Responsa for Bava Batra 120:3
מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר ניחא להו לבני רה"ר דיתבי בטוליה כיון דחזא דקא מעכבי שדר קצייה ולימא ליה זיל קוץ דידך והדר אקוץ דידי משום דריש לקיש דאמר (צפניה ב, א) התקוששו וקושו קשוט עצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים:
HE MAY, HOWEVER, IF HE DESIRES DRAW BACK HIS WALL FROM THE STREET AND ALLOW THEM TO PROJECT. The question was asked: If a man draws back [his wall] and does not at once let any beams project, may he do so subsequently?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., has he not tacitly abandoned his right to the intervening space? ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Shut min haShamayim
They responded: 'Such an argument need not enter here' (Bava Metzia 16a:18), since the Torah says "In order that you shall remember" (Numbers 15:40).3Therefore there is a positive commandment to perform an action of remembering, namely, to wear tzitzit. "Nonetheless, leave the Jews alone, it is better than they sin unintentionally than intentionally." (Bava Batra 60b:21)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. B's building was contiguous to A's property. The foundation of this building extended two hand-breadths beyond the wall itself. B wanted to build another wall in line with the edge of this foundation, the wall to extend two hand-breadths beyond the existing wall. A protested vigorously claiming that B's property ended at the edge of the wall of the building mentioned above, and that the foundation of such building extended two hand-breadths in his (A's) property.
A. Since B was in undisturbed possession of the width of the foundation, he was thus in possession of the disputed two hand-breadths of ground along the whole length of the property, and upwards reaching into the sky. Therefore, if B will take an oath to the effect that he did not remove his neighbor's landmark [when the foundation was built], the disputed two hand-breadths of ground will belong to him. Although according to Biblical law no oath is administered in disputes involving real property, such an oath is required by Rabbinic enactment.
SOURCES: Cr. 239; Am II, 184; Mord. B. B. 558; Agudah B. B. 109.
A. Since B was in undisturbed possession of the width of the foundation, he was thus in possession of the disputed two hand-breadths of ground along the whole length of the property, and upwards reaching into the sky. Therefore, if B will take an oath to the effect that he did not remove his neighbor's landmark [when the foundation was built], the disputed two hand-breadths of ground will belong to him. Although according to Biblical law no oath is administered in disputes involving real property, such an oath is required by Rabbinic enactment.
SOURCES: Cr. 239; Am II, 184; Mord. B. B. 558; Agudah B. B. 109.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy