Study Bava Batra folio 7B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מר ינוקא ומר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי: נהרדעי לטעמייהו – דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל: האחין שחלקו – אין להן לא דרך זה על זה,
i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The rabbis of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of-way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field.
ולא חלונות זה על זה, ולא סולמות זה על זה, ולא אמת המים זה על זה, והזהרו בהן שהלכות קבועות הן. ורבא אמר: יש להן.
Shmuel continues: Nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other’s property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other’s property. And be careful with these, since they are established halakhot. Rava says: The brothers do have all of the aforementioned rights. Rav Ḥama agrees with Shmuel’s opinion, that each brother can do as he pleases on his own property without the other one preventing him from doing so.
ההוא שטרא דיתמי, דנפיק עליה תברא. אמר רב חמא: אגבויי לא מגבינן ליה, ומיקרע לא קרעינן ליה. אגבויי לא מגבינן ליה – דנפק תברא עליה. מיקרע לא קרעינן ליה – דכי גדלי יתמי, דילמא מייתו ראיה ומרעי ליה.
Since Rav Ḥama’s rulings were mentioned, the Talmud cites another halakhic ruling in his name. There was a certain promissory note inherited by orphans from their father, stating that somebody owed them money, against which a receipt was produced by the borrower, stating that the debt was already paid. Rav Ḥama said: We cannot use the note to collect the debt on behalf of the orphans, nor can we tear it up. The Talmud explains: We cannot collect with the note because a receipt against it was produced by the borrower; and we cannot tear the note up because perhaps when the orphans grow up they will bring proof that the receipt was forged and undermine it.