courtyard

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah, is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥalȋṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.

If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah, is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥalȋṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.

Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A condominium courtyard is obligated. Rebbi Yasa said: and I deduced that from what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Four principles about damages Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar enunciated in Rebbi Meїr’s name: Any place which is permitted to both the person who sustained the damage and the person who caused it, such as a hostelry or a condominium courtyard and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing by a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from [real estate] of the best quality. [Permitted] to the person who sustained the damage but not the person who caused it, he pays everyting. [Permitted] to the person who caused the damage but not the person who sustained it, he is free from everything. And everybody agrees that if neither of them had access, as a valley or public property and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing from a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A condominium courtyard is obligated. Rebbi Yasa said: and I deduced that from what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Four principles about damages Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar enunciated in Rebbi Meїr’s name: Any place which is permitted to both the person who sustained the damage and the person who caused it, such as a hostelry or a condominium courtyard and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing by a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from [real estate] of the best quality. [Permitted] to the person who sustained the damage but not the person who caused it, he pays everyting. [Permitted] to the person who caused the damage but not the person who sustained it, he is free from everything. And everybody agrees that if neither of them had access, as a valley or public property and similar situations, he is not liable for tooth and foot; for goring, and hitting, and biting, and wallowing, and kicking, and pushing from a tame animal he pays half the damages, for a notorious one he pays full damages from his storage room.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

MISHNAH: If a potter put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner broke them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the pots is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.

MISHNAH: If a potter put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner broke them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the pots is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.

HALAKHAH: “If a potter put his pots,” etc. If he put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and broke them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that ‘horn’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

HALAKHAH: “If a potter put his pots,” etc. If he put his pots in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and broke them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that ‘horn’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner ate them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and an animal of the owner ate them, [the owner] is not liable; if [the animal] was hurt, the owner of the produce is liable. But if he puts them there with permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that the ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that the ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put his produce in a private courtyard,” etc. If he put his produce in a private courtyard without permission and a bull came from another place and ate them, he is not liable. If it was hurt by them, he is not liable. This implies that the ‘tooth’ is not liable in a courtyard which belongs to neither party.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his father or son were inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.

MISHNAH: If somebody put his bull in a private courtyard without permission and the owner’s bull gored it or his dog bit it, [the owner] is not liable; if it gored the owner’s bull, he is liable. If it fell into his cistern and caused it to stink, he is liable. If his father or son were inside, he pays weregilt. But if he put it in by permission, the owner of the courtyard is liable; Rebbi says, in all these cases, only if he agreed to watch.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi. Rav Ze‘ira said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Jeremiah said, everybody agrees that in a house, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and I shall watch it.” Everybody agrees that on a field, if he tells him, “put it in,” [he implies] “and you watch it.” Where do they disagree? In a courtyard. Rebbi says, a courtyard is like a field, but the Sages say, a courtyard is like a house. There, we have stated: If somebody assembles sheaves in another person’s field without permission.” [R. Isaac said,] sheaves on a field are like vessels in a house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by one which has a lock.

MISHNAH: He who stole according to the testimony of two people and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath, stole and sold to pagan worship, stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement, stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died, stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn, he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases.

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

“If he was renting out to others, even what is inside the house belongs to him.” Rebbi Jeremiah says, they disagree about a hostelry, but in a courtyard everybody agrees that he is required to make it public. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a courtyard, but in a hostelry everybody agrees that it belongs to its finder.

“If he was renting out to others, even what is inside the house belongs to him.” Rebbi Jeremiah says, they disagree about a hostelry, but in a courtyard everybody agrees that he is required to make it public. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a courtyard, but in a hostelry everybody agrees that it belongs to its finder.

MISHNAH: One may increase rental fees but not sale price. How is this? He leased a courtyard saying to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for ten tetradrachmas a year but if paid monthly it is a tetradrachma per month; this is permitted. He sold his field and said to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for 1’000 zuz, but if after the threshing floor it is twelve mina; this is forbidden. If one sold his field, [the buyer] made a partial payment and [the seller] said, anytime you wish bring the remainder and take yours; this is forbidden. If one lent money on a field and said, if you do not repay me in three years from now, it will be mine, it is his; Boethos ben Zenon acted thus following the Sages.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

MISHNAH: Condominium owners who want to make a separation in the courtyard build the wall in the middle. At a place where commonly one builds with unhewn stones, or hewn stones, or half-bricks, or bricks, everything follows local custom. For unhewn stones, each partner gives three handbreadths. For hewn stones, each gives two and one half handbreadths. For half-bricks, each gives two handbreadths. For bricks, each gives one and a half handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall collapsed the place and the stones belong to both of them.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s [property] surrounded another’s on three sides. If he fenced in the first, and the second, and the third sides, one does not hold [the other] liable. Rebbi Yose said, if the latter then fenced in the fourth side, one rolls everything over to him. If the wall of a courtyard collapsed, one obligates him to rebuild up to four cubits. There is a presumption that he gave, unless he brings proof that he did not give. Higher than four cubits one does not obligate him, but if he built an adjacent wall, even though he did not put on roofing, one rolls everything over to him. There is a presumption that he did not give, unless he brings proof that he gave.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody’s [property] surrounded another’s,” etc. Halakhah 5: “If the wall of a courtyard collapsed,” etc. Rav Ḥuna said, only at the rate he is building now. For if he built it arched, he had to build arched. But here if it was built arched and he built it with bricks, he can collect the cost of arches, and if it should collapse, he has to rebuild it.

So far lengthwise. What about its width? Rebbi Nasa said, the wall of the courtyard is only made to save for him. They intended to say that if he wanted to make a roof, he cannot make a roof. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by his beams.

MISHNAH: One forces him to build a porter’s lodge and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all courtyards are appropriate for a porter’s lodge. One forces him to build a wall for the town with double doors and bolt. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all towns are appropriate for a wall. How long does he have to stay in a town to be like an inhabitant of the town? Twelve months; if he bought an apartment he immediately is an inhabitant of the town.

MISHNAH: One does not divide the courtyard unless there be four cubits for each one, nor the field unless there be nine qab for each one; Rebbi Jehudah says, nine half qabbim for each one. Not the vegetable garden unless there be half a qab for each one; Rebbi Aqiba says, the area of a quarter [qab]. Not the dining hall, nor the storage room, nor the dovecote, nor the stole, nor the bathhouse, nor the olive press unless there is one for each of them. This is the principle: Anything which is divided and retains its name one divides, otherwise one does not divide. When is that? If the two of them do not agree. However, if both of them want it, they may divide even if it is less. But Holy Scripture they should not divide even if both of them want it.

HALAKHAH: “One does not divide the courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are outside the four cubits of the doors. Bar Kappara stated thus: One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there be eight cubits for each party. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are not acquired by him but they are for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rebbi Jonathan asked: did they only say for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package temporarily? It was found stated: also the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: the chicken coop also has four cubits.

HALAKHAH: “One does not divide the courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are outside the four cubits of the doors. Bar Kappara stated thus: One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there be eight cubits for each party. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are not acquired by him but they are for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rebbi Jonathan asked: did they only say for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package temporarily? It was found stated: also the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: the chicken coop also has four cubits.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

Rav Huna said, a courtyard is divided by the number of doors. Rav Ḥisda said, the baraita refers to manure. It was stated as follows: “For the cooking stove one handbreadth, for manure according to doors, for the covered walkway according to people.” “Five courtyards which were using a water conduit and it broke. All of them repair together with the uppermost. The uppermost repairs at its place; the others with the second one. The second one repairs at its place; the lowest one repairs with all of them and at its place.” “Five apartments are built above a house which broke. All of them repair with the lowest. The lowest repairs at its place; the others with the second one. The second one repairs at its place; the uppermost repairs with all of them and at its place. If it was a storm sewer they can prevent it being used for laundry. For laundry they cannot prevent it being used as storm sewer.”

MISHNAH: A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop under the storage room of another person, nor an animal barn. In truth they permitted for wine, but not an animal barn. About a store in the courtyard one may object and tell him, I cannot sleep because of the noise of those coming and the noise of those leaving. One who manufactures vessels has to leave and sells them in the market; nobody may object and tell him, I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer, nor because of the noise of a grindstone, nor because of the noise of children.

MISHNAH: The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession and the following do not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. If one put his animals into a courtyard, an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, or raises chickens, or puts his manure in a courtyard, it does not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. But if he made for his animals an enclosure ten [handbreadths] high, or did it for an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, brought chickens into the house, or made a place for his manure three [handbreadths] low or three high: this counts for a claim of undisturbed possession.

MISHNAH: The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession and the following do not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. If one put his animals into a courtyard, an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, or raises chickens, or puts his manure in a courtyard, it does not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. But if he made for his animals an enclosure ten [handbreadths] high, or did it for an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, brought chickens into the house, or made a place for his manure three [handbreadths] low or three high: this counts for a claim of undisturbed possession.

HALAKHAH: “The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, co-owners usually permit chickens to one another. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says otherwise: “Both of them are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raised chickens in a courtyard which is not his, it is taking in possession. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you take it, if he has permission to raise chickens there, he raises them. If he does not have permission to raise, it would be legally taking in possession.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. [Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. [Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. [Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open windows,” etc. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley. And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into. Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open windows,” etc. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley. And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into. Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that there, one states: If somebody opens a window in the wall of somebody else’s courtyard in the presence of the other (four cubits), [Rebbi says] he takes down with his left hand and closes with his right. Think of it, was he not standing there? He may tell him, I wanted to enjoy myself. If he handed him stones? He may tell him, I was making fun of this man.

MISHNAH: One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it. One does not build protrusions and balconies above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.

HALAKHAH: “One makes no hollow,” etc. If they collapsed and he wants to rebuild. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he gave up his rights. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he did not give up his rights. A Mishnah supports one, a baraita supports the other. A Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If a public road went through somebody’s field and he took it and gave them on the side. What he gave, he gave, but his own did not come to him.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, if they collapsed he rebuilds them based on his right of possession.”

MISHNAH: He who sells a courtyard sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In neither case did he sell the bath house or the olive press standing in it. Rebbi Eliezer says, he who sells a courtyard only sold its airspace.

MISHNAH: He who sells a courtyard sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In neither case did he sell the bath house or the olive press standing in it. Rebbi Eliezer says, he who sells a courtyard only sold its airspace.

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: According to the rabbis, he who sells a courtyard without specifications sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Isaac asked: According to Rebbi Eliezer, he who sells a courtyard without specifications only sold the airspace. But if he said, “it and all it contains,” he sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the following I brought from the House of Levi: “If there were (courtyards) [stores] open to the inside, they are sold; to the outside, they are not sold; to the inside and the outside, they are all sold.”

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: According to the rabbis, he who sells a courtyard without specifications sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Isaac asked: According to Rebbi Eliezer, he who sells a courtyard without specifications only sold the airspace. But if he said, “it and all it contains,” he sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the following I brought from the House of Levi: “If there were (courtyards) [stores] open to the inside, they are sold; to the outside, they are not sold; to the inside and the outside, they are all sold.”

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: According to the rabbis, he who sells a courtyard without specifications sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Isaac asked: According to Rebbi Eliezer, he who sells a courtyard without specifications only sold the airspace. But if he said, “it and all it contains,” he sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movables? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the following I brought from the House of Levi: “If there were (courtyards) [stores] open to the inside, they are sold; to the outside, they are not sold; to the inside and the outside, they are all sold.”

MISHNAH: If a public way was passing through somebody’s field, he took it away and gave them [a road] to the side of his property, what he gave, he gave, but what he wanted for himself he did not get. A private way is four cubits wide, a public way sixteen cubits; a king’s highway has no limit; the way to the cemetary has no limit. The place for funeral orations, the judges of Sepphoris say an area of four qab. If somebody sells a plot to another to build a grave, or he contracts to build him a grave makes the cavity of the cavern four cubits by six and opens into it eight sepulchral chambers, three on each side and two at the back wall. The chambers are four cubits long, seven [handbreadths] high and six [handbreadths] wide. Rebbi Simeon says, he makes the cavity of the cavern six by eight [cubits] and opens into it thirteen sepulcral chambers, four on each side, three at the back wall, one to the right of the entrance and one to its left. In front of the cavern he excavates a courtyard of six by six [cubits] for the bier and its carriers. He opens into it two caverns, one at each side. Rebbi Simeon says four, each to each direction of the compass. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all depends on the rock.

MISHNAH: He who steals the chalice, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rebbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.

It is written: The Word of the Eternal was to the prophet Isaiah as follows: Go and tell Hezekias, My people’s leader…so says the Eternal, your ancestor David’s God, I heard your prayer, I saw your tear; now I am adding fifteen years to your days. He told Him, first I told him one way, now I have to tell him this? He told Him, he is a great personality and will not believe me. He answered him, he is a very meek person and will believe you. Not only that, but the rumor has not yet spread in the city: Isaiah had not yet left the middle courtyard; “city” is written.

MISHNAH: The Elder who rebels against the Court, as it is said: If a law case is too difficult for you, whether blood and blood, or case and case, etc. Three courts were there, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and one in the ashlar hall. They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple Mount and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleague taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise they come to the one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleagues taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise these and those come to the Supreme Court in the ashlar hall, for from there instruction goes out to all of Israel as it is said, from that place which the Eternal will choose. If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom, he cannot be prosecuted. If he instructed to act, he is punishable, as it is said, but the man who would act criminally etc. He is not punishable unless he instruct to act. A student who instructed to act cannot be prosecuted; it turns out that his severity is his leniency.

MISHNAH: The Elder who rebels against the Court, as it is said: If a law case is too difficult for you, whether blood and blood, or case and case, etc. Three courts were there, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and one in the ashlar hall. They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple Mount and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleague taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise they come to the one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleagues taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise these and those come to the Supreme Court in the ashlar hall, for from there instruction goes out to all of Israel as it is said, from that place which the Eternal will choose. If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom, he cannot be prosecuted. If he instructed to act, he is punishable, as it is said, but the man who would act criminally etc. He is not punishable unless he instruct to act. A student who instructed to act cannot be prosecuted; it turns out that his severity is his leniency.

MISHNAH: Whether one entered the courtyard or the addition to the courtyard, because one adds to the city and the temple courtyards only by King and Prophet, and Urim and Tummim, and the Synhedrion of Seventy-One, and two thanksgiving offerings, and song, with the Court walking and the two thanksgiving offerings after them. The inner one is eaten but the outer one is burned. Any [addition] which was not made with all these, one who was entering there is not liable for it.

MISHNAH: Whether one entered the courtyard or the addition to the courtyard, because one adds to the city and the temple courtyards only by King and Prophet, and Urim and Tummim, and the Synhedrion of Seventy-One, and two thanksgiving offerings, and song, with the Court walking and the two thanksgiving offerings after them. The inner one is eaten but the outer one is burned. Any [addition] which was not made with all these, one who was entering there is not liable for it.

HALAKHAH: “Whether one entered the courtyard,” etc. Rav said, at the start: David ascended following Gad’s word, that is King and Prophet. Solomon started to build the Temple of the Eternal in Jerusalem, these are Urim and Tummim. And his father David, this is the Synhedrion, ask your father and he will tell you. Song, after them went Hoshaia and the officers. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two thanksgiving sacrifices. Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession.