Bava Batra 8

Chapter 8

א נשעייה באמתא מלבר וניעבד מלגיו עביד חבריה מלבר ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי דקפיל ליה חבריה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא קילופא מידע ידיע
1 [The man who makes the wall] should smear it [with lime] on the outer side to the extent of a cubit. Why not on the inner side? — His neighbour will do the same on the outer side and claim that the wall is joint property. If he can do that, he can also scrape off the mark [on the outer side] and claim a share in the wall?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 4. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב הוצא אמר רב נחמן סינופי יריכי מלבר וניעבד מלגיו עביד נמי חבריה מלבר ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא אי הכי השתא נמי גייז ושדי ליה ואמר דידי ודידיה הוא משריק ליה טינא השתא נמי אתי חבריה וקליף ליה קילופא מידע ידיע
2 — Scraping is noticeable.
ג אביי אמר הוצא לית ליה תקנתא אלא בשטרא:
3 [Suppose the partition is made of] palm branches, [how is he to make a mark]? — R. Nahman said: He should direct the points of the branches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Another rendering, 'The staves supporting the hedge' (R. Han).] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד אבל אם עשו מדעת שניהם: אמר ליה רבא מפרזיקא לרב אשי לא יעשו לא זה ולא זה אמר ליה לא צריכא דקדים חד מנייהו ועבד דידיה ואי לא עביד חבריה אמר דידיה הוא
4 outwards. Why not inwards? — Because then his neighbour may also turn points outwards and say that the fence is joint property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 14, n, 4. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה ותנא תקנתא לרמאי קמ"ל אמר ליה ורישא לאו תקנתא לרמאי הוא
5 If he can do that, he can also cut off the points [if they are outside] and throw them away? — [The other should therefore] smear clay over them. But even so the neighbour can come and scrape it away? — Scraping would be noticed. Abaye said [that for a partition made of] palm branches there is no security save by a written deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, there is always the possibility of fraud unless there is evidence in writing duly witnessed as to how the partition was made. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו אמר ליה בשלמא רישא תנא דינא ומשום דינא תנא תקנתא אלא סיפא דינא קתני דקתני תקנתא אמר רבינא הכא בהוצי עסקינן לאפוקי מדאביי דאמר הוצא לית ליה תקנתא אלא בשטרא קמ"ל דבחזית סגיא:
6 IF, HOWEVER, THEY BOTH CONCUR. Raba of Parazika<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Identified with Farausag. a district near Bagdad. V. Obermeyer, op. cit., 269. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקיף את חבירו משלש רוחותיו וגדר את הראשונה ואת השניה ואת השלישית אין מחייבין אותו רבי יוסי אומר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל:
7 said to R. Ashi: Let neither of them make a mark? — The rule is required for the case where one made a mark first, so that if the other does not do likewise, the first may claim [the whole wall] as his own. Is the Tanna then teaching us how to guard against rogues? — And is not the previous regulation also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if one builds the fence on his own ground he should make a mark. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי דאמר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל לא שנא עמד ניקף ל"ש עמד מקיף
8 a precaution against rogues? Raba replied: This is right and proper in the former clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the one who wants to build should withdraw into his own ground. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט איתמר רב הונא אמר הכל לפי מה שגדר חייא בר רב אמר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול
9 the Tanna first states the law and then teaches how it should be safeguarded. But in the latter clause what law has he laid down that he should teach us how to safeguard it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no law that a fence should be built in a stretch of cornfields. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י תנן המקיף את חבירו משלש רוחותיו וגדר את הראשונה ואת השניה ואת השלישית אין מחייבין אותו הא רביעית מחייבין אותו אימא סיפא רבי יוסי אומר אם עמד וגדר את הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל
10 Rabina said: We are here dealing with a partition made of palm branches, and the object of the Mishnah is to exclude the view of Abaye, that for a fence made of palm branches there is no security save through a written deed. It therefore tells us that the making of a facing is sufficient.
יא בשלמא לרב הונא דאמר הכל לפי מה שגדר בה היינו דאיכא בין ת"ק ורבי יוסי ת"ק סבר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול אין ומה שגדר לא ורבי יוסי סבר הכל לפי מה שגדר
11 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN HAS FIELDS SURROUNDING THOSE OF ANOTHER ON THREE SIDES AND FENCES THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD, THE OTHER IS NOT BOUND [TO SHARE IN THE COST].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether because there is no custom that fields should be fenced or because the fencing is of little advantage so long as the fourth side is open. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב אלא לחייא בר רב דאמר הכל לפי דמי קנים בזול מאי איכא בין ת"ק לר' יוסי אי דמי קנים בזול לא קיהיב ליה מאי קיהיב ליה
12 R. JOSE SAID: IF HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question which of the two is meant is discussed in the Gemara. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג אי בעית אימא אגר נטירא איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר אגר נטירא אין דמי קנים בזול לא ורבי יוסי סבר דמי קנים בזול
13 TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'rose up and fenced'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד ואי בעית אימא ראשונה שניה ושלישית איכא בינייהו ת"ק סבר רביעית הוא דיהיב ליה אבל ראשונה שניה ושלישית לא יהיב ליה ור' יוסי סבר ראשונה שנייה ושלישית נמי יהיב ליה
14 THE FOURTH, THE WHOLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his share in the cost of the whole. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו איבעית אימא מקיף וניקף איכא בינייהו דת"ק סובר טעמא דעמד ניקף דמגלגלין עליו את הכל אבל עמד מקיף אינו נותן לו אלא דמי רביעית
15 COST DEVOLVES UPON HIM.
טז ורבי יוסי סבר ל"ש ניקף ול"ש מקיף אם עמד וגדר מגלגלין עליו את הכל
16 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose who said: IF HE TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE THE FOURTH, THE WHOLE COST DEVOLVES UPON HIM; and it makes no difference whether it is the encloser or the enclosed who does so.
יז לישנא אחרינא מקיף וניקף איכא בינייהו ת"ק סבר אם גדר מקיף את הרביעית נמי יהיב ליה ורבי יוסי סבר אם עמד ניקף וגדר את הרביעית הוא דיהיב ליה דגלי דעתיה דניחא ליה אבל אם גדר מקיף לא יהיב ליה מידי
17 It has been stated: R. Huna said, [The contribution to the cost of] the whole must be proportionate to the actual cost of erecting the fence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which will vary according to the materials used by the encloser. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Hiyya b. Rab said, It must be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the other can say that this is all that he requires. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> We have learnt: IF A MAN HAS FIELDS SURROUNDING THOSE OF ANOTHER ON THREE SIDES AND FENCES THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD SIDES, THE OTHER IS NOT COMPELLED [TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST]; which would imply that if the other fences the fourth side also, he must contribute [to the cost of the whole]. Now see the next clause: R. JOSE SAYS, IF HE TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE THE FOURTH, THE COST OF THE WHOLE DEVOLVES UPON HIM. This accords very well with the opinion of R. Huna who said [that he contributes to the cost of] the whole in proportion to the outlay on the fence; there is a genuine difference of opinion between the first Tanna and R. Jose, the former holding that the contribution has to be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks, but not to the actual outlay, and R. Jose that it has [in all cases] to be proportional to the actual outlay. But if we accept the view of Hiyya b. Rab who said that it need only be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks, what difference is there between the first Tanna and R. Jose? If he is not to give him even the cost of a cheap fence, what else can he give?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, can even the Rabbis fix his contribution at anything less than this? ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — If you like I can say that they differ as regards the hire of a watchman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the time that the corn is ripe. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> the first Tanna holding that he must pay the cost of a watchman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would be less than the cost of a cheap fence, and the Rabbis might say that since this is all he requires, this is all that the fence is worth to him, and he need not contribute more than this. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> but not of a cheap fence, and R. Jose holding that he must pay the cost of a cheap fence. If you like, again, I can say that they differ as to the first, second and third sides, the first Tanna holding that he has to contribute only to the cost of fencing the fourth side, but not the first, second and third,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to lay, we infer only this from the language of the Mishnah, and not, as above, that he has to contribute to the cost of the whole. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and R. Jose holding that he has to contribute to the cost of the first, second and third sides also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proportionately to the actual cost, according to one authority, and to the cost of a cheap fence according to the other. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> If you like, again, I can say that they differ as to whether the fence in question must be built by the owner of the surrounding fields or of the enclosed field, [if the latter is to contribute to the cost of the whole]. The first Tanna holds that the reason [why the owner of the enclosed field has to contribute] is because the took the initiative [in building the fourth fence] and that is why the cost of the whole devolves on him, but if the owner of the surrounding fields took the initiative, the other has only to pay him his contribution to the fourth fence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not clear on what grounds this opinion is ascribed to the first Tanna, as there is no hint of it in the Mishnah. Rashi does not seem to have had the whole of this clause in his text; v. D. S. a.l. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> R. Jose on the other hand holds that it makes no difference whether the owner of the enclosed or of the surrounding fields took the initiative In building the fourth fence, in either case the former has to pay the latter his share of the whole. According to another version [of this last clause], they differ as to [whether the fourth fence has to be built by] the owner of the enclosed or the surrounding fields [in order to make the former liable for contributing to its cost]. The first Tanna holds that even if the owner of the surrounding fields makes the fourth fence, the other has to contribute to the cost,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently the cost of the whole is meant. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> whereas R. Jose holds that if the owner of the enclosed field takes it upon himself to build the fourth fence, then he has to contribute to the cost [of the whole] because he makes it clear that he approves of it, but if the owner of the surrounding fields builds it, the other does not pay him anything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he can say that he does not want any fencing. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter