A.

One who takes possession

of an ownerless field situated

between

between the fields of two brothers, and from that point onward he is obligated to pay a tax to the king on that land.

And

likewise, if there was an ownerless field

between

between the fields of two

partners,

and they too wished to take possession of it, or alternatively to compel the one who had taken possession of it to sell it to them, so that their fields would thereby be adjacent to one another, they have no precedence in that field under the law of the adjoining landowner. This is because the one who took possession of it cannot find an ownerless field elsewhere. The law of precedence for the adjoining landowner was instituted only when another person comes to purchase a field adjoining his boundary, since, if he wishes, the other can purchase a similar field elsewhere; but in the case of an ownerless field, the one who took possession of it has acquired it.

In any event,

he is brazen,

because he caused a separation between brothers and between partners. But

removing him

from the field

we do not remove him.

And Rav Naḥman said: We also remove him,

because he acted improperly by taking possession between brothers, but not because of the law of the adjoining landowner.

B.

And if

the owners of the fields surrounding the ownerless field are not brothers or partners, and they say to the one who took possession of it: We precede you

because of the law of the adjoining landowner,

and you were forbidden to acquire the ownerless field before us

, we do not remove him,

because the law of the adjoining landowner does not apply to an ownerless field, and whoever is first to acquire it

has acquired it.

The Nehardeans say: Even

in the case of an ownerless field that is not surrounded by brothers, there is

the law of the adjoining landowner,

and

we remove him

the one who took possession of it

because it is stated

[Deuteronomy 6

]: “And you shall do what is upright and good in the eyes of the Lord.”

C.

A field that was put up for sale

, and a

purchaser who wished to buy it

consulted him,

he consulted the adjoining landowner as to whether he intended to exercise his right and purchase the land adjoining him or not

, and he said to him

the adjoining landowner: I do not intend to purchase it. The purchaser said: If so,

I will go and purchase it for myself,

and afterward you will not be able to take it from me

, and he said to him

the adjoining landowner

: Go and purchase it

and I will not take it from you—the law is that the purchaser acquires the field, and the adjoining landowner has no claim against him under the law of the adjoining landowner.

And now we inquire: Does the

purchaser need

the

to purchase from him

to purchase from the adjoining landowner the right of precedence that he has in the land

or not,

and even if he did not transfer his right to him, since the adjoining landowner waived his right to purchase the land first, it belongs to the purchaser?

Ravina said:

The purchaser

does not need to purchase from him

from the adjoining landowner.

And the Nehardeans say: He needs to purchase from him.

And the halakha is: He needs to purchase from him.

Now that you have said

that the halakha follows the Nehardeans, that the

purchaser needs

the

to purchase from him

from the adjoining landowner his right

, if he did not purchase from him,

and the purchaser purchased that field directly from the seller, since the right of precedence remained with the adjoining landowner, he is considered his agent in every respect, and it is like one who purchases a field for another without his knowledge.

Therefore, if the land

increased in value,

became more expensive

and

likewise if its price became

cheaper,

we say: The price changed

in his domain

the domain of the adjoining landowner, and when he comes to take the field from the purchaser under the law of the adjoining landowner, he will pay him according to what the purchaser paid when he purchased it from the seller.

And likewise, if the purchaser

purchased,

bought the field

for one hundred, and it was worth

its true value was

two hundred,

it turns out that the seller reduced the price of the field for him. And the purchaser says to the adjoining landowner: Had you come to purchase it, you would have had to pay two hundred. Now I purchased it for one hundred and you are coming to take it from me; you must pay according to the price you would have paid the seller had you purchased it from the seller, and two hundred is due me.

We examine: If

the seller of the field

reduced the price for everyone,

he reduced the price for all purchasers from him

and sells

it for one hundred

and not for two hundred, the law is that he gives him

the adjoining landowner gives the purchaser

one hundred and takes it

the field, and he is not obligated to give him the true value of the field; rather, just as much as the purchaser paid, so much does the adjoining landowner give him.

But if

the seller of the field

did not

reduce the price for the other customers, and reduced its price only for the purchaser of that field adjoining the boundary,

he gives him

the adjoining landowner gives the purchaser

two hundred

according to the value of the field

and takes it.

And the reason is that if the adjoining landowner had purchased it from the original owners, he would have paid them two hundred; therefore, now too, when he purchases it from the purchaser, he pays him two hundred.

And now the Gemara brings several laws concerning the adjoining landowner:

He purchased,

if the purchaser bought the field

for two hundred, and it was worth

only

one hundred,

for the owner of the field sold it to him at an expensive price, and the purchaser claimed to the adjoining landowner: When you take the field from me, you must pay me what I paid the seller, since I became your agent and purchased it for you for two hundred

, they thought from this,

the members of the study hall thought that

the adjoining landowner could say to him

: I

sent you to improve my position,

to purchase at a good price

and not to worsen it,

and whatever you paid beyond the value of the field was on your own account, and I will pay you only one hundred.

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Hisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what Nehardea say in the name of Rav Nahman: There is no overreaching with regard to land.

And if so, also the price of two hundred for land worth only one hundred is the price of the land, and the adjoining owner must pay the purchaser the entire two hundred.

He sold him

the owner of the field to the purchaser

a griva of land

a plot of land

in the middle of his properties,

for there is no field surrounding that plot except the seller’s field, and concerning it there is no law of the adjoining owner, because the seller’s fields that remained surrounding it are the fields adjoining it, and not the neighbors,

we see

we see whether the seller and the purchaser did this by way of deception, in order to circumvent the law of the adjoining owner. Therefore,

if

that land which he sold

is superior

in relation to the other fields surrounding it, and

if it is inferior,

while the other fields are superior to it, then it is customary to sell such a field by itself, in the middle of the seller’s fields, and there is no concern for deception, and therefore

his sale is a sale.