Responsa for Bava Metzia 234:16
מי שהיה כותלו סמוך לגינת חבירו ונפל ואמר לו פנה אבניך ואמר לו
What if neither possesses [the wherewithal for rebuilding]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the owner of the lower portion wishes to turn it to agricultural purposes, whilst the owner of the upper storey demands a share in it (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>15</sup></span> (It has been taught: When neither possesses [money for rebuilding]. the garret owner has no claim at all upon the land.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashal deletes the whole of the bracketed passage. on the authority of Asheri. Alfasi retains it. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> It has been taught: R. Nathan said: The owner of the lower portion receives two-thirds [of the land], and the owner of the upper, one-third. Others say, The owner of the lower portion receives three-quarters, and that of the upper, one-quarter. Rabbah said: Hold fast to R. Nathan's ruling, because he is a judge, and has penetrated to the depths of civil law. By how much does the loft impair the value of the house [i.e., the lower storey]? — By a third.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The duration of the lower portion is lessened by one-third on account of the weight of the upper. Thus it may be held that the owner of the upper storey has a right to a third of the ground. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Therefore he is entitled to a third. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. SIMILARLY, IF AN OLIVE PRESS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. [H], denotes the building in which the olive press, the tank, and all other objects required for pressing olives are housed. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> WAS BUILT IN A ROCK AND ABOVE IT WAS A GARDEN, AND THE ROOF OF THE PRESS WAS BROKEN THROUGH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus undermining the soil above and rendering it unfit for sowing. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> THE OWNER OF THE GARDEN CAN DESCEND AND SOW BELOW [ON THE FLOOR OF THE PRESS], UNTIL THE PRESS-OWNER REPAIRS THE VAULTING [TO PROVIDE A SUPPORT FOR THE GARDEN ABOVE]. IF A WALL OR A TREE FELL INTO A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE AND CAUSED DAMAGE, HE [ITS OWNER] IS FREE FROM LIABILITY. BUT IF HE WAS GIVEN A [FIXED] TIME TO CUT DOWN THE TREE OR PULL DOWN THE WALL, AND THEY FELL: IF WITHIN THE PERIOD, HE IS NOT LIABLE; AFTER THAT PERIOD HE IS LIABLE. IF A MAN'S WALL WAS NEAR HIS NEIGHBOUR'S GARDEN AND IT COLLAPSED [INTO THE GARDEN], AND WHEN HE DEMANDED, 'REMOVE YOUR STONES', HE REPLIED,
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Those parts of the beams which extended into A's portion belonged to him exclusively, and he had a right to cut them off, especially since the intervening wall belonged to him. Although the act of sawing and chopping weakened B's and C's structures, since the extension of the beams into A's room served no useful purpose to B and C, and because of their unnecessary weight were even detrimental, A had a right to cut them off. In any event, B and C are not entitled to any compensation for their loss, now that the act has been done.
SOURCES: Am II, 198.