בבא בתרא דף יא

דלא סיימוה קמיה.

those who reported the story to him did not conclude it before him; consequently, Rav Ami was not informed that Rava had indeed given the money to the gentile poor.

תניא: אמרו עליו על בנימין הצדיק, שהיה ממונה על קופה של צדקה; פעם אחת באתה אשה לפניו בשני בצורת, אמרה לו: רבי, פרנסני! אמר לה: העבודה,

§ It is taught in a baraita: The following was said about Binyamin the righteous, who was appointed supervisor over the charity fund. Once, a woman came before him during years of drought and said to him: My master, sustain me. He said to her: I swear by the Temple service that there is nothing left in the charity fund. She said to him: My master, if you do not sustain me, a woman and her seven sons will die. He arose and sustained her with his own funds. After some time, he fell deathly ill. The ministering angels said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You said that anyone who preserves a single life in Israel is regarded as if he has preserved an entire world. Should then Binyamin the righteous, who saved a woman and her seven sons, die after these few years, still in his youth? They immediately tore up his sentence. A Sage taught: They added twenty-two years to his life.

שאין בקופה של צדקה כלום! אמרה לו: רבי, אם אין אתה מפרנסני, הרי אשה ושבעה בניה מתים! עמד ופרנסה משלו. לימים חלה ונטה למות,

אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא: רבונו של עולם, אתה אמרת: כל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל, כאילו קיים עולם מלא; ובנימין הצדיק, שהחיה אשה ושבעה בניה,

ימות בשנים מועטות הללו? מיד קרעו לו גזר דינו. תנא: הוסיפו לו עשרים ושתים שנה על שנותיו.

תנו רבנן: מעשה במונבז המלך, שבזבז אוצרותיו ואוצרות אבותיו בשני בצורת, וחברו עליו אחיו ובית אביו, ואמרו לו: אבותיך גנזו והוסיפו על של אבותם, ואתה מבזבזם! אמר להם:

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving King Munbaz, who liberally gave away his treasures and the treasures of his ancestors in the years of drought, distributing the money to the poor. His brothers and his father’s household joined together against him to protest against his actions, and they said to him: Your ancestors stored up money in their treasuries and added to the treasures of their ancestors, and you are liberally distributing it all to the poor. King Munbaz said to them: Not so, my ancestors stored up below, whereas I am storing above, as it is stated: “Truth will spring out of the earth and righteousness will look down from heaven” (Psalms 85:12), meaning that the righteous deeds that one has performed are stored up in heaven. My ancestors stored up treasures in a place where the human hand can reach, and so their treasures could have been robbed, whereas I am storing up treasures in a place where the human hand cannot reach, and so they are secure, as it is stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15).

אבותי גנזו למטה, ואני גנזתי למעלה – שנאמר: ״אמת מארץ תצמח, וצדק משמים נשקף״. אבותי גנזו במקום שהיד שולטת בו,

ואני גנזתי במקום שאין היד שולטת בו – שנאמר: ״צדק ומשפט מכון כסאך״.

אבותי גנזו דבר שאין עושה פירות, ואני גנזתי דבר שעושה פירות – שנאמר: ״אמרו צדיק כי טוב, כי פרי מעלליהם יאכלו״. אבותי גנזו [אוצרות] ממון,

My ancestors stored up something that does not generate profit, as money sitting in a treasury does not increase, whereas I am storing up something that generates profit, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous, that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” (Isaiah 3:10). My ancestors stored up treasures of money, whereas I am storing up treasures of souls, as it is stated: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that wins souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30). My ancestors stored up for others, for their sons and heirs, when they themselves would pass from this world, whereas I am storing up for myself, as it is stated: “And it shall be as righteousness to you” (Deuteronomy 24:13). My ancestors stored up for this world, whereas I am storing up for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard” (Isaiah 58:8).

ואני גנזתי אוצרות נפשות – שנאמר: ״פרי צדיק עץ חיים, ולוקח נפשות חכם״. אבותי גנזו לאחרים, ואני גנזתי לעצמי – שנאמר: ״ולך תהיה צדקה״. אבותי גנזו לעולם הזה,

ואני גנזתי לעולם הבא – שנאמר: ״והלך לפניך צדקך, כבוד ה׳ יאספך״.

ואם קנה בה בית דירה – הרי הוא כאנשי העיר. מתניתין דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – דתניא, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר:

§ The Gemara resumes its analysis of the mishna, which taught that one must reside in a place for twelve months in order to be considered a resident for the purposes of issues such as paying taxes. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he bought any amount of land in the city, and not necessarily a residence, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.

אם קנה בה קרקע כל שהוא, הרי הוא כאנשי העיר.

והא תניא, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אם קנה שם קרקע הראויה לבית דירה – הרי הוא כאנשי העיר! תרי תנאי, ואליבא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught otherwise in a different baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one bought land that is suitable for a residence, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city. This contradicts the first baraita. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

מתני׳ אין חולקין את החצר – עד שיהא ארבע אמות לזה, וארבע אמות לזה. ולא את השדה – עד שיהא בה תשעה קבין לזה, ותשעה קבין לזה.

MISHNA: The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, i.e., this minimum area for each of the joint owners. And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. And the court does not divide a jointly owned garden unless there is space in it to plant a half-kav of seed for this one and a half-kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Akiva says that half that amount is sufficient, i.e., the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova].

רבי יהודה אומר: עד שיהא בה תשעת חציי קבין לזה, ותשעת חציי קבין לזה. ולא את הגינה – עד שיהא בה חצי קב לזה, וחצי קב לזה.

רבי עקיבא אומר: בית רובע.

ולא את הטרקלין, ולא את המורן, ולא את השובך, ולא את הטלית, ולא את המרחץ, ולא את בית הבד, ולא את בית השלחין – עד שיהא

Similarly, the court does not divide a hall [hateraklin], a drawing room, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, an olive press, and an irrigated field unless there is enough for this one to use the property in the usual manner and enough for that one to use the property in the usual manner. This is the principle: Anything for which when it is divided, each of the parts is large enough to retain the name of the original item, the court divides it. But if the parts will not retain the original name, the court does not divide it.

בהן כדי לזה וכדי לזה. זה הכלל: כל שיחלק, ושמו עליו – חולקין, ואם לאו – אין חולקין.

אימתי – בזמן שאין שניהם רוצים; אבל בזמן ששניהם רוצים, אפילו פחות מכאן – יחלוקו. וכתבי הקדש, אף על פי ששניהם רוצים – לא יחלוקו.

When does this rule apply? It applies when the joint owners do not both wish to divide the item; when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property, he cannot force the other to do so. But when both of them wish to divide the item, they may divide it, even if each of the owners will receive less than the amounts specified above. But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: ארבע אמות שאמרו – חוץ משל פתחים. תניא נמי הכי: אין חולקים את החצר – עד שיהא בה שמונה אמות לזה,

GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The four cubits of the courtyard which they said each of the joint owners must receive is in addition to the space in front of the entrances to each of the houses that is assigned to the owner of the house for loading and unloading. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: The court does not divide a courtyard unless its area is sufficient so that there will be in it eight cubits for this one and eight cubits for that one. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it suffices that there be four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one? Rather, conclude from it that the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that it is so.

ושמונה אמות לזה. והא אנן תנן: ארבע אמות לזה, וארבע אמות לזה! אלא שמע מינה – כדרבי אסי; שמע מינה.

ואיכא דרמי להו מירמא – תנן: אין חולקין את החצר, עד שיהא בה ארבע אמות לזה, וארבע אמות לזה. והתניא: שמונה אמות לזה, ושמונה אמות לזה!

And there are those who raise the baraita as a contradiction to what is taught in the mishna and use the previously mentioned point to reconcile the two texts. We learned in the mishna: The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court does not divide a courtyard unless there are eight cubits for this one and eight cubits for that one? About this Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The four cubits of the courtyard which they said each of the joint owners must receive is in addition to the space in front of the entrances to each of the houses.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: ארבע אמות שאמרו – חוץ משל פתחים.

אמר רב הונא: חצר מתחלקת לפי פתחיה. ורב חסדא אמר: נותנין ארבע אמות לכל פתח ופתח, והשאר חולקין בשוה.

Further with regard to the division of a courtyard, Rav Huna says: A courtyard is divided according to its entrances. Each of the owners receives a share of the courtyard in proportion to the number of entrances that his house has opening onto the courtyard. And Rav Ḥisda says: Four cubits are allotted to each of the owners for each and every entrance, and the rest of the courtyard is then divided equally between them.

תניא כוותיה דרב חסדא: פתחים שבחצר – יש להן ארבע אמות. היה לזה פתח אחד, ולזה שני פתחים; זה שיש לו פתח אחד – נוטל ארבע אמות,

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: Each of the entrances opening to a courtyard is allotted four cubits. If this one has one entrance and that one has two entrances, the one who has one entrance takes four cubits, and the one who has two entrances takes eight cubits, and they divide the rest of the courtyard equally between them. If this one had an entrance eight cubits wide, he takes eight cubits adjacent to the entrance and four cubits in the courtyard. The Gemara expresses surprise: What are these four cubits in the courtyard doing here? Doesn’t it all depend on the size of the courtyard? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: For the entrance he takes eight cubits along the length of the courtyard and four cubits along the width of the courtyard. In other words, he takes a strip four cubits wide along the entire length of his entrance.

וזה שיש לו שני פתחים – נוטל שמונה אמות; והשאר חולקין בשוה. היה לזה פתח רחב שמונה אמות – נוטל שמונה אמות כנגד הפתח, וארבע אמות בחצר.

ארבע אמות בחצר – מאי עבידתייהו? אמר אביי, הכי קאמר: נוטל שמונה אמות באורך החצר, וארבע אמות ברוחב החצר.

אמר אמימר: האי פירא דסופלי – יש לו ארבע אמות לכל רוח ורוח. ולא אמרן אלא דלא מייחד ליה פתחא,

Ameimar says: A pit for holding animal food [peira desuflei] has four cubits on each and every side so that there will be sufficient space for the animals to stand. The Gemara adds: And we said this only when the pit has no special entrance to reach it, but rather it is accessed from all sides.

אבל מייחד ליה פיתחא – אין לו אלא ארבע אמות לפני פתחו.

But if he designates an entrance leading to this pit and does not approach it from all sides, he has four cubits only in front of his entrance.

אמר רב הונא: אכסדרה – אין לה ארבע אמות. טעמא מאי – משום פירוק משאו; הכא – אפשר דעייל לגואי ומפרק. מתיב רב ששת: אחד שערי בתים,

Rav Huna says: A portico [akhsadra] that opens onto a courtyard does not have the adjoining four cubits. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that four cubits were granted for each entrance? The four cubits were granted so that the owner would have room for unloading his animal of its burden. Here he can go inside the portico and unload. Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: Both gates of houses and gates of porticos have the adjoining four cubits for unloading. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is specifically with regard to the portico of a study hall, which is closed and is not used for unloading burdens. The Gemara expresses surprise at this answer: It is obvious that this is the halakha governing the portico of a study hall, as it is a proper room. Rather, the baraita is referring to a Roman portico, which is more open than the portico of a study hall, but also not used for unloading.

ואחד שערי אכסדראות – יש להן ארבע אמות! כי תניא ההיא, באכסדרה דבי רב. אכסדרה דבי רב פשיטא – אידרונא מעליא הוא! אלא באכסדרה רומייתא.

תנו רבנן: בית שער, אכסדרה ומרפסת – יש להן ארבע אמות. היו חמשה בתים פתוחין למרפסת – אין להן אלא ארבע אמות בלבד.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A gatehouse, a portico, and a balcony with a staircase leading down to the courtyard have the adjoining four cubits for unloading. Even if five houses open onto the balcony, they only have four cubits in front of the entrance to the staircase that leads to the balcony. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Yannai: Does a chicken coop that also has a staircase have four cubits or does it not have four cubits? Rabbi Yannai said to him: What is the reason that four cubits are granted? It is so that the owner will have room for unloading the burden of his animal. Here this space is not needed, as the chickens climb up to get into the coop and climb down to get out. No additional place is required for the owner to stand alongside them.

בעא מיניה רבי יוחנן מרבי ינאי: לול של תרנגולין – יש לו ארבע אמות, או אין לו ארבע אמות? אמר ליה: טעמא מאי – משום פירוק משאו; הכא

– מטפס ועולה, מטפס ויורד.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן: בית חציו מקורה וחציו אינו מקורה – יש לו ארבע אמות, או אין לו ארבע אמות? אמר ליה:

Rava asked Rav Naḥman: If a house is half roofed and half unroofed, does it have the adjoining four cubits or does it not have the four cubits? Rav Naḥman said to him: It does not have the four cubits. The Gemara comments: It is not necessary to state this halakha when the house’s roofing is over the inside portion of the house, since it is possible for the owner to go inside and unload his animal. Rather, even when the house’s roofing is over the outside portion of the house, it is not given four cubits, as even in such a case it is possible for the owner to go inside and unload his animal there.

אין לו ארבע אמות; לא מבעיא קירויו מלגיו – דאפשר דעייל לגואי ומפרק; אלא אפילו קירויו כלפי חוץ – אפשר דעייל לגואי ומפרק.

בעא מיניה רב הונא מרבי אמי: אחד מבני מבוי, שבקש להחזיר פתחו למבוי אחר – בני מבוי מעכבין עליו, או אין מעכבין עליו? אמר ליה:

§ Rav Huna asked Rabbi Ami: If one of the residents of an alleyway onto which several courtyards open wishes to alter his entrance to a different alleyway, i.e., to make an entrance to his courtyard that will open onto a different alleyway, can the residents of the other alleyway prevent him from opening this entrance, or can they not prevent him from doing so? Rabbi Ami said to him: The residents of the other alleyway can prevent him from making the change.

בני מבוי מעכבין עליו.

אכסניא – לפי בני אדם מתחלקת, או לפי פתחים מתחלקת? אמר ליה: לפי בני אדם מתחלקת. תניא נמי הכי: זבל שבחצר – מתחלקת לפי פתחים.

Rav Huna further asked: When a king issues a billeting order to the residents of a courtyard, obligating them to house his soldiers in their homes, is the burden divided according to the number of people in each household, or is it divided according to the number of entrances that each house has opening into the courtyard? Rabbi Ami said to him: It is divided according to the number of people in each household. The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: The dung in a courtyard which the residents wish to use is divided among them according to the number of entrances that open into the courtyard, whereas billeting is divided according to the number of people in each household.

אכסניא – לפי בני אדם.

אמר רב הונא: אחד מבני מבוי שבקש לסתום כנגד פתחו – בני מבוי מעכבין עליו, שמרבה עליהן את הדרך.

Rav Huna says: If one of the residents of an alleyway wishes to close off an area adjacent to his entrance, i.e., to build a structure in the alleyway adjacent to the entrance to his courtyard, the residents of the alleyway can prevent him from doing so. This is because it will increase the way for them, since they will have to circumvent the structure when going to and from their homes.

מיתיבי: חמש חצרות פתוחות למבוי – כולן משתמשות עם החיצונה, והחיצונה משתמשת לעצמה. והשאר משתמשות עם השניה; והשניה משתמשת לעצמה ומשתמשת עם החיצונה.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If five courtyards open onto an alleyway, all the residents of the alleyway may use that part of the alleyway that faces the entrance to the outermost courtyard, and the residents of the outermost courtyard may use only that part of the alleyway adjacent to its own entrance. And similarly, the residents of the other courtyards may use that part of the alleyway that faces the second courtyard, i.e., the one next to the outermost courtyard, and the residents of the second courtyard may use that part of the alleyway adjacent to its own entrance and they may use that part of the alleyway facing the outermost courtyard.

נמצאת פנימית משתמשת לעצמה, ומשתמשת עם כל אחת ואחת.

The baraita continues: The outcome is that the residents of the innermost courtyard may use that part of the alleyway adjacent to its own entrance, and they may use that part of the alleyway facing each and every other courtyard as well. According to this analysis, it should be permitted for the owner of the innermost courtyard to close off the area in front of his courtyard, since he is the only one who has permission to use it.

תנאי היא. דתניא: אחד מבני מבוי שבקש להחזיר פתחו למבוי אחר – בני מבוי מעכבין עליו. היה סתום ובקש לפותחו – אין בני מבוי מעכבין עליו; דברי רבי.

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If one of the residents of an alleyway wishes to alter his entrance to a different alleyway, the residents of the other alleyway can prevent him from doing so. If there had been an entrance there beforehand which is now sealed and he wishes to open it, the residents of the other alleyway cannot prevent him from doing so; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If there are five courtyards which open onto an alleyway, the residents of all the courtyards may all use the alleyway with each other.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: חמש חצרות הפתוחות למבוי – כולן משתמשות במבוי זו עם זו.

חצרות מאן דכר שמייהו? חסורי מחסרא, והכי קתני: וכן חמש חצרות הפתוחות למבוי – כולן משתמשות עם החיצונה, והחיצונה משתמשת לעצמה וכו׳; דברי רבי.

The Gemara expresses surprise about this last ruling: Courtyards, who mentioned anything about them? Why are they mentioned, considering that the baraita is not discussing the halakhot of courtyards? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Additionally, if there are five courtyards which open onto an alleyway, the residents of all the courtyards may all use the area facing the outermost courtyard, and the residents of the outermost one may use only the area facing their own entrance; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If there are five courtyards which open onto an alleyway, the residents of all the courtyards may all use the alleyway.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: חמש חצרות הפתוחות למבוי – כולם משתמשות במבוי.

אמר מר: היה סתום ובקש לפותחו – אין בני מבוי מעכבין עליו. אמר רבא: לא שנו אלא שלא פרץ את פצימיו,

The Gemara directs the discussion to the details mentioned in the baraita. The Master said: If there had been an entrance there beforehand that is now sealed and he wishes to open it, the residents of the other alleyway cannot prevent him from doing so. Rava says: This was taught only when he did not break its doorposts, i.e., when the doorposts remained intact even after the entrance was sealed. But if he sealed the entrance and broke its doorposts, thereby demonstrating that the entrance had been completely negated, the residents of the other alleyway can prevent him from opening a new entrance. Abaye said to Rava: A baraita is taught which supports you:

אבל פרץ את פצימיו – בני מבוי מעכבין עליו. אמר ליה אביי לרבא, תניא דמסייע לך: