Bava Batra 114

הכא בחצר השותפין עסקינן דבהעמדה כדי לא קפדי אמחיצה קפדי

we are dealing here with a courtyard belonging to several joint owners, who do not object to [any one of their number] merely stationing things there, but who do object to [his making] a partition there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if he makes a partition and they do not object, this constitutes hazakah, but so long as there is no partition his using the courtyard constitutes no hazakah, though it would in the case of an outsider. ');">¹</span> But do they not object to things being merely stationed [there]? Have we not learnt that joint owners of a courtyard who have vowed to have no benefit from one another are forbidden to enter the courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that they are particular even about one another standing in the courtyard, for otherwise such standing could not be called a benefit derived from the other. ');">²</span>

ובהעמדה כדי לא קפדי והא תנן השותפין שנדרו הנאה זה מזה אסורין ליכנס לחצר

— The truth is, said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, that we are dealing here with the open space behind the houses, where the owners do not mind things being stationed, but where they do mind a partition being made. R. papa said: In both cases [of the vow and of the beast etc.] we are dealing with a courtyard of joint owners, [and the reason why the rule is different is this:] Some owners are particular and some are not. Where the issue is a pecuniary one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of using the courtyard. ');">³</span> we take the more lenient view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we assume that the other residents do not mind him putting his beasts etc. there, and since they do not mind, they do not formally object to his action, and therefore it does not constitute hazakah. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הכא ברחבה של אחורי בתים עסקינן דבהעמדה כדי לא קפדי ואמחיצה קפדי

But where the issue is one of [breaking] a religious precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a vow. ');">⁵</span> we take the more stringent view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We assume that the others do mind his standing in the courtyard. Hence if they allow him to do so, and he does, he would be deriving a benefit from them and so breaking his vow. ');">⁶</span>

רב פפא אמר אידי ואידי בחצר השותפין ואיכא דקפדי ואיכא דלא קפדי גבי ממונא לקולא גבי איסורא לחומרא

Rabina said: Indeed we assume in all cases that the joint owners are not particular,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore by rights the vow would not be broken by the act of standing in the courtyard. ');">⁷</span> and the rule [regarding vows] is based on the opinion of R. Eliezer, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer says, One who has vowed to receive no benefit from another is forbidden to take even a makeweight from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the man who has made the vow buys 100 nuts from the other, and he gives him one or two over, as to all customers, he may not accept them. Similarly, by standing in the courtyard the man who has made the vow receives a certain benefit from the other, even though the latter claims (as against him) no ownership in the courtyard. ');">⁸</span>

רבינא אמר לעולם לא קפדי והא מני ר' אליעזר היא דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר אפילו ויתור אסור במודר הנאה

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Bana'ah: Joint owners of a courtyard can stop one another from using the courtyard for any purpose save that of washing [clothes], since it is not fitting that the daughters of Israel should expose themselves to the public gaze while washing [clothes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they would if they have to go down to the river to do so. ');">⁹</span> It is written: [The righteous one is] he that shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXXIII, 15. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר יוחנן משום ר' בנאה בכל שותפין מעכבין זה את זה חוץ מן הכביסה שאין דרכן של בנות ישראל להתבזות על הכביסה

and [commenting on this] R. Hiyya b. Abba said: This refers to a man who does not look at the women when they are washing [clothes]. How are we to understand this? If there is another road, then if [he does not take it] he is wicked.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a duty to keep away from temptation. ');">¹¹</span> If there is no other road, then how can he help himself? — We suppose that there is no other road, and even so it is incumbent on him to hide his eyes from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to constrain himself'. ');">¹²</span>

(ישעיהו לג, טו) ועוצם עיניו מראות ברע א"ר חייא בר אבא זה שאין מסתכל בנשים בשעה שעומדות על הכביסה

R. Johanan asked R. Bana'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having mentioned R. Bana'ah the text adduces a number of his sayings and doings. ');">¹³</span> how [long] the under-garment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'shirt'. ');">¹⁴</span>

היכי דמי אי דאיכא דרכא אחריתא רשע הוא אי דליכא דרכא אחריתא אנוס הוא לעולם דליכא דרכא אחריתא ואפ"ה מיבעי ליה למינס נפשיה

of a <i>talmid hakam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a scholar. v. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span> [should be]. He replied: So long that his flesh should not be visible beneath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it should come right down to his feet. ');">¹⁶</span>

בעא מיניה ר' יוחנן מרבי בנאה חלוק של ת"ח כיצד כל שאין בשרו נראה מתחתיו טלית של ת"ח כיצד כל שאין חלוקו נראה מתחתיו טפח שלחן של ת"ח כיצד שני שלישי גדיל ושליש גלאי ועליו קערות וירק וטבעתו מבחוץ

it. How [long should] the upper garment of a <i>talmid hakam</i> [be]? — So long that not more than a handbreadth of his under-garment should be visible underneath. How should the table of a <i>talmid hakam</i> be laid? — Two-thirds should be covered with a cloth and the other third should be uncovered for putting the dishes and vegetables on;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they should not dirty the cloth. According to some, the bare space was to be in the middle. ');">¹⁷</span> and the ring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By which the table-top was hung up when not in use. ');">¹⁸</span>

והא תניא טבעתו מבפנים לא קשיא הא דאיכא ינוקא הא דליכא ינוקא

should be outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the bare part. ');">¹⁹</span> But has it not been taught that the ring should be inside?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the part near the guests. ');">²⁰</span>

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דליכא ינוקא ולא קשיא הא דאיכא שמעא הא דליכא שמעא

— There is no contradiction. In one case [we suppose] there is a child at the table,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then it should be outside, because otherwise the child may play with it and upset the table. ');">²¹</span> and in the other that there is no child. Or if you like I can say [that in both cases [we suppose] there is no child, and still there is no contradiction: in one case [we suppose] there is a waiter at table<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it should be inside, because if it is outside, it may get in his way. ');">²²</span>

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דאיכא שמעא ולא קשיא הא ביממא הא בליליא

and in the other there is no waiter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it should be outside, so as not to get in the way of the company. ');">²³</span> Or if you like I can say that in both cases [we suppose] there is a waiter, and still there is no contradiction; in the one case we refer to the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the waiter can avoid it, and therefore the convenience of the company can be consulted by having it outside. ');">²⁴</span>

ושל עם הארץ דומה

and in the other to the night. The table of an 'am ha'arez<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁵</span> is like