Partners who wish to create a partition (meḥitza) in a jointly owned courtyard construct the wall in the middle of the courtyard. The material used for the wall depends on the customary practice in that location. If the regional custom is to use non-chiseled stone (gevil), chiseled stone (gazit), small bricks (kefisin), or large bricks (leveinim), the partners must build the wall with the material customary to the area. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

The dimensions of the wall vary based on the material:

• If the wall is made of non-chiseled stone, each partner contributes three handbreadths from their portion, as the wall’s total thickness is six handbreadths.
• If the wall is made of chiseled stone, each partner provides two and a half handbreadths, since the wall’s thickness is five handbreadths.
• If the wall is made of small bricks, each partner provides two handbreadths, resulting in a four-handbreadth-thick wall.
• If the wall is made of large bricks, each partner provides one and a half handbreadths, as the wall’s thickness is three handbreadths.

If the wall later collapses, the area where the wall stood and the materials of the wall are presumed to be shared equally between the partners. This ensures that the rights of both parties remain balanced even after the wall falls.

I partner che desiderano creare una partizione (meḥitza) in un cortile di proprietà comune costruiscono il muro al centro del cortile. Il materiale utilizzato per il muro dipende dalla pratica consuetudinaria del luogo. Se l’usanza regionale prevede l’uso di pietra non squadrata (gevil), pietra squadrata (gazit), mattoni piccoli (kefisin) o mattoni grandi (leveinim), i partner devono costruire il muro con il materiale usato nella zona. Tutto è conforme all’usanza regionale.

Le dimensioni del muro variano in base al materiale:

• Se il muro è fatto di pietra non squadrata, ogni partner contribuisce con tre palmi dalla propria porzione, poiché lo spessore totale del muro è di sei palmi.
• Se il muro è fatto di pietra squadrata, ogni partner fornisce due palmi e mezzo, poiché lo spessore del muro è di cinque palmi.
• Se il muro è fatto di mattoni piccoli, ogni partner fornisce due palmi, risultando in un muro spesso quattro palmi.
• Se il muro è fatto di mattoni grandi, ogni partner fornisce un palmo e mezzo, poiché lo spessore del muro è di tre palmi.

Se il muro successivamente crolla, l’area dove sorgeva il muro e i materiali del muro si presumono condivisi equamente tra i partner. Questo assicura che i diritti di entrambe le parti rimangano bilanciati anche dopo il crollo del muro.

Similarly, in the case of a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates the other party to join in building it.

In contrast, regarding an expanse of fields (babbika), where the custom is not to build a partition between two neighboring fields, if one party wishes to construct a partition, the court does not obligate the neighbor to participate. Instead, the individual desiring the partition must withdraw into their own field and construct the barrier entirely on their own property. In such a case, the person must make a border mark on the outer side of the partition, facing the neighbor’s property. This mark indicates that the partition was built entirely with the builder’s materials and on their own land. Consequently, if the wall later collapses, it is presumed that the space where the wall stood and the materials belong solely to the person who built it.

However, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two fields, if both parties agree to construct such a partition, they build it on the property line, i.e., in the middle. In this case, they mark both sides of the wall to indicate shared ownership. Therefore, if the wall later collapses, it is presumed that the space where the wall stood and the materials are jointly owned by both parties, to be divided equally.

Allo stesso modo, nel caso di un giardino, in un luogo dove è consuetudine costruire una partizione al centro di un giardino di proprietà comune tra due persone, se uno dei due desidera costruire tale partizione, il tribunale obbliga l’altra parte a partecipare alla costruzione.

Al contrario, per quanto riguarda un’estensione di campi (babbika), dove non è consuetudine costruire una partizione tra due campi adiacenti, se una delle parti desidera erigere una partizione, il tribunale non obbliga il vicino a partecipare. In questo caso, l’individuo che desidera la partizione deve ritirarsi all’interno del proprio campo e costruire la barriera interamente sulla propria proprietà. In tale circostanza, la persona deve apporre un segno di confine sul lato esterno della partizione, rivolto verso la proprietà del vicino. Questo segno indica che la partizione è stata costruita interamente con i materiali e sul terreno di chi l’ha edificata. Di conseguenza, se il muro successivamente crolla, si presume che lo spazio dove si trovava il muro e i materiali appartengano esclusivamente alla persona che lo ha costruito.

Tuttavia, in un luogo dove non è consuetudine costruire una partizione tra due campi, se entrambe le parti concordano sulla costruzione di tale partizione, essa viene costruita sulla linea di confine, cioè al centro. In questo caso, si appongono segni su entrambi i lati del muro per indicare la comproprietà. Pertanto, se il muro successivamente crolla, si presume che lo spazio dove si trovava il muro e i materiali siano di proprietà congiunta di entrambe le parti, da dividere equamente.

In the case of one who owns parcels of land on three sides of another person’s field and builds a partition on the first, second, and third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the cost of constructing these partitions if he does not wish to do so.

Rabbi Yosei, however, states: If the owner of the inner field later arises and builds a partition on the fourth side of his field, thereby completing the enclosure, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share of the cost for all four partitions. This is because his action demonstrates agreement with and benefit from the partitions previously constructed.

Nel caso di chi possiede appezzamenti di terreno su tre lati del campo di un’altra persona e costruisce una partizione sul primo, secondo e terzo lato, il tribunale non obbliga il vicino proprietario del campo interno a contribuire ai costi della costruzione di queste partizioni, se non lo desidera.

Rabbi Yosei, tuttavia, afferma: Se il proprietario del campo interno in seguito si alza e costruisce una partizione sul quarto lato del suo campo, completando così la recinzione, il tribunale gli impone la responsabilità di pagare la sua parte dei costi per tutte e quattro le partizioni. Questo perché la sua azione dimostra consenso e beneficio dalle partizioni precedentemente costruite.

In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that collapses, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to participate in its reconstruction up to a height of four cubits. This height is considered the basic requirement for privacy in such courtyards.

If, after the wall is built, one of the neighbors claims that he alone constructed it and that the other did not contribute, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have provided his share of the expenses unless the claimant brings proof that the other party did not pay. The principle of presumed cooperation in such cases protects the non-claimant.

The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to building the wall higher than four cubits. However, if the reluctant neighbor subsequently builds another wall close to the existing wall, intending to create a roofed room or enclosed space, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share of the entire height of the rebuilt wall, even if he has not yet completed the roof. This is because his actions demonstrate intent to benefit from the additional height of the wall.

If the builder of the wall later claims he did not receive payment for the construction from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have paid unless he provides proof that he indeed gave his share of the money. This rule ensures that financial responsibilities are clearly established based on evidence.

Nel caso di un muro divisorio in un cortile di proprietà comune che crolla, se uno dei proprietari desidera ricostruire il muro, il tribunale obbliga l’altro proprietario a partecipare alla sua ricostruzione fino a un’altezza di quattro cubiti. Questa altezza è considerata il requisito base per garantire la privacy in tali cortili.

Se, dopo che il muro è stato costruito, uno dei vicini afferma di averlo costruito da solo e che l’altro non ha contribuito, si presume comunque che quest’ultimo abbia fornito la sua parte delle spese, a meno che il reclamante non porti prove che l’altra parte non abbia pagato. Questo principio di presunta cooperazione tutela il vicino non reclamante.

Il tribunale non obbliga il vicino riluttante a contribuire alla costruzione del muro oltre i quattro cubiti. Tuttavia, se il vicino riluttante successivamente costruisce un altro muro vicino al muro esistente, con l’intento di creare uno spazio coperto o chiuso, il tribunale gli impone la responsabilità di pagare la sua parte per l’intera altezza del muro ricostruito, anche se non ha ancora completato il tetto. Questo perché le sue azioni dimostrano l’intenzione di beneficiare dell’altezza aggiuntiva del muro.

Se il costruttore del muro successivamente afferma di non aver ricevuto il pagamento per la costruzione dal vicino, si presume che il vicino non abbia pagato, a meno che non fornisca prove che dimostrino di aver effettivamente dato la sua parte di denaro. Questa regola garantisce che le responsabilità finanziarie siano chiaramente stabilite sulla base di prove.

The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant to financially contribute to the construction of a gatehouse and a door for the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees, stating: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and the necessity for such additions must be evaluated based on the specific needs of each courtyard.

Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant to contribute to the construction of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city’s protection. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel also disagrees here, asserting: Not all towns require a wall, and the decision should be based on the particular circumstances of each town.

Regarding this latter obligation, the Mishna asks: How long must one reside in the city to be considered one of its inhabitants and thus obligated to share in these expenses? The answer is twelve months. However, if a person buys a residence in the city, they are immediately considered one of its inhabitants and are required to contribute to these communal expenses.

Gli abitanti di un cortile possono obbligare ciascun residente a contribuire finanziariamente alla costruzione di una portineria e di una porta per il cortile in comproprietà. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel dissente, affermando: Non tutti i cortili necessitano di una portineria, e la necessità di tali aggiunte deve essere valutata in base ai bisogni specifici di ogni cortile.

Allo stesso modo, gli abitanti di una città possono obbligare ciascun residente a contribuire alla costruzione di una mura, di porte doppie e di una sbarra per la protezione della città. Anche qui, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel dissente, affermando: Non tutte le città necessitano di una mura, e la decisione dovrebbe basarsi sulle circostanze specifiche di ogni città.

In merito a quest’ultimo obbligo, la Mishna chiede: Per quanto tempo una persona deve risiedere nella città per essere considerata un abitante e quindi obbligata a condividere queste spese? La risposta è dodici mesi. Tuttavia, se una persona acquista una residenza nella città, è immediatamente considerata un abitante ed è tenuta a contribuire a queste spese comunitarie.

The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless each owner will receive a portion measuring at least four by four cubits, which is the minimum area deemed usable. Similarly, the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is enough space for planting nine kav of seed for each owner. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, stating that the minimum size is a field capable of planting nine half-kav of seed per owner.

For a garden, the court does not divide it unless there is enough space for planting a half-kav of seed per owner. Rabbi Akiva rules more leniently, requiring only the area needed to plant a quarter-kav of seed (beit rova) per owner.

The court applies the same principle to various types of property, such as a hall (hateraklin), drawing room, dovecote, cloak, bathhouse, olive press, and irrigated field. Division is only permitted if each portion will still be usable in the same manner as the original undivided property.

The guiding principle:

• If the divided portions are large enough to retain the name and function of the original item, the court will allow division.
• If the divided portions cannot retain the original name and function, the court does not permit division.

When does this rule apply?

This rule applies when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property. In such a case, they cannot force the other to agree unless the above minimums are met. However, if both owners agree to divide the property, they may do so even if the resulting portions are smaller than the specified minimums.

An exception applies to sacred writings—such as a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible—that are inherited jointly by two people. They may not divide the scroll, even if both parties agree, as doing so would show disrespect by cutting the sacred text in half.

Il tribunale non divide un cortile su richiesta di uno dei comproprietari a meno che ciascuno riceva una porzione di almeno quattro per quattro cubiti, che è considerata l’area minima utilizzabile. Allo stesso modo, il tribunale non divide un campo in comproprietà a meno che vi sia spazio sufficiente per seminare nove kav di seme per ciascun proprietario. Rabbi Yehuda dissente, affermando che la dimensione minima è un campo capace di contenere nove mezzi-kav di seme per ciascun proprietario.

Per un orto, il tribunale non lo divide a meno che vi sia spazio sufficiente per seminare un mezzo-kav di seme per ciascun proprietario. Rabbi Akiva adotta una posizione più permissiva, richiedendo solo l’area necessaria per seminare un quarto di kav di seme (beit rova) per ciascun proprietario.

Il tribunale applica lo stesso principio a diversi tipi di proprietà, come una sala (hateraklin), una stanza da ricevimento, un colombaio, un mantello, un bagno pubblico, un frantoio e un campo irrigato. La divisione è consentita solo se ogni porzione risulterà ancora utilizzabile nello stesso modo della proprietà originaria non divisa.

Il principio guida:

• Se le porzioni divise sono abbastanza grandi da mantenere il nome e la funzione dell’oggetto originario, il tribunale permette la divisione.
• Se le porzioni divise non possono mantenere il nome e la funzione originari, il tribunale non consente la divisione.

Quando si applica questa regola?

Questa regola si applica quando solo uno dei proprietari desidera dividere la proprietà. In tal caso, non può costringere l’altro a essere d’accordo a meno che non siano rispettati i suddetti minimi. Tuttavia, se entrambi i proprietari sono d’accordo, possono dividere la proprietà anche se le porzioni risultanti sono inferiori ai minimi specificati.

Un’eccezione si applica agli scritti sacri, come un rotolo di uno qualsiasi dei ventiquattro libri della Bibbia, ereditato congiuntamente da due persone. Non possono dividere il rotolo, nemmeno se entrambe le parti sono d’accordo, poiché ciò mostrerebbe mancanza di rispetto tagliando a metà il testo sacro.

A person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, in order to avoid damaging the latter’s pit. Similarly, one may not dig a ditch, nor a cave (i.e., a covered pit), nor a water channel, nor a launderer’s pond (a pit used for washing clothes), unless he distances all of these three handbreadths from the wall of another and plasters the area with lime where there is water.

One must also distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, such as the refuse of olives from which oil has been squeezed, animal manure, salt, lime, and rocks, three handbreadths from the wall of another, as all these items produce heat and can damage the wall. Alternatively, he may plaster the wall with lime to prevent damage.

Similarly, one must distance seeds (i.e., one may not plant seeds), and one may not operate the plow, and one must eliminate urine three handbreadths from the wall of another.

The mishna continues: One must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the smaller upper stone of the mill. Additionally, there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base [hakalya] of an oven to the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim [hassafa] of the oven.

A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits high above it, i.e., between the top of the oven and the ceiling, to avoid burning the ceiling, which serves as the floor of the residence above. If one is setting up an oven in the upper story, the plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, must be at least three handbreadths thick to prevent the ceiling below from burning. In the case of a stove, the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick.

If he causes damage in any case, he must pay compensation for the damage he caused. Rabbi Shimon says: They stated all of these measurements only to teach that if he causes damage, he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions.

A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, nor may he establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna clarifies: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine, the Sages permitted setting up a bakery or a dye shop beneath it, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. However, they did not permit establishing a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine.

If a resident wishes to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him, saying: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering and exiting the store. However, one may fashion utensils in his house and go out to sell them in the market. Despite the prohibition against opening a store in the courtyard, the neighbor cannot protest and say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home.

One must distance his ladder four cubits from a neighbor’s dovecote to prevent a mongoose from jumping from the ladder to the dovecote and devouring the birds. Similarly, one must distance his wall four cubits from a roof gutter, so that the neighbor can lean a ladder in the empty space to clean and repair the gutter.

A dovecote must be distanced fifty cubits from the city to prevent the doves from eating seeds in the town. Furthermore, a person should not establish a dovecote within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction between the dovecote and the edge of his property. Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have around the dovecote an area sufficient for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which generally corresponds to the distance a dove flies in a single flight.

If one purchased a dovecote along with the land, he retains the acquired privilege of its use, even if the area surrounding it is only sufficient for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], and he is not required to remove it.

One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the case of a carob tree or a sycamore tree, which have many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits.

If the city preceded the tree, meaning the tree was planted later alongside the city, the tree must be cut down, and the city does not compensate the owner. However, if the tree preceded the city, which later expanded until it reached the tree, the tree must still be cut down, but the city must compensate the owner.

If it is uncertain whether the city or the tree was there first, the tree must be cut down, and the city does not compensate the owner.

One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern, and in the case of a carob tree or a sycamore tree, whose roots extend farther, one must distance the tree fifty cubits. This halakha applies whether the cistern or the tree is located above or to the side of the other.

If the digging of the cistern preceded the planting of the tree, the owner of the tree must cut down the tree, and the owner of the cistern compensates him. If the tree preceded the cistern, the owner of the tree is not required to cut it down. If it is uncertain which came first, the owner of the tree is not required to cut it down.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the cistern preceded the tree, the owner of the tree is not required to cut it down, because this one digs in his own property, and that one plants in his own property.

A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This applies whether he is planting grapevines or any other type of tree. If there is a fence between them, each person may plant close to the fence—this one may plant his grapevines or trees close to the fence on his side, and that one may plant his produce close to the fence on his side.

If the roots of a tree spread into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths and sever the roots, so they do not impede his plow. If he is digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave in that spot and encounters the roots of his neighbor’s tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots belongs to him.

With regard to a tree that leans into the field of another, the neighbor may cut the branches to the height of an ox goad raised over the plow in areas where the land is to be plowed, so the branches do not impede the use of the plow. In the case of a carob tree or a sycamore tree, whose abundant branches cast shade that harms plants, all branches overhanging the neighbor’s property may be removed along the plumb line, i.e., a line perpendicular to the boundary separating the fields.

If the neighbor’s field is an irrigated field, all branches of the tree must be removed along the plumb line. Abba Shaul says: All barren trees are to be cut along the plumb line.