Bava Metzia 232:1
מתני׳ <big><strong>הבית</strong></big> והעלייה של שנים שנפלו שניהם חולקין בעצים ובאבנים ובעפר ורואין אלו אבנים העשויות להשתבר אם היה אחד מהן מכיר מקצת אבניו נוטלן ועולות לו מן החשבון:
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A HOUSE [I.E.. THE GROUND FLOOR] AND AN UPPER STOREY, BELONGING TO TWO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., legatees who had thus divided their legacy. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מדקתני רואין מכלל דאיכא למיקם עלייהו אי בחבסא נפיל אי בחבטא נפיל
COLLAPSED, BOTH MUST SHARE [PROPORTIONATELY] IN THE TIMBER, STONES, AND EARTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., proportionally to the respective heights of each, they must divide the whole beams, bricks, etc., and likewise the broken ones. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אי הכי רישא אמאי חולקין נחזי אי בחבטא נפיל עלייתא איתבור אי בחבסא נפיל תתייתא איתבור
WE ALSO SEE WHICH STONES [I.E., BRICKS] ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN BROKEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the lower part of the house received a shock like that of a battering ram, it may be assumed that the broken stones are of that portion. If, on the other hand, the shock was evenly distributed, as that of a hurricane, it is most probable that the broken stones are of the upper storey, since they had a greater distance to fall. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
וליחזי ברשות דמאן יתבן וליהוי אידך המוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה לא צריכא דייתבן בחצר דתרוייהו אי נמי ברשות הרבים ואיבעית אימא שותפין בכי האי גוונא לא קפדי אהדדי:
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Since it is stated, WE SEE [etc.], it follows that it is possible to gauge whether it fell through pressure or a shock. If so, in the first clause, why do they divide? Let us see: if it fell through a shock, then [the timber etc. of] the upper storey was broken; if through pressure, the lower portion was damaged!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 5. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אם היה אחד מהן מכיר כו': והלה מה טוען אי דקאמר אין פשיטא ואי לא אמר אין למה נוטל אלא דא"ל איני יודע
— It is meant that it collapsed at night. Then let us examine it in the morning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it fell through pressure, it will be on its site, whereas if a shock overthrew it, the materials will be strewn at a distance. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
לימא תהוי תיובתא דר"נ דאיתמר מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי חייב ר"נ ור' יוחנן אמרי פטור
— It [the debris] had been cleared away. Then let us see who had cleared it away, and ask them! — Public [workers] had cleared it away, and departed. Then let us see in whose possession they are [now] situated, so that the other becomes the claimant, upon whom the onus of proof will lie! — They [the materials] are now in a courtyard belonging to both, or in the street. Alternatively, partners in such matters are not particular with each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the house belongs to both, even if they have separate courtyards, neither objects to the other making use of his. Possession in such a case does not prove ownership. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כדאמר ר"נ כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן הכא נמי כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן
IF ONE RECOGNISED etc. Now, what does the other plead. If he agrees, then it is obvious. If not, why should this one take them? Hence it must mean that he replied. 'I do not know.' Shall we say that this refutes R. Nahman? For it has been stated: [If A says to B.] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>,' and B pleads. 'I do not know': R. Huna and Rab Judah rule that he must pay; R. Nahman and R. Johanan say: He is not liable! — It is as R. Nahman answered [elsewhere]: E.g., there is a dispute between them involving an oath; so here too, there is a dispute between them involving an oath. What is meant by a dispute involving an oath? — As Raba's dictum. For Raba said: [If A says to B,] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>,' to which he replies. 'I [certainly] owe you fifty <i>zuz</i>, but as for the rest, I do not know,' since he cannot swear, he must pay [all].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 97b and 98a for notes. So here too, A claims that he recognises a certain quantity of materials, and B admits part of it and pleads ignorance with respect to the rest. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
היכי דמי עסק שבועה כדרבא דאמר רבא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים והשאר איני יודע מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע ישלם:
BUT THEY ARE COUNTED IN HIS SHARE. Raba thought this meant in his share of broken materials,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., A taking a certain quantity of unbroken materials, B receives an equal (or proportionate) quantity of broken ones, and they share in the rest. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ועולות לו מן החשבון: סבר רבא למימר לפי חשבון שבורות אלמא כיון דאמר איני יודע ריע טפי
thus proving that since he says. 'I do not know,' his position is considerably worsened. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, the position of the other should be much worse; for since he knows only of these, but of no more, he should be entitled to no more, and the other should receive all the rest! — But, said Abaye, it means in his share of whole materials. if so, what does it [his knowledge] profit him? — In respect of extra wide bricks, or well — kneaded clay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole materials which he recognises as his own may be superior to the other whole ones. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
א"ל אביי אדרבה הא ריע טפי מדהני ידע טפי לא ידע תו לית ליה ואידך כולהו דהיאך נינהו
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IN THE CASE OF] A HOUSE AND AN UPPER STOREY, IF THE UPPER STOREY WAS BROKEN THROUGH, AND THE LANDLORD REFUSES TO MEND IT, THE INHABITANT OF THE UPPER STOREY CAN DESCEND AND DWELL BELOW, UNTIL HE REPAIRS THE TOP. R. JOSE SAID: THE LOWER ONE MUST PROVIDE THE TIKRAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained in the Gemara. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבית והעלייה נפחתה העלייה ואין בעל הבית רוצה לתקן הרי בעל העלייה יורד ודר למטה עד שיתקן לו את העלייה
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. 'BROKEN THROUGH:' over what area?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how much?' ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ר' יוסי אומר התחתון נותן את התקרה והעליון את המעזיבה:
— Rab said: The greater part; Samuel said: Four [handbreadths]. 'Rab said: The greater part.' but not only four [handbreadths],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that case he cannot take possession of the ground floor. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נפחתה בכמה רב אמר ברובה ושמואל אמר בארבעה
because one can dwell partly below and partly above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when only four handbreadths are broken through, he lacks the space required for one utensil, and so he can only claim that in the lower dwelling; this is referred to as living partly below and partly above. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
רב אמר ברובה אבל בארבעה לא אדם דר חציו למטה וחציו למעלה ושמואל אמר בארבעה אין אדם דר חציו למטה וחציו למעלה
'Samuel said: Four [handbreadths]:' one cannot dwell partly below and partly above. How is it meant? If he [the landlord] had said to him, '[I rent you] this storey, it is gone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is the tenant's misfortune, and he has no claim. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ה"ד אי דאמר עלייה זו אזדא אלא דאמר ליה עלייה סתם לוגר ליה אחריתי
But if he simply stated, 'A storey,' then let him rent him another! — Raba said: It arises only if he stated, 'This garret, which I rent you, as long as it stands, go up thither; and when it comes down [through the weather], descend you too [to the ground floor].' If so, why state it? — But, said R. Ashi, it means that he said to him, 'This storey which is upon this house, I rent to you;' thus he pledged the house for the storey. And this is in accordance with what Rabin son of R. Adda related in R. Isaac's name: It once happened that a man said to his neighbour. 'I sell you a hanging vine which is over this peach tree,' and the peach tree was later uprooted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vine thus losing its support. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>