Responsa for Bava Batra 50:15
וכמה
Papi Yona'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps 'of Yawan', i.e. Greece. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> was a poor man who made some money and built a country house. There were in his neighbourhood some sesame-oil makers who, when they crushed the sesame seeds, used to make his villa shake. He appealed against them to R. Ashi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'He came before R. Ashi.' ');"><sup>25</sup></span> who said to him: When we studied with R. Kahana, we used to say that R. Jose admits that a man is responsible for the damage of which he is the cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore you are entitled to stop them. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> How much
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. When the brothers A, B, and C divided among themselves the house they formerly held in common, a certain wall upon which heavy beams were resting crosswise, fell to A's portion. These beams extended beyond the wall into B's and C's portions on one side, and into A's portion on the other side. A cut off those parts of the beams which extended into his rooms. B and C objected to this act on A's part.
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.
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy