Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 120:4

אבל אם רצה כונס לתוך שלו ומוציא: איבעיא להו כנס ולא הוציא מהו שיחזור ויוציא ר' יוחנן אמר כנס מוציא וריש לקיש אמר כנס אינו מוציא

— R. Johanan said that though he has drawn back [the wall] he may still make projecting beams, while Resh Lakish said that once he has drawn back he cannot later make projecting beams. R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain this to you. On the question of projecting beams there is no difference of opinion [between the authorities], and both hold that they are permitted. Where they differ is on the question whether he may restore the walls to their former position, and the above statement should be reversed, [i.e.,] R. Johanan said that he may not go back to the original position and Resh Lakish said that he may. R. Johanan ruled that he may not, In accordance with the dictum of Rab Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the law follows in this matter, so that, as usually in a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, the law follows the former. ');"><sup>3</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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse