We just asked whether we apply 'Mah lo Leshaker' when it clashes with the Chazakah of 'Ein Adam Pore'a Toch Zemano'. We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'be'Chezkas she'Nasan ad she'Yavi Re'ayah she'Lo Nasan'. Why can the Mishnah not be speaking where Shimon claimed that he paid after the time?
(b)
How do we therefore try to resolve the She'eilah from there?
(c)
How do we refute the proof?
1)
(a)
We just asked whether we apply 'Mah lo Leshaker' when it clashes with the Chazakah of 'Ein Adam Pore'a Toch Zemano'. We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'be'Chezkas she'Nasan ad she'Yavi Re'ayah she'Lo Nasan', which cannot be speaking where Shimon claimed that he paid after the time - because then it would be obvious, seeing as 'Kofer ba'Kol' is always believed.
(b)
We therefore try to resolve the She'eilah from there - since it must be speaking where Shimon claimed after the time that he paid Toch Z'man, and he is believed because he could have said that he paid 'le'Achar Z'man' ( a proof that we do say 'Mah Li Le'shaker be'Makom Chazakah').
(c)
We refute the proof however - by establishing that each row is considered Zemano (as we explained earlier) in which case there is no Chazakah.
2)
(a)
So we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa ('be'Chezkas she'Lo Nasan ad she'Yavi Re'ayah she'Nasan'). How do we initially establish the Mishah?
(b)
What does that prove?
(c)
How do we refute this proof, too?
2)
(a)
So we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'be'Chezkas she'Lo Nasan ad she'Yavi Re'ayah she'Nasan' - which we initially think must be speaking where Shimon claimed le'Achar Z'man that he paid Toch Z'man (because if he claimed le'Achar Z'man that he paid le'Achar Z'man, why should he not be believed?) ...
(b)
... a proof that we do not say 'Mah li Le'shaker be'Makom Chazakah'.
(c)
We refute this proof too, however - by establishing it even where he claimed le'Achar Z'man that he paid le'Achar Z'man, and the reason that he is not believed is because a person would not pay before being ordered to, since it is not at all sure that Beis-Din will obligate him to pay (as we explained earlier.
3)
(a)
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava tries to resolve our She'eilah from the Mishnah in Shevu'os. In the case of 'Manah li be'Yadcha, Amar lo Hein', what does the Tana rule if, on the following day, when the creditor asks for the money, the debtor replies ...
1.
... that he already paid ('Nesativ lach')?
2.
... that he doesn't owe him anything ('Ein lach be'Yadi')?
(b)
Rav Acha establishes 'Nesativ lach' to mean 'Paraticha bi'Zemani'. How does he try to interpret 'Ein lach be'Yadi'?
(c)
What does it prove?
(d)
We reject this proof however, by interpreting 'Ein lach be'Yadi' as a denial that he owes him anything. What makes this worse than claiming that he paid him 'Toch Zemano?
3)
(a)
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava tries to resolve our She'eilah from the Mishnah in Shevu'os. In the case 'Manah li be'Yadcha, Amar lo Hein', if, on the following day, when the creditor asks for the money, the debtor replies ...
1.
... that he already paid ('Nesativ lach') - the Tana rules that he is believed.
2.
... that he doesn't owe him anything ('Ein lach be'Yadi') - he rules that he is not believed.
(b)
Rav Acha establishes 'Nesativ Lach' to mean 'Paraticha bi'Zemani', and he tries to interpret 'Ein Lach be'Yadi' - to mean that he claims now that he paid Toch Zemano ...
(c)
... a proof that we do not say 'Mah li Leshaker be'Makom Chazakah'.
(d)
We reject this proof however, by interpreting 'Ein lach be'Yadi' as a denial that he owes him anything, which is worse than claiming that he paid him Toch Zemano - because, as Mar said 'Whoever denies having borrowed admits that he has not paid'. Consequently, he is not believed when he now denies the claim.
4)
(a)
What does Rav Huna mean when he says 'Samach le'Palga, Samach le'Kula'?
(b)
What does Rav Nachman say?
(c)
What do we mean when we say that ...
1.
... Rav Huna concedes to Rav Nachman be'Karna ve'Lufsa? What is 'Karna ve'Lufsa'?
2.
... Rav Nachman concedes to Rav Huna be'Afriza u've'Akva'ta di'Keshuri? What is 'be'Afriza u've'Akva'ta di'Keshuri'?
4)
(a)
When Rav Huna says 'Samach le'Palga, Samach le'Kula', he means - that if Reuven built a wall parallel to Shimon's, but only along half its length, he is nevertheless obligated to pay half the costs of the entire wall, as if he had built it along the entire length, since it is only a matter of time before he extends it.
(b)
Rav Nachman holds - that he only shares the costs of as much of the wall that is parallel to what he built.
(c)
When we say that ...
1.
... Rav Huna concedes to Rav Nachman be'Karna ve'Lufsa' we mean - that he agrees that if Reuven's wall was part of a small extension to his house which ended half way along the wall, he only needs to share the costs of half the wall.
2.
... Rav Nachman concedes to Rav Huna be'Afriza u've'Akva'ta di'Keshuri', we mean - that, assuming Reuven's wall to be only half the height of Shimon's, if he then prepared ledges along the top to place the ends of planks, in a way that indicated his intention to build an attic on top of the space in between the two walls, then he has to share the entire costs of Shimon's wall.
5)
(a)
If, in connection with the previous case, Shimon raises the height of his wall, leaving ledges in the wall for Reuven to place the ends of his planks, what will Reuven be likely to claim?
(b)
On what grounds will we not uphold his claim if he does?
5)
(a)
If, in connection with the previous case, Shimon raises the height of his wall, leaving ledges in the wall for Reuven to place the ends of his planks, Reuven will be likely to claim - that he built the wall jointly with Shimon (and that he is therefore Patur from paying for it); otherwise, why would Shimon now prepare to accommodate his intended extension?
(b)
If he does, we will not uphold his claim - because Shimon can counter that he only did it in anticipation of Reuven coming to terms with him.
6)
(a)
Rav Nachman holds that a Chazakah for small beams is not a Chazakah for large ones, but the other way round, it is. What does this mean? What kind of Chazakah is he talking about?
(b)
How long does it take for this Chazakah to take effect?
(c)
What is the reason for this?
(d)
What must Reuven claim for the Chazakah to take effect?
(e)
What does Rav Yosef say?
6)
(a)
Rav Nachman holds that a Chazakah for small beams is not a Chazakah for large ones - by which he means that if Reuven has been placing small beams on the wall that he shares with Shimon, this does not give him the right to place large beams there as well; but the other way round, it does.
(b)
This Chazakah (known as 'Chezkas Tashmishin') takes effect immediately. (The three-year Chazakah of Karka will be discussed at length in the third Perek.
(c)
The reason for this is - because since Shimon did not protest when Shimon 'encroached' on his air space, it proves that (based on the principle 'Shesikah ke'Hoda'ah Dami') he must have given his consent.
(d)
Nevertheless - Reuven must claim that Shimon actually permitted him verbally, for the Chazakah to take effect. Shimon's silence does not of itself, create a Chazakah.
(e)
Rav Yosef maintains - that a Chazakah for small beams is automatically a Chazakah for large beams. too.
7)
(a)
How does the second Lashon quote Rav Nachman?
(b)
Then what does Rav Yosef say?
(c)
We cite exactly the same Machlokes with regard to Natfi and Shifchi. What is ...
1.
... 'Natfi'?
2.
... 'Shifchi'? Which does the Ba'al ha'Chatzer prefer?
(d)
In this case too, there is a second Lashon. And again, Rav Nachman holds like Rav Yosef in the first, only he adds 'Aval li'Tzerifa de'Urvena, Lo'. What does he mean by that? What is s Tzerifa de'Urvena?
(e)
What does Rav Yosef say to that?
7)
(a)
The second Lashon quotes Rav Nachman - like Rav Yosef in the first ...
(b)
... in which case Rav Yosef does not argue with him.
(c)
We cite exactly the same Machlokes with regard to ...
1.
... 'Natfi' - which is a Chazakah that Shimon allows water to drip from Reuven's roof on to the entire length of his Chatzer.
2.
... and 'Shifchi' - which is a similar Chazakah, but which allows Reuven to pour sewage into Shimon's Chatzer via a drain-pipe (at only one particular spot), which, we assume, Shimon prefers.
(d)
In this case too, there is a second Lashon. And again, Rav Nachman holds like Rav Yosef in the first, only he adds 'Aval li'Tzerifa de'Urvena, Lo', by which he means - that water leaking from the thatched willow-branch roof of a cabin, will not be covered by a Chazakah to pour his sewage via a drain-pipe, because there, the water drips furiously, in a way that is unacceptable to the owner of the Chatzer.
(e)
Rav Yosef - disagrees. Once again, he considers a Chazakah for one to be a Chazakah for the other.
6b----------------------------------------6b
8)
(a)
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah permits someone who rents a room in a large house to use any projection on the outside of the house and its walls up to four Amos, and the thickness of the walls where it is customary to do so. What is the significance ...
1.
... of the four Amos?
2.
... the thickness of the wall? Which part of the house must he have rented?
(b)
Rabah bar Avuhah does not however, permit the tenant to use the wall next to Tarbatz Apadni. What is 'Tarbatz Apadni'?
(c)
Rav Nachman himself permits this too, though he concedes that the tenant has no rights to the Rechavah she'Achorei ha'Batim. What is the 'Rechavah she'Achorei ha'Batim'?
(d)
What does Rava say about that?
8)
(a)
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah permits someone who rents a room in a large house to use ...
1.
... any projection on the outside of the house and its walls up to four Amos - even if it extends beyond the inside of the room that he rented.
2.
... the thickness of the walls - vertically, where it is customary to do so, assuming that he rented the attic.
(b)
Rabah bar Avuhah does not however, permit the tenant to use the wall next to the 'Tarbatz Apadni' - which is a small area just outside the entrance to higher quality houses, designated for flowers and plants.
(c)
Rav Nachman himself permits this too, though he concedes that the tenant has no rights on the Rechavah she'Achorei ha'Batim, which is - an area behind the house (generally designated for wood storage).
(d)
Rava grants him - even that.
9)
(a)
Ravina rules that the 'Keshura di'Metalelasa' (beams that Reuven leans against Shimon's wall for shade) is a Chazakah only after thirty days. Why not straightway (like the previous cases)?
(b)
In which case will it be considered a Chazakah ...
1.
... already after seven days?
2.
... immediately?
9)
(a)
Ravina rules that the 'Keshura di'Metalelasa' (beams that Reuven leans against Shimon's wall for shade) is a Chazakah only after thirty days. Not straightway (like the previous cases) - because the owner, assuming that it is only for temporary use, does not object in the short-term.
(b)
It will it be considered a Chazakah ...
1.
... already after seven days however - if the beams are paced there as a roof of a Succah on Succos (because then, the owner will normally object the day Succos is over.
2.
... immediately - if in addition, they are cemented in place (because then, he will object immediately).
10)
(a)
What does Abaye obligate Reuven and Shimon, who live on opposite sides of the street, to do?
(b)
Why specifically 'on opposite sides of the street'? Will the Din differ if they live next to each other in a R'shus ha'Yachid?
(c)
Shimon can present three reasons why Reuven bothers him more than the passing pedestrians. One of them is because the latter are only able to see on his roof with difficulty, whereas Reuven can watch him with ease. What are the other two?
(d)
Why does Abaye need to teach us that both Reuven and Shimon must each build half the Ma'akeh? Is that not obvious?
(e)
How does Reuven counter Shimon's claim?
10)
(a)
Abaye obligates Reuven and Shimon, who live on opposite sides of the street, to put a Ma'akeh (a parapet of four Amos) along opposite halves of the side of the roof that faces the other one (e.g. one of the north half of his wall, the other, on the south side of his), extending it slightly beyond the half-way mark, to avoid Hezek Re'iyah.
(b)
Abaye specifically mentions 'on opposite sides of the street' (not to preclude neighbors who live next to each other in a Reshus ha'Yachid, but) - to teach us that even there (where Reuven might attempt to absolve himself from building at all, by arguing that since, due to passing pedestrians, Shimon has to build a Ma'akeh along the entire length of his roof anyway), so why should he [Reuven] have to build one at all?), the joint obligation stands.
(c)
Shimon can present three reasons why Reuven bothers him more than the passing pedestrians: 1. because the latter can only see him only with difficulty, whereas Reuven can watch him with ease; 2. because he intends to use his roof at nighttime; 3. because he intends to use it in a sitting position, And in both of the latter cases, the pedestrians cannot see him at all, whereas Reuven can.
(d)
Abaye needs to teach us that both Reuven and Shimon must each build half the Ma'akeh - in a case where Reuven built half the parapet of his own volition, in which case we might have permitted Shimon to force him to finish what he began, as long as he pays half the costs.
(e)
Reuven can counter - that he refuses to extend the parapet any further, on account of the damage the weight does to the wall of the house (just as Shimon declines to build one at all for that reason).
11)
(a)
Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel requires a Ma'akeh of four Amos to divide between Reuven's roof and Shimon's adjoining Chatzer. What does he say about Reuven's roof that adjoins Shimon's?
(b)
Rav Nachman himself requires a partition of ten Tefachim between two roofs. We have a problem with this Shiur however. How high do we initially expect the Mechitzah to be to avoid ...
1.
... Hezek Re'iyah?
2.
... the possibility of either of them slipping across to steal?
3.
... the goats belonging to either one from skipping across to the other's roof?
(c)
Then why does Rav Nachman require a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim?
(d)
How will Rav Nachman then explain the Beraisa 'Im Hayah Chatzero Gavohah mi'Gago shel Chavero, Ein Nizkakin lo'?
11)
(a)
Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel requires a Ma'akeh of four Amos to divide between Reuven's roof and Shimon's adjoining Chatzer - but none at all for two adjoining roofs.
(b)
Rav Nachman himself requires a partition of ten Tefachim between two roofs. We have a problem with this Shi'ur however, because initially, we think that to avoid ...
1.
... Hezek Re'iyah, the Mechitzah must be - four Amos.
2.
... the possibility of either of them slipping across to steal - any height that restricts the neighbor's movements.
3.
... the goats belonging to either one from skipping across to the other's roof - high enough to stop a goat from jumping across (which is certainly less than ten Tefachim).
(c)
Nevertheless, Rav Nachman requires a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim - to prevent the possibility of either of them slipping across to steal, because if it is less than that, the neighbor will be tempted to climb over and, if caught, claim that he had crossed it in order to retrieve something of his that fell over the wall.
(d)
According to Rav Nachman, when the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Im Hayah Chatzero Gavohah mi'Gago shel Chavero, Ein Nizkakin lo', he means - that 'it does not require a Mechitzah of four Amos', though it does require one of ten Tefachim.
12)
(a)
According to Rav Huna, if Reuven's Chatzer is higher than Shimon's, Shimon builds the wall up to Reuven's Chatzer (see Tosfos DH 'Sh'tei'), and Reuven builds four Amos from there upwards into his Chatzer. What does Rav Chisda say?
(b)
On what grounds do we rule like Rav Chisda?
(c)
What does the Tana add with regard to a case where Reuven's Chatzer is higher than Shimon's roof?
12)
(a)
According to Rav Huna, if Reuven's Chatzer is higher than Shimon's, Shimon builds the wall up to Reuven's Chatzer (see Tosfos DH 'Sh'tei'), and Reuven builds four Amos upwards from there into his Chatzer. Rav Chisda - obligates Reuven to help Shimon build the lower half of the wall, too.
(b)
We rule like Rav Chisda - because he has a Beraisa to support him.
(c)
The Tana adds - that in a case where Reuven's Chatzer is higher than Shimon's roof, it does not require a Mechitzah (which Rav Nachman explained a little earlier).
13)
(a)
What happened in the case where Reuven lived in the ground-floor apartment, and Shimon in the upstairs one? What did Reuven request from Shimon?
(b)
What did Shimon initially reply?
(c)
And what did he reply when Reuven ...
1.
... asked for permission to demolish the building and build a new one?
2.
... even offered to rent him somewhere to live in the interim?
(d)
Rav Chama upheld Shimon's argument. Under which circumstances could Reuven have forced Shimon's hand? Why is that?
13)
(a)
In the case where Reuven lived in the ground-floor apartment, and Shimon in the upstairs one - the walls simply sunk (partially) into the ground, making living in the lower low-ceilinged apartment extremely uncomfortable. So Reuven asked Shimon to help him rebuild both apartments.
(b)
Initially, Shimon replied - that he was perfectly comfortable (and it was therefore Reuven's problem).
(c)
When Reuven ...
1.
... asked for permission to demolish the building and build a new one - he declined, on the grounds that he had nowhere else to stay.
2.
... even offered to rent him somewhere to live in the interim - he replied that it was too much trouble to move. If need be, he concluded, Shimon would have to walk around his house doubled over.
(d)
Rav Chama upheld Shimon's argument. Reuven could however, have forced Shimon's hand - if the ceiling had sunk to a height of less than ten Tefachim (because the air-space up to ten Tefachim is Meshubad to Reuven).
