Responsa for Bava Batra 38:5
תא שמע לא ישתין אדם מים בצד כותלו של חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ג' טפחים בד"א בכותל לבינים אבל בכותל אבנים בכדי שלא יזיק וכמה טפח ושל צונמא מותר תיובתא דרבה בר בר חנה תיובתא
But did we not learn, URINE MUST BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL? — This refers to slop water. Come and hear: A man should not make water on the side of another man's wall, but should keep three handbreadths away. This is the rule for a wall of brick, but if the wall is of stone. he need keep away only so far as not to do any damage. How much is this? A handbreadth. If the wall is of hard stone, it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.B. 1. ');"><sup>4</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