Bava Batra 5

דאיצטנע מינך

so that I may keep out of your sight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Joint owners of a courtyard, however, if they do not divide it, do not use it for private purposes. ');">¹</span>

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה סברוה מאי מחיצה פלוגתא דכתיב (במדבר לא, מג) ותהי מחצת העדה וכיון דרצו בונין את הכותל בעל כורחן אלמא היזק ראיה שמיה היזק

Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. It was presumed [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>] that mehizah means 'division', as in the verse, and the congregation's mehezath was etc. Since then the partners agree to make a division, they are compelled [according to the Mishnah] to build a wall. This would show that overlooking is a substantial damage. May I not say, however, that mehizah means a wall, as we have learnt: 'If the mehizah of a vineyard has been broken down, the owner [of an adjoining cornfield] can require the owner of the vineyard to restore it. If it is broken down again, he can again require him to restore it. If [the owner of the vineyard] neglects the matter and does not restore it, he causes his neighbour's produce to become forfeit, and is responsible for his loss.' [This being so],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That mehizah means wall. ');">²</span>

אימא מאי מחיצה גודא (דתנן) מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה אומר לו גדור נפרצה אומר לו גדור נתיאש הימנה ולא גדרה הרי זה קידש וחייב באחריותה

the reason why either can be compelled [to assist in putting up the wall] is because they both agreed; but if either did not agree, he cannot be compelled. From which we infer that overlooking is not a substantial damage. If that is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That mehizah means wall. ');">³</span>

וטעמא דרצו הא לא רצו אין מחייבין אותו אלמא היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק

instead of THEY SHOULD BUILD THE WALL, the Mishnah should say, they should build it'? — You say then that mehizah means 'division'. If so, instead of 'who agreed to make a division', the Mishnah should say, 'who agreed to divide'? — It is usual for men to say, 'Come, let us make a division.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah reproduces this expression. ');">⁴</span>

אי הכי בונין את הכותל בונין אותו מבעי ליה אלא מאי פלוגתא אי הכי שרצו לעשות מחיצה שרצו לחצות מבעי ליה כדאמרי אינשי תא נעביד פלוגתא

But if overlooking is a substantial damage, why does it speak of the partners agreeing? Even if they do not agree, [either should be able to demand a division]? — To this R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishnah is speaking of a courtyard where there is no right of division,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, one not large enough to allow of four cubits being assigned to each. ');">⁵</span>

ואי היזק ראיה שמיה היזק מאי איריא רצו אפילו לא רצו נמי א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן משנתנו כשאין בה דין חלוקה והוא דרצו

and where therefore [a division is made only] if both agree.

מאי קמ"ל דכי לית ביה דין חלוקה כי רצו פליגי תנינא אימתי בזמן שאין שניהם רוצים אבל בזמן ששניהם רוצים אפילו פחות מכאן חולקין אי מהתם הוה אמינא אפילו פחות מכאן במסיפס בעלמא קמ"ל הכא כותל

The Mishnah then tells us [according to this] that where there is no right of division, they may still divide, if they so agree. We have learnt this already, [in the following passage]: 'When does this rule apply?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a courtyard is not to be divided if each part will not be large enough to be still called a courtyard. ');">⁶</span>

וליתני הא ולא ליתני הך סיפא איצטריכא ליה וכתבי הקדש אע"פ ששניהם רוצים לא יחלוקו

When both of them do not consent to divide; but if both consent, even when it is smaller than this they divide'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 22a. ');">⁷</span>

(ל"א וכי רצו מאי הוי ליהדר ביה אמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן בשקנו מידו כו'

— If I had only that to go by, I should say that where it is smaller than this they may divide with a mere fence of sticks. Therefore it tells us here that it must be a wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because overlooking is a substantial damage. ');">⁸</span>

אדאשמעינן בשאין בה דין חלוקה והוא דרצו לישמעינן ביש בה דין חלוקה ואע"ג דלא רצו אי אשמעינן ביש בה דין חלוקה ואע"ג דלא רצו הוה אמינא שאין בה דין חלוקה אפילו רצו נמי לא קמ"ל

But could not the Mishnah then state this case and omit the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The later Mishnah just quoted, seeing that we can learn this rule from the Mishnah here. ');">⁹</span>

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא קתני סיפא אימתי בזמן שאין שניהם רוצים אבל בזמן ששניהם רוצים יחלוקו מאי לאו אכותל לא אמסיפס בעלמא

— The other case was stated to introduce the succeeding clause: Scrolls of the Scriptures must not be divided even if both [joint owners] agree.

ליתני האי ולא ליתני האי סיפא אצטריכא ליה ובכתבי הקדש אע"פ ששניהם רוצים לא יחלוקו):

How then have you explained the Mishnah? As applying to a courtyard in which there is no right of division. If it is speaking of one in which there is no right of division, even if both owners consent, what does it matter? Either of them can retract? — R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: We assume that each made a formal contract with the other, by means of a <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'acquisition': the handing of a small article, usually a piece of cloth, by one of the contracting parties to the other, as a symbol that the object transferred has passed from the ownership of the one to that of the other. v. B.M. 47a. ');">¹⁰</span>

במאי אוקימתא למתני' בשאין בה דין חלוקה אי בשאין בה דין חלוקה כי רצו מאי הוי נהדרו בהו א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן שקנו מידן

But even if they made such a contract what does it matter, seeing that it relates only to a verbal agreement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, that of which ownership is acquired by the kinyan is only a verbal promise (viz. to divide), not any concrete article. ');">¹¹</span>

וכי קנו מידן מאי הוי קנין דברים בעלמא הוא בשקנו מידן ברוחות רב אשי אמר כגון שהלך זה בתוך שלו והחזיק וזה בתוך שלו והחזיק:

— [We assume that] they contracted by a <i>kinyan</i> to take different sides.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one the north side and one the south, so that something concrete was involved in the transaction. ');">¹²</span>

מקום שנהגו לבנות כו': גויל אבני דלא משפיא גזית אבני דמשפיא דכתיב (מלכים א ז, ט) כל אלה אבנים יקרות כמדות גזית (וגו') כפיסין ארחי לבינין ליבני

R. Ashi said: [And this becomes effective if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosaf. s.v. cr ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה רבה בריה דרבא לרב אשי ממאי דגויל אבני דלא משפיא נינהו והאי טפח יתירא למורשא דקרנתא דילמא פלגא דגזית הוא והאי טפח יתירא לביני אורבי הוא

] for instance one traverses his own part and takes formal possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By digging a little or so forth. ');">¹⁴</span>

כדקאמרינן כפיסין ארחי לבינין ליבני והאי טפח יתירא לביני אורבי

and the other does likewise.

אמר ליה וליטעמיך כפיסין ארחי מנלן אלא גמרא גמירי לה גויל נמי אבני דלא משפיא גמרא גמירי לה

IN DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS USUAL TO BUILD etc. GEBIL denotes untrimmed stones; GAZITH, squared stones, as it is written, All these were of costly stones according to the measure of hewn stones [gazith].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings VII, 9. ');">¹⁵</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי ממאי דהאי כפיסין ארחי נינהו והאי טפח יתירא לביני אורבי דילמא מאי כפיסין אבני דלא משפיין והאי טפח יתירא למורשא דקרנתא כדקאמרינן גויל אבני דלא משפיין גזית אבני דמשפיין והאי טפח יתירא למורשא דקרנתא

KEFISIN are half bricks and LEBENIM whole bricks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A whole brick was three handbreadths thick, but if two half-bricks were used, an extra half-handbreadth would be required for each for the mortar. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה וליטעמיך גויל אבני דלא משפיין מנלן אלא גמרא גמירי לה הכא נמי גמרא גמירי לה

Rabbah the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: How do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones, and that the extra handbreadth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Required for a wall of gebil as against a wall of gazith. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר אביי שמע מינה כל ביני אורבי טפח הני מילי בטינא אבל בריכסא בעי טפי ואיכא דאמרי הני מילי בריכסא אבל בטינא לא בעי כולי האי

is to allow for the projection of the rough edges? May it not be that gebil is half the thickness of gazith, and this extra handbreadth is to allow for the mortar between the rows, in the same way as we defined kefisin to be half-bricks and lebenim whole bricks, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? — He replied: Granting your analogy [between gebil and kefisin], how do we know that kefisin means half-bricks? From tradition. Similarly we know from tradition [that gebil means untrimmed stones]. According to another version, R. Aha the son of R. Awia said to R. Ashi: How do we know that kefisin means half bricks and the extra handbreadth is for the mortar between the rows? May it not be that kefisin means untrimmed stones and the extra handbreadth is for the projection of the rough edges, in the same way as we define gebil to be untrimmed stones and gazith to be polished stone, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? — He replied: Granting your analogy [between kefisin and gebil], how do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones? From tradition. So we know this also from tradition.

למימרא דבגזית דכל ד' אמות גובה אי הוי פותיא חמשא קאי אי לא לא קאי והא אמה טרקסין דהואי גבוה תלתין אמהתא ולא הוה פותיא אלא שית פושכי וקם כיון דאיכא טפח יתירא קאי

Abaye said: We learn from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that kefisin require a handbreadth more than lebenim. ');">¹⁸</span>

ובמקדש שני מ"ט לא עבוד אמה טרקסין כי קאי בתלתין קאי טפי לא קאי

that the space between the layers [in a wall] should be a handbreadth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless otherwise specified in a contract for a wall. ');">¹⁹</span>

ומנלן דהוה גבוה טפי דכתיב (חגי ב, ט) גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן הראשון רב ושמואל ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן ור"א חד אמר בבנין וחד אמר

This, however, is the case only if it is filled with mortar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made only of clay or mud. ');">²⁰</span> but if with rubble,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which small stones are mixed with the clay. ');">²¹</span> more space is required. Some say: This is the case only if it is filled with rubble, but if mortar is used, not so much is required. [The Mishnah seems] to assume that where squared stones are used, if for every four cubits of height there is a breadth of five handbreadths, the wall will stand, but otherwise not. What then of the Ammah Traksin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the cubit of the partition' (perhaps =[G]): a wall separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon. ');">²²</span> which was thirty cubits high but only six handbreadths broad, and yet it stood? — The one extra handbreadth enabled it to stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., although five handbreadths are required for a height of four cubits, six handbreadths will sustain a wall much higher. ');">²³</span> Why was there no Ammah Traksin in the Second Temple?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where only a curtain separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies. ');">²⁴</span> — A thickness of six handbreadths will sustain a wall of thirty cubits but not more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Second Temple was 100 cubits high. v. Mid. IV, 6. ');">²⁵</span> How do we know that the Second Temple Was higher [than the first]? — Because it is written, Greater shall be the glory of the latter' house than the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. II, 9. ');">²⁶</span> [The word 'greater' was interpreted differently by] Rab and Samuel [or, according to another report, by R. Johanan and R. Eleazar], one referring it to the size and the other