Responsa על בבא בתרא 4:18
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
Q - (1) A built a privy for himself on land which belonged to B. A maintains, that insofar as he had borne the entire expense of erecting the wall [which separates the property of A and B] he had the authority to build the privy on that place. B contends that the odor [from the privy] renders the wall valueless.
Furthermore, B asserts that the sewage flows on his land and the odor is most offensive. B avers that rainwater from A's roof causes damage to the former's roof.
Q - (2) B alleges that A built a structure on the wall which was built by both of them. B asserts that he protested this action, and demands that A should remove this structure.
Q - (3) A built an entrance to a oath and thereupon insists that the path belongs entirely to him. B disputes this claim and demands that A close up this entrance.
Q - (4) A built windows which open into his own property, but overlook B's property. The latter demands that the former close up these windows.
Q - (5) Both A and B claim that each caused the other to undergo an expenditure on their houses. A well [in the road] prevents the pigs from getting to the privy and one of them demands that this obstacle be removed.
A - (1) R. Hayyim Eliezer prefaces his answer by stating that the questions are vaguely phrased, and many details are lacking.
If both A and B were obligated to build the wall [e.g. a courtyard that required partition], and A claims that he acquired the land [on which the privy stands] with the money he spent in erecting B's share of the wall, or else, it was not necessary for A to erect the wall, but B promised to give this land to A for putting up the wall, then A's claim is sustained. However, if B was not obligated to build the wall, together with A, then A's claim is disallowed.
We do not accept B's contention that the odor rendered the wall valueless and unless the damage caused by the sewage and rainwater was direct, B will have to afford his own protection.
A - (2) If the case is as B explained, then A must remove the structure which he erected on the wall that was built by both of them.
A - (3) If the path was in the possession of both A and B, the former has no right to claim the sole ownership of this path, and must therefore close up the entrance.
A - (4) Even though the windows open into A's house, he must close them up, since they overlook B's property.
A - (5) The claims of A and B, concerning the expenditures caused by each other are inadmissible. If the well which prevents the pigs from reaching the privy, results in an extra expense, then it must be removed.
Furthermore, B asserts that the sewage flows on his land and the odor is most offensive. B avers that rainwater from A's roof causes damage to the former's roof.
Q - (2) B alleges that A built a structure on the wall which was built by both of them. B asserts that he protested this action, and demands that A should remove this structure.
Q - (3) A built an entrance to a oath and thereupon insists that the path belongs entirely to him. B disputes this claim and demands that A close up this entrance.
Q - (4) A built windows which open into his own property, but overlook B's property. The latter demands that the former close up these windows.
Q - (5) Both A and B claim that each caused the other to undergo an expenditure on their houses. A well [in the road] prevents the pigs from getting to the privy and one of them demands that this obstacle be removed.
A - (1) R. Hayyim Eliezer prefaces his answer by stating that the questions are vaguely phrased, and many details are lacking.
If both A and B were obligated to build the wall [e.g. a courtyard that required partition], and A claims that he acquired the land [on which the privy stands] with the money he spent in erecting B's share of the wall, or else, it was not necessary for A to erect the wall, but B promised to give this land to A for putting up the wall, then A's claim is sustained. However, if B was not obligated to build the wall, together with A, then A's claim is disallowed.
We do not accept B's contention that the odor rendered the wall valueless and unless the damage caused by the sewage and rainwater was direct, B will have to afford his own protection.
A - (2) If the case is as B explained, then A must remove the structure which he erected on the wall that was built by both of them.
A - (3) If the path was in the possession of both A and B, the former has no right to claim the sole ownership of this path, and must therefore close up the entrance.
A - (4) Even though the windows open into A's house, he must close them up, since they overlook B's property.
A - (5) The claims of A and B, concerning the expenditures caused by each other are inadmissible. If the well which prevents the pigs from reaching the privy, results in an extra expense, then it must be removed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy