Responsa for Bava Batra 38:13
האי חבית היכי דמיא אי דפומא לבר
Now straw is fit for the food of animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet it is allowed to form a partition. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — We speak here of straw which has become mouldy. But it is fit for making clay? — We speak of straw which has thorns in it. But it is fit for fuel? — We speak of damp straw. Even so it can be used on a big fire? — A big fire is something uncommon. But figs are fit to eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet they are allowed to form a partition. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> — Samuel replied: We speak of figs which have bred worms. (So Rabbah b. Abbuha also explained: We speak of figs which have bred worms.) How are we to picture this jar? If its mouth faces outwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., towards the second room, with no dead body in it. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A drained the water in his yard by means of a ditch which was adjacent to B's stone wall. B claimed that when the ditch was full, the water had flooded his house. He, therefore, demanded that A fill up his ditch. A claimed that the ditch had been in his yard for a period of twenty-four years and that B had never protested before. B, however, contended that the ditch had not previously caused him any damage. A's father bought the property with the ditch from a Jew who, in turn, had bought it from a Gentile.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A drained the water in his yard by means of a ditch which was adjacent to B's stone wall. B claimed that when the ditch was full, the water had flooded his house. He, therefore, demanded that A fill up his ditch. A claimed that the ditch had been in his yard for a period of twenty-four years and that B had never protested before. B, however, contended that the ditch had not previously caused him any damage. A's father bought the property with the ditch from a Jew who, in turn, had bought it from a Gentile.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. B constructed a stone duct near A's wooden house. A objected and B made a written promise to compensate him for any damage the duct might cause to his house. A now demands that B remove his duct because it occasionally permits water and sewage to flow into his house, and he objects to being forced to sue for damages every time it occurs. B claims that water flows into A's house only when the duct breaks. He promises to keep the duct in good condition, but refuses to remove it.
A. B must remove his duct from A's wall for a distance of 3 tefahim (hand-breadths). If the water should, nevertheless, continue to flow into A's house, it is for A to protect his wall by whatever means he sees fit, but he can demand nothing of B.
SOURCES: Cr. 3, 4; Pr. 92; L. 357; Mord. B. B. 520.
A. B must remove his duct from A's wall for a distance of 3 tefahim (hand-breadths). If the water should, nevertheless, continue to flow into A's house, it is for A to protect his wall by whatever means he sees fit, but he can demand nothing of B.
SOURCES: Cr. 3, 4; Pr. 92; L. 357; Mord. B. B. 520.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A drained the water in his yard by means of a ditch which was adjacent to B's stone wall. B claimed that when the ditch was full, the water had flooded his house. He, therefore, demanded that A fill up his ditch. A claimed that the ditch had been in his yard for a period of twenty-four years and that B had never protested before. B, however, contended that the ditch had not previously caused him any damage. A's father bought the property with the ditch from a Jew who, in turn, had bought it from a Gentile.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
A. If A removes his ditch one tefah from B's wall, he is free from further obligation. But even if A does not do so, he is free from any obligation since he inherited the ditch from his father, who, if alive, could claim that he bought the right to maintain the ditch from B. Moreover, A is not required to take an oath to the effect that he never heard his father say that he did not buy from B (or B's father) the right to maintain the ditch for the following reasons: a) Orphans are not required to take an oath in order to free themselves from a money obligation; b) the oath of orphans is a rabbinical decree and the Rabbis did not decree anything disadvantageous to the interests of the orphans.
The fact that A's yard originally belonged to a Gentile, has nothing to do with the case since B does not claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally. If B does put forth the claim that the Gentile dug the ditch illegally, it will avail him nothing, since, again, the court will have to put forth the claim, for A's benefit, that A's father bought the right to maintain the ditch from B or B's predecessors.
This Responsum was sent to R. Manahem b. David and R. Hillel b. Azriel of Würzburg (Cr. 23).
SOURCES: Cr. 23; Pr. 143; L. 388; Mord. B. B. 548; Agudah B. M. 180.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy