Responsa על בבא בתרא 70:7
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. B bought property from a Gentile which bordered on A's property. Before paying for it, B, to acquire possession, did some digging in the Gentile's yard in the presence of witnesses. After B did so, but before he had paid the money to the Gentile, A constructed apertures for windows in his wall facing the property. Did A acquire rights to window lights?
A. In city property digging is not considered a valid act of possession. Likewise A did not acquire any rights to window lights since a Gentile does not renounce his rights to his property before he receives the money, and the Gentile's property was, therefore, not (res nullis) ownerless. However, before paying money to the Gentile, let B perform a valid act of possession (such as locking a door, fixing or breaking part of the fence, etc.); otherwise A will acquire rights to window lights during the interval between the paying of the money and B's taking formal possession, since during such interval the Gentile's property will be res nullis.
SOURCES: Cr. 63–64; Pr. 28–29; L. 338; Mord. ibid.
A. In city property digging is not considered a valid act of possession. Likewise A did not acquire any rights to window lights since a Gentile does not renounce his rights to his property before he receives the money, and the Gentile's property was, therefore, not (res nullis) ownerless. However, before paying money to the Gentile, let B perform a valid act of possession (such as locking a door, fixing or breaking part of the fence, etc.); otherwise A will acquire rights to window lights during the interval between the paying of the money and B's taking formal possession, since during such interval the Gentile's property will be res nullis.
SOURCES: Cr. 63–64; Pr. 28–29; L. 338; Mord. ibid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. The burghers built the city tower on the foundation of A's wall. Subsequently the burghers gave B certain rights in that tower, and he erected buildings therein. A, however, claimed that the burghers had wronged him, had misappropriated some of his ground, and that B's buildings were partly standing on his (A's) ground.
A. As I have already explained in my other letter, the fact that the tower is built on A's foundations shows that the ground also belongs to A. B can not claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title since, deriving his rights from Gentiles, he is in the same category as a Gentile and has no presumptive right of title. B's sons also lack such right, nor do we claim in their favor that perhaps their father bought from A the right to erect his buildings, since they are in the category of "sons of a robber." Since B's sons do not claim that B bought from A in their presence the right to erect his buildings, but merely state that the burghers claimed to have built the tower legally, B's sons must either remove their buildings from the ground in question or come to terms with A.
SOURCES: Cr. 236; Am II, 180; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 314c; ibid. p. 366d.
A. As I have already explained in my other letter, the fact that the tower is built on A's foundations shows that the ground also belongs to A. B can not claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title since, deriving his rights from Gentiles, he is in the same category as a Gentile and has no presumptive right of title. B's sons also lack such right, nor do we claim in their favor that perhaps their father bought from A the right to erect his buildings, since they are in the category of "sons of a robber." Since B's sons do not claim that B bought from A in their presence the right to erect his buildings, but merely state that the burghers claimed to have built the tower legally, B's sons must either remove their buildings from the ground in question or come to terms with A.
SOURCES: Cr. 236; Am II, 180; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 314c; ibid. p. 366d.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy