Talmud - Bava Batra 7b בבא בתרא ז׳ ב׳

i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of-way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field.

Shmuel continues: Nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other’s property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other’s property. And be careful with these, since they are established halakhot. Rava says: The brothers do have all of the aforementioned rights. Rav Ḥama agrees with Shmuel’s opinion, that each brother can do as he pleases on his own property without the other one preventing him from doing so.

Since Rav Ḥama’s rulings were mentioned, the Gemara cites another halakhic ruling in his name. There was a certain promissory note inherited by orphans from their father, stating that somebody owed them money, against which a receipt was produced by the borrower, stating that the debt was already paid. Rav Ḥama said: We cannot use the note to collect the debt on behalf of the orphans, nor can we tear it up. The Gemara explains: We cannot collect with the note because a receipt against it was produced by the borrower; and we cannot tear the note up because perhaps when the orphans grow up they will bring proof that the receipt was forged and undermine it.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Ravina: What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: In all the cases in this discussion, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, except for the case of the receipt, because we do not presume that the witnesses are liars. Since witnesses signed the receipt, the court trusts that the debt was paid and they tear up the promissory note.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: In this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, because the validity of the receipt is in doubt. As, if it is so that it is a valid receipt, the borrower should have produced it during their father’s lifetime. And since he did not produce it at the proper time, we learn from this that he may have forged it. Even though this is not an absolute proof, it is sufficient reason not to tear up the promissory note.

MISHNA: The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall.

With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that making a gatehouse is beneficial? But wasn’t there that pious man, with whom the prophet Elijah was accustomed to speak, who built a gatehouse, and after-ward Elijah did not speak with him again? The objection to the building of a gatehouse is that the guard who mans it prevents the poor from entering and asking for charity. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, the case presented in the mishna, is referring to a gatehouse built on the inside of the courtyard, in which case the poor can at least reach the courtyard’s entrance and be heard inside the courtyard; that, the story of the pious man and Elijah, involves a gatehouse that was built on the outside of the courtyard, completely blocking the poor’s access to the courtyard’s entrance.

And if you wish, say instead that in both cases the gatehouse was built outside the courtyard, and yet this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a door to the gatehouse, so that the poor cannot be heard inside the courtyard, while in the other case there is no door. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a door, and still this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a key needed to open the door, and the key is not available to the poor people, whereas in the other case, there is no key needed. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a key needed, and even so this is not difficult: In the one case the key is on the inside, so that the poor cannot reach it, while in the other case of the mishna, the key is on the outside.

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse. Rather, a courtyard that adjoins the public domain requires a gatehouse to prevent people from peering in. But a courtyard that does not adjoin the public domain does not require a gatehouse. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a courtyard does not adjoin the public domain, people in the public domain sometimes are forced toward the courtyard due to crowding in the public domain, and come and enter the courtyard.

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. The Sages taught in a baraita: The residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to build double doors and a crossbar for the city. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities require a wall. Rather, a city that adjoins the state border requires a wall, whereas a city that does not adjoin the state border does not require a wall. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a city does not adjoin the border, it sometimes happens that invading troops come into the area. Therefore, it is always good for a city to be protected by a wall.

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When the residents of the city collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the number of people living in each house, or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the net worth of each person, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this, i.e., this is an established halakha, and you must not veer from it.

There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When they collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, so that those people who live closer to the wall pay more? Or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this.

§ It is related that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia once imposed payment of the tax for the wall even on the Sages. Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require protection, as it is written: “How precious are your dear ones to me, O God…If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psalms 139:17–18). If I should count whom? If we say this is referring to the righteous, and the verse is saying that they are greater in number than the grains of sand, this is difficult. Now if it is written about all of Israel: “As the sand which is upon the seashore” (Genesis 22:17), can the righteous themselves, who are a part of Israel, be greater in number than the grains of sand? How can they possibly outnumber the grains of sand upon the seashore?

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: If I should count the deeds of the righteous, they are greater in number than the grains of sand. And it follows by an a fortiori inference: If the grains of sand, which are fewer in number, protect the shore from the sea, barring it from flowing inland (see Jeremiah 5:22), do not all the more so the deeds of the righteous, which are greater in number, protect them? Consequently the Sages do not need additional protection.

When Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and reported the exchange to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the reason that you did not quote this verse to him: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10), which may be explained as follows: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”;

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaBatra 7b examines whether brothers who divide inherited property retain rights of way, windows, ladders, or water channels over each other's land.