Talmud su Nedarim 5:1

הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָאָה זֶה מִזֶּה, אֲסוּרִין לִכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, זֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים לְהַעֲמִיד שָׁם רֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר וּלְגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִים. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם מֻדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, לֹא יִכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ, לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נִכְנָס וְאֵינִי נִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּךְ. וְכוֹפִין אֶת הַנּוֹדֵר לִמְכֹּר אֶת חֶלְקוֹ:

Ai partner che hanno beneficiato l'uno dell'altro è vietato entrare nel cortile. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov dice: Questo entra nel suo e quello entra nel suo. [I partner, ognuno dei quali ha una casa in un cortile, ed entrambi sono partner nel cortile davanti alle case, dove esiste una legge di divisione nel cortile, cioè quando per ogni casa ci sono quattro cubiti nel cortile di fronte della casa e rimangono nel cortile altri quattro cubiti per ciascuno—in tal caso tutti concordano sul fatto che ad entrambi è proibito entrare nel cortile fino a quando non lo dividono, ottenendo la legge di divisione. R. Eliezer e i rabbini differiscono solo rispetto ad un cortile dove non si ottiene la legge di divisione, i rabbini sostengono che ognuno entra nel suo vicino (proprietà), e R. Eliezer b. Yaakov sostiene che esiste breirah (identificazione retroattiva), e ognuno entra nel proprio.] Ed entrambi è vietato collocare lì un mulino e un forno o allevare polli lì. [R. Eliezer b. Yaakov ammette in tutti questi casi che i partner possono fermarsi a vicenda, non essendo possibile permetterlo per motivi di breirah. Poiché poiché è possibile per lui fermarlo e non lo fa, si scopre che gli è di beneficio.] Se uno di loro avesse perso il beneficio del suo vicino, non potrebbe entrare nel cortile. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov dice: Potrebbe dirgli: "Sto entrando in ciò che è mio e non sto entrando in ciò che è tuo". E il bevower è costretto a vendere la sua porzione. [Perché temiamo che, poiché vede entrare il suo vicino, potrebbe dimenticare e, allo stesso modo, entrare. Ma quando entrambi sono vietati, questo non è da temere. Ed è solo quando uno ha promesso a se stesso di non beneficiare del suo vicino che lo costringiamo a vendere la sua porzione. Ma se il suo vicino lo ha costretto a non trarre beneficio da lui, è anuss ("forzato") e non è costretto a vendere, per cosa potrebbe fare? Se ciò fosse permesso, ogni partner smetterebbe l'altro di non beneficiare di lui per costringerlo a vendergli la sua parte!]

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra

^56*The entire paragraph is from Nedarim 5:1, Notes 16–20. The courtyard is there for entering and leaving the houses. Any other use is possible only if it does not disturb other inhabitants of the courtyard. 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 Israel⁵⁷Babli 57b.. 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.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. ¹¹²The entire paragraph is copied in Makkot 2:4. The text bracketed here is an addition by the corrector, probably from Makkot, recognizable by his standard Babli spelling. The same topic is discussed in the Babli, 32b/33a. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim¹¹³In Makkot: “To collect”. In any case, the person entering did not trespass. his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile¹¹⁴The responsibility of the person splitting wood in his own backyard is in civil, not in criminal law. The text in Makkot adds: “Because it is not as in a forest,” referring to Deut. 19:5 which describes the circumstances under which the homicide has to dwell in a city of refuge. The Babli, 33a, quotes the end of the same verse, describing how the blade of an ax “finds his neighbor and he dies”, to exclude one who walks into the path of danger (cf. Sifry Deut. 183).. 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 precautions¹¹⁵In Tosephta 6:27 it is stated explicitly that the worker, who has the right to go and collect his wages, enters on his own responsibility unless invited in, at which moment the responsibility shifts to his employer.. 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 Yannai¹¹⁶Nedarim 5:1, Notes 22–23: 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^6,Babli 27b. If one does not stop traffic, one is permitted to put down his load in the public domain.¹⁰⁴The Mishnah only applies to a narrow path; on a wide road the second person is required not to walk directly behind the one carrying a dangerous load.? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he¹¹⁷The worker, looking for his employer to collect his wages. walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Capitolo completo Versetto successivo