משנה: הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּֽדְרוּ הֲנָייָה זֶה מִזֶּה אֲסוּרִין לִיכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין מִלְּהַעֲמִיד שָׁם רֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר וּמִלְּגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם מוּדָּר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ הֲנָייָה לֹא יִכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְאֵינִי נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. כּוֹפִין אֶת הַנּוֹדֵר לִמְכּוֹר אֶת חֶלְקוֹ. MISHNAH: Partners1People who own houses built around a common courtyard. They are partners in the courtyard. One exits from the houses to the street only through the courtyard. who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another are forbidden to enter the courtyard2For the anonymous Tanna, the entire courtyard is common property; nobody can enter the courtyard without stepping into the property of both of them. Therefore, neither one can enter his courtyard without profiting from the other’s property.. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his3Mishnah Baba batra 1:6 explains that the parties of a common courtyard can force a partition if the area of the courtyard exceeds a certain minimum. As the Nedarim.46b">Babli explains, 46b, R. Eliezer ben Jacob refers only to a courtyard larger than the minimum. He holds that each square inch of the courtyard is potentially the property of one owner, only it was not determined who the actual owner is. Therefore, each of the partners can claim that he temporarily steps only onto his own property. It must be that R. Eliezer ben Jacob permits a straight walk from the entrance gate to the house door; this would be the domain belonging to the person’s house in a separation of properties.. Both are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there4Everybody agrees that the common courtyard can be used for private purposes only by the consent of all owners. If the person forbidden by a vow did not object to the other using the courtyard for his private purpose, he would make him a present of monetary value.. If one of them made a vow not to have usufruct from the other, he cannot enter the courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one can say to the other, I enter into my property, I do not enter into yours. One forces the one who made the vow to sell his part5According to the Babli, this statement refers to the majority position. According to the Yerushalmi, this is part of R. Eliezer ben Jacob’s statement and is explained in the Halakhah..
הלכה: הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּֽדְרוּ הֲנָייָה זֶה מִזֶּה כול׳. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. כָּל־טֶפַח וְטֶפַח שֶׁלַּשּׁוּתָפִין הוּא. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. אִם הָֽיְתָה חָצֵר חֲלוּקָה פְּסֵיפָס אַף רַבָּנִין מוֹדֵיי. עָמַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמָכַר אֶת חֶלְקוֹ אַף רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מוֹדֶה. הִתְנוּ בֵינֵיהֶן עַל מְנָת לְװַתֵּר בְּחֶזְקַת שׁוּתָפִין הֵן. לֹא צוֹרְכָא דְּלָא הִתְנוּ בֵינֵיהֶן עַל מְנָת לְװַתֵּר. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא תַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לוֹקֵחַ בְּיֶתֶר וּמוֹכֵר בְּפָחוֹת. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶינּוּ וְלֹא יִשְׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ. מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָא דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. לֹא יִמְכֹּר וְלֹא יִקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. וְהָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֵא. HALAKHAH: “Partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another,” etc. The rabbis say, every single [square] hand-breadth is common property of the partners. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his. If the courtyard was divided by pebbles6Greek ψῆφος. If at some time they decide to mark the borders between the domains belonging to the different houses by rows of pebbles cemented into the ground, this amounts to a division of the common property and the rabbis will not hold that a formal contract is needed to disestablish the former common domain. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “mosaic”.), even the rabbis agree. If one of them went and sold his part, even Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees7If one of the partners sells his part, he can no longer claim to enter into what is his and even according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob he is forbidden to set foot in the courtyard.. If they contracted between themselves to concede8They split the common courtyard as outlined in Baba batra but in the contract agreed that they would not insist on excluding the other party from entering the separate domain of the other party. Then for the rabbis the split did not change anything., it is still in the hands of the partners. It is only needed if they did not contract between themselves to concede; what is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he buys higher and sells lower9Nedarim 3:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.3.8.1">Chapter 3, Note 147. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob permit transactions at the regular price?”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he should not lend him nor ask him for anything10Nedarim 4:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.7.1">Chapter 4, Note 99. Since no transfer of property is involved, does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree?,”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And what Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long11Nedarim 4:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.4.2">Chapter 4, Note 76. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree that the visits have to be as short as possible??
שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין מִלְּהַעֲמִיד שָׁם רֵחַיִים וְתַנּוּר וּמִלְּגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין. נִצְרְכָה לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דּוּ מַתְנִיתָא הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁנָּֽדְרוּ הֲנָייָה זֶה מִזֶּה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנָּֽדְרוּ הֲנָייָה זֶה מִזֶּה. הָא אִם לֹא נָֽדְרוּ הֲנָייָה זֶה מִזֶּה סְתָמָן כִּמְװָֽתְרִין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. נָהֲגוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִין לִהְיוֹת כִּמְװָֽתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בִדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הַמְגַדֵּל תַּרְנוֹגַלִּין בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי גִידֵּל. אִם אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי הֶחֱזִיק. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָיָה. בַּכֹּל הַשּׁוּתָפִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה בְחָצֵר חוּץ מִן הַכְּבִיסָה. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר מָקוֹם שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים מְכַבְּסוֹת. אֲבָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָאֲנָשִׁים מְכַבְּסִין לָא בְדָא. וְדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר חוּץ מִן הַכְּבִיסָה בְחָצֵר. בְּכָל־הֶחָצֵר. בְּרַם בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דְּחַבְרֵיהּ לֹא מָצֵי מִימְחֵי בְיָדֵיהּ. אִם הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם מְשׁוּפָּע אֲפִילוּ בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּבְחַבְרֵיהּ מִימְחֵי הוּא בְיָדֵיהּ. דּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ שְׁפַךְ וְהוּא אָתֵי לְגַבִּי. תַּנֵּי. מְקוֹם הַתַּנּוּר מְקוֹם הַכִּירַיִים אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. וּבִלְבַד קִירוּי שֶׁמּוֹעִיל לַתַּנּוּר. “Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there4Everybody agrees that the common courtyard can be used for private purposes only by the consent of all owners. If the person forbidden by a vow did not object to the other using the courtyard for his private purpose, he would make him a present of monetary value..” This is needed for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob12While the rabbis agree, for them the statement is immaterial since both partners are forbidden entry into the courtyard., for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other13If somebody wants to put up an oven or a grindstone in the courtyard, can he presume to have the permission of all inhabitants of the courtyard without asking?? Rebbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There14Bava Batra 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.6.1">Mishnah Baba batra 3:6. It is stated there that simply putting a stove, a grindstone, or chickens into a courtyard does not create a presumption of ownership, but building a foundation for the grindstone or an enclosure for the oven does., we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.15In the absence of documents, a testimony of three years of undisturbed ownership together with a claim of legal acquisition (by buying, inheritance, or gift) entitles the occupant to a documentary title; cf. Yebamot 12, Note 29 (Bava Batra 3:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.4.1">Mishnah Baba batra 3:4).” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing16He disagrees with R. Jeremiah and the conclusion drawn from the formulation of the Mishnah. The same statement in the Babli, Baba batra 57b. The statement of R. Jeremiah does not appear in the Babli., for the honor of the daughters of Israel17It cannot be expected that a Jewish woman would go to the river to do her washing there and be seen by everybody without shoes and with uncovered arms.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash18If men wash it is a commercial activity and that certainly needs the permission of the other dwellers in the courtyard.. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard [applies to] the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything19A strip four cubits wide along the entire front of a house is private property of the owner of the house, not common property of the partners and, as a matter of principle, the owner of the house can do there anything he wants; the mistress of the house can wash there without asking anybody.. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place20That is not a matter of property rights but of torts; the injured party could claim damages.. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership21In Bava Batra 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.6.1">Mishnah Baba batra 3:6 it is asserted that only a wall of at least ten hand-breadths around an oven or a hearth does count. The text here is very close to Tosephta Baba batra 2:13: Putting an oven or a hearth in a courtyard does not establish a presumption of ownership, but making a roof of any size does.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. הַשּׁוּתָפִין קוֹנִין זֶה מִזֶּה בְחָצֵר וְחַייָבִין זֶה בְנִיזְקֵי זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. בְּאוֹמֵר. צְבוֹר וְאַקְנֶה. אֲבָל אִם צְבוּרִין לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּטַלְטֵל. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners can acquire one from the other22As explained in Sheviit 8:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.8.1.4">Ševi‘it 8:1, Note 15, rabbinic practice does not recognize transfer of property by payment, but only by delivery or a symbolic act indicating delivery. Also, since anything found on a person’s real estate is his, one can state that real estate acquires for its owner (cf. Peah 5:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.5.6.3">Peah 5, Note 125; Kilayim 8:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.2.4">Kilaim 8, Note 46). If there is only one owner, delivery of goods into the courtyard is legal delivery and transfer of ownership. R. Joḥanan asserts here that even among partners on their common real estate one may assume, following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that the place on which some merchandise is put is at least temporarily owned by the acquiring party alone. This supports the opinion in the Nedarim.46b">Babli, 46b, that practice follows R. Eliezer ben Jacob. R. Abun bar Cahana follows the opinion of the anonymous majority, that common property is not divisible, and requires an action by the acquirer, either collecting the objects or at least moving them in a symbolic display of ownership rights. and are responsible for damages inflicted by one on the other23This statement is taken in Baba qama 3:8 to show that an owner is liable for injuries on his property suffered by anybody being on the property by right or invitation.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, if he said, collect and acquire. But if they were collected he does not acquire unless he moves.
בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְלֹא בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. כּוֹפִין. לֹא עַל הָדָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירָךְ אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. עֲלֵיהּ כּוֹפִין אֶת המוכר שֶׁיִּמְכּוֹר חֶלְקוֹ. בְּאוֹמֵר הֲנָייָתִי עָלֶיךָ. אֲבָל בְּאוֹמֵר. הֲנָייָתָךְ עָלַי. לֹא בְדָא. “I enter my property, I do not enter yours.” And you say, one forces him25There seems to be no reason why R. Eliezer ben Jacob should require a sale of the property. It is clear that following the anonymous rabbis a person who by the vow of another is prevented to reach his own house can sue to remove this obstacle and force the maker of the vow to divest himself of the real estate.? It was not said on this, but on26Nedarim 5:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.5.2.1">Mishnah 2, speaking of a third person C visiting a partner B while partner A had forbidden him any use of his property.: “I enter your partner’s property, I do not enter yours.” In that case one forces the [maker of the vow] to sell his part. If he says, you shall not have any usufruct from me. But not if he says, I shall not have any usufruct from you27There is trouble only if A forbids all his property to C but not if A forbids himself any of C’s properties. Unfortunately, the word מוּדָּר admits of both interpretations. If A makes the vow, מוּדָּר בּ- means that A takes nothing from C, מוּדָּר מ- that C may have nothing from A. The Babylonian Mishnah 2 follows the first alternative, the Yerushalmi one the second..