Bava Batra 118

ויכול למחות פחות מטפח אין לו חזקה ואין יכול למחות:

AND THE OWNER OF THE COURTYARD CAN PREVENT IT BEING MADE [IN THE FIRST INSTANCE]. IF IT IS LESS THAN A HANDBREADTH THERE IS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> FOR IT AND HE CANNOT PREVENT IT [FROM BEING MADE].

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי מני ואמרי לה אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי מני החזיק בטפח החזיק בד' מאי קאמר אמר אביי ה"ק החזיק רוחב טפח במשך ארבע החזיק ברוחב ארבע:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Assi said in the name of R. Mani (or, according to others, R. Jacob said in the name of R. Mani): If he obtains a right to a handbreadth he obtains a right to four. What is the meaning of this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the face of it the statement is absurd, since if the owner of the courtyard would allow a spar of a handbreadth, it does not follow that he would allow one of four. ');">¹</span>

פחות מטפח אין לו חזקה ואינו יכול למחות: אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בעל הגג בבעל החצר אבל בעל החצר בבעל הגג יכול למחות ורב יהודה אמר אפילו בעל חצר בבעל הגג אינו יכול למחות

— Abaye said: It means that if he has obtained a right to a width of a handbreadth with a length of four, he ipso facto obtains a right to a width of four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A space of four handbreadths by four is reckoned something considerable', and therefore a length of four handbreadths carries a width of four with it, though a length of ten handbreadths would not carry with it any greater width. ');">²</span>

לימא בהיזק ראיה קמיפלגי דמר סבר שמיה היזק ומר סבר לאו שמיה היזק

IF IT IS LESS THAN A HANDBREADTH THERE IS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> FOR IT AND HE CANNOT PREVENT IT [FROM BEING MADE]. R. Huna said: This only means that the owner of the roof cannot prevent the owner of the courtyard [from using it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it is his property, because the owner of the courtyard can at any time tell him to remove it. ');">³</span>

לא דכולי עלמא שמיה היזק ושאני הכא דאמר ליה לתשמישתא לא חזי למאי חזי למתלא ביה מידי מהדרנא אפאי ותלינא ביה

but the owner of the courtyard can prevent the owner of the roof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either from using it or from making it in the first instance. ');">⁴</span>

ואידך אמר ליה זימנין דבעיתת:

Rab Judah, however, said that the owner of the courtyard cannot prevent the owner of the roof either. May we say that the point at issue between them is whether overlooking [constitutes a genuine damage], one holding that it does, and the other that it does not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner of the courtyard can be 'overlooked' from the spar by the owner of the roof, but not vice versa. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא יפתח אדם חלונותיו לחצר השותפין לקח בית בחצר אחרת לא יפתחנה בחצר השותפין בנה עלייה על גבי ביתו לא יפתחנה לחצר השותפין אלא אם רצה בונה את החדר לפנים מביתו ובונה עלייה על גבי ביתו ופותחה לתוך ביתו:

— No. Both consider overlooking to constitute a genuine damage but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a spar less than one handbreadth. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי איריא לחצר השותפין אפילו לחצר חבירו נמי לא

the case [according to Rab Judah] is different because the owner of the roof can say to the other: I cannot actually do anything on this spar. All I can do with it is to hang things on it. When I do that, I will turn my face away. And the other [R. Huna]? — [He can rejoin that] the other may say to him: You may become afraid [of falling, and not turn your face away].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so overlook my courtyard. ');">⁷</span>

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לחצר חברו דלא אבל לחצר השותפין דא"ל סוף סוף הא קא בעית אצטנועי מינאי בחצר קא משמע לן דאמר ליה עד האידנא בחצר הוה בעינא אצטנועי מינך השתא אפילו בבית נמי בעינא אצטנועי מינך

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN SHOULD NOT LET HIS WINDOWS OPEN ON TO A COURTYARD WHICH HE SHARES WITH OTHERS. IF HE TAKES A ROOM IN ANOTHER [ADJOINING] COURTYARD, HE SHOULD NOT MAKE AN ENTRANCE TO IT IN A COURTYARD WHICH HE SHARES WITH OTHERS. IF HE BUILDS AN UPPER CHAMBER OVER HIS HOUSE, HE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE ENTRANCE TO IT IN A COURTYARD WHICH HE SHARES WITH OTHERS. BUT HE MAY IF HE PLEASES MAKE AN INNER CHAMBER IN HIS HOUSE AND THEN BUILD AN UPPER CHAMBER OVER HIS HOUSE AND MAKE THE ENTRANCE FROM HIS HOUSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasons for all these rules are explained in the Gemara. ');">⁸</span>

תנו רבנן מעשה באדם אחד שפתח חלוניו לחצר השותפין ובא לפני ר' ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי אמר לו החזקת בני החזקת ובא לפני רבי חייא אמר יגעת ופתחת יגע וסתום

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [A MAN SHOULD NOT LET HIS WINDOWS OPEN etc.] Why only in a courtyard which he shares with others? Surely the prohibition should apply also to the courtyard of his neighbour? — The Mishnah takes an extreme case. On the courtyard of his neighbour he may certainly not let his windows open out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he interferes with his neighbour's privacy. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב נחמן

But in the case of a courtyard which he shares with others he can say [to the other owner]: In any case you have to take steps to preserve your privacy from me in the courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because I share the courtyard. and therefore the addition of a window will make no difference. ');">¹⁰</span> We now learn therefore that the other can reply: Up to now I had to take steps to preserve my privacy only in the courtyard, but now [if you make this window] I shall have to do so in my house also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alternatively we may translate: Till now I had to preserve my privacy when you were in the courtyard, now I shall have to do so when you are in your house also. ');">¹¹</span> Our Rabbis taught: A certain man made windows opening on to a courtyard which he shared with others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who made no objection at first. ');">¹²</span> He was [eventually] summoned before R. Ishmael son of R. Jose, who said to him: You have established your right, my son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the others did not protest immediately. This accords with R. Ishmael's dictum recorded supra 41a: 'an action done in the presence of the owner constitutes hazakah.' ');">¹³</span> He was then brought before R. Hiyya, who said: As you have taken the trouble to open them, so you must take the trouble to close them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because for establishing such a right three years are required. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Nahman said: