meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.txt"}
text: Mishnah Bava Batra
  משנה בבא בתרא
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  Mishnah Bava Batra
  
  
  
  
  
  If two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle. In a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it everything is according to local custom. [If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.
  The same is true with a garden:  in a place where the custom is to build a fence, they can obligate him to do so. However, in a valley, where it is not customary to build a fence, they cannot obligate him to do so. But if he wants to [build a fence] he must gather into his own portion and build, and he puts a finishing on the outside of the wall. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to him. If they acted with each other’s consent, they should build the wall in the middle and put a finishing on both sides. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to them both.
  If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says:  “If he rose and built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.”
  If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid. [If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.
  They compel [a partner in a courtyard to contribute to] the building of a gate-house and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Not all courtyards are fit for a gate-house.” They compel [a resident of the town to contribute to] the building of a wall for the town and double doors and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Not every town is fit for a wall.” How long must a man dwell in a town to count as one of the men of the town? Twelve months. If he has purchased a dwelling place he immediately counts as one of the men of the town.
  They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says:  “A quarter-kav.” Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner]. This is the general rule:  whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide. When is this so?  When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing.
  
  
  
  One may not dig a cistern near his fellow’s cistern; Nor may he dig a ditch, cave, water-channel, or laundry pool unless it is three handbreadths away from his fellow’s wall, and he must plaster it with lime. They distance piles of olive refuse, manure, salt, lime or stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall, and he plasters it with lime. They distance seeds, and a plow and urine three handbreadths from the wall. And they distance the mill [from the wall]: three [handbreadths] from the lower millstone and four [handbreadths] from the upper millstone. And [they distance] the oven [from the wall]:  three from the belly of the oven and four from the rim of the oven.
  One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says:  “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.”
  One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”
  If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits.
  A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats doves) should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote.
  If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to who finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes:  if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it.
  A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says:  “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.
  A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage.
  Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says:  “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town].
  A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant.
  A tree may not be grown within twenty five cubits of a cistern, or within fifty cubits if it is a carob or a sycamore, whether it is higher or on the same level. If the cistern was there first the tree shall be cut down and compensation given. If the tree was there first it shall not be cut down. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall not be cut down. Rabbi Yose says:  “Even if the cistern was there before the tree it should not be cut down, since this one dug within his own domain and the other planted within his own domain.”
  A person may not plant a tree near another’s field unless it is four cubits away, no matter whether it be a vine or any other kind of tree. If there was a wall between, each may plant up to the wall on either side. If its roots entered within the other’s property, the other may cut them away to a depth of three handbreadths so that they shall not hinder the plough. If he dug a cistern, trench or cave, he may cut them away as far down as he digs, and the wood shall belong to him.
  If a tree stretches into another’s field, he may cut it away as far as is reached by an ox-goad held over the plough, or, if it is a carob or sycamore, [he may cut it away] according to the plumb line’s measure. All trees that stretch over irrigated fields may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure. Abba Shaul says:  “All trees that bear no fruit may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.”
  If a tree stretches into the public domain enough must be cut away to allow a camel and its rider pass by. Rabbi Judah says:  “A camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.” Rabbi Shimon says:  “Every tree [must be cut away] according to the plumb line’s measure, because of impurity.
  
  
  
  The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says:  “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says:  “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said:  “When does this apply?  With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”
  There are three regions with regards to possession:  Judea, beyond the Jordan and the Galilee. If the owner was in Judea and another took possession [of his property] in the Galilee; Or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession [of his property] in Judea, such possession does not demonstrate ownership, until he is in the same region. Rabbi Judah said:  “They have specified a period of three years so that if the owner was in Spain and another took possession [of his property] during one year, they could make it known to the owner during the next year and he could return in the third year.”
  An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him:  “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered:  “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]:  “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession.
  If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner. If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them. If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.
  What are usages which are effective in establishing title through possession and what are usages which are not effecting in establishing title through possession? If a man put a beast in a courtyard, or an oven or stoves or mill-stones, or reared fowl [in a courtyard] or put his manure in a courtyard, this is not effective in establishing title through possession. But if he built for his beast a partition ten hand-breadths high, so too for an oven, so too for a stove, so too for a mill-stone, [or] he brought fowl inside the house, or prepared for his manure a place three hand-breadths deep or three hand-breadths high, this is effective in establishing title through possession.
  A gutter spout cannot cause title through possession [so that the spout may still be moved] but title through possession may be claimed to its place [so that the place must be left for its present purpose]. A gutter can give title through possession. An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. An Egyptian window cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian window can. What is an Egyptian window?  Any through which a man’s head may not enter. Rabbi Judah says:  “If it has a frame, even though a man’s head cannot enter through it, it can give title through possession.” A projection, if it extends a handbreadth or more can give title through possession, and the other [into whose premises it projects] can protest against it. But if it is less than a handbreadth it cannot give title through possession and the other cannot protest against it.
  One may not make a window to open into a jointly held courtyard. If he bought a house in another [and adjoining] courtyard he may not open it into a jointly held courtyard. If he built an upper room over his house he may not make it open into the jointly held courtyard; But, if he wishes, he may build another room within his house or build an upper room over his house and make it open into his own house. In a jointly held courtyard a man may not build a door directly opposite another’s door, or a window directly opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may not make it larger; if it was a single window he may not make it into two. But in the public domain he may open a door opposite another’s door, or a window opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may make it larger; if it was a single window he may make it into two.
  One may not hollow out a space underneath the public domain [such as] cisterns, trenches or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits it if it is such that a wagon loaded with stones can [safely] go over it. Projections and balconies may not be built into the public domain; but if a man wishes to build a [projection or balcony] he may withdraw [his wall] within his own domain and build out from it. If he bought a courtyard in which were already projections and balconies, his right to maintain them may not be disputed.
  
  
  
  If a man sold a house, he has not sold its side chambers, even though they open into the house, nor the room that is behind [the house], nor the roof, if it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. Rabbi Judah says: “If the roof as entrance shaped like a door, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, it is not sold.”
  Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say:  “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says:  “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say:  “He must buy himself a path.”
  If a man sold a house he has sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold a permanent mortar but not a movable one. He has sold the convex millstone (the lower, usually fixed stone) but not the concave one. Nor [has he sold] the oven or the stove. But if he had said:  “[I am selling to you] the house and all that is in it, these are also sold.”
  If a man sold a courtyard, he has also sold its houses, cisterns, trenches and caves, but not the movable property. But if he had said:  “It and all that is in it” all of these are also sold. But in neither case has he sold the bath-house, or the olive press that are in it. Rabbi Eliezer says:  “If a man sold a courtyard, he has sold only the air (the open spaces) of the courtyard.
  If a man sold an olive press he has sold also the vat, the grindstone, and the posts, but he has not sold the pressing-boards, the wheel or the beam. But if he had said:  “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If a man sold an olive press he has sold the beam also.”
  If a man sold a bath house, he has not sold the planks or the benches or the curtains. But if he had said:  “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. In neither case has he sold the water containers or the stores of wood.
  If a man sold a town, he has also sold the houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, bath houses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But if he had said:  “It and all that is in it”, even if cattle and slaves were in it, all of these are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If a man sold a town he has also sold the town watchman.”
  If a man sold a field he has also sold the stones that are necessary to it, and the canes in a vineyard that are necessary to it, and its unreaped crop, and a partition of reed which covers less than a quarter-kav’s space of ground, and the watchman’s hut if it was fastened down with mortar, and ungrafted carob trees and young sycamores.
  But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say:  “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says:  “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say:  “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so?  With regards to he that sells his field.  But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says:  “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”
  
  
  
  If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says:  “The price tells all.  How is this so?  If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say:  “The price is not proof.”
  If a man sold a donkey he has not sold its trappings. Nahuma of Madi says:  “He has sold its trappings.” Rabbi Judah says:  “Sometimes they are sold and sometimes they are not sold.  How is this so?  If the donkey was before him with its trappings on it and he said, ‘Sell me this donkey of yours’, the trappings are sold (with the donkey).  If he said, ‘Sell me that donkey of yours’, the trappings are not sold.”
  If a man sold a donkey he has sold its foal. If a man sold a cow he has not sold its calf. If he sold a dungheap, he has sold the dung on it. If he sold a cistern, he has sold the water in it. If he sold a bee-hive he has sold the bees. If he sold a dovecote he has sold the pigeons. If a man bought the fruit of a dovecote from his fellow he must let go the first pair that are hatched. [If he bought], the fruit of a beehive he may take three swarms and then [the seller] may make the rest sterile. [If he bought] honeycombs he must leave two honeycombs. [If he bought] olive trees to cut down the branches, he must leave two shoots.
  If a man bought two trees in his fellow’s field, he has not bought the ground [in which they grow]. Rabbi Meir says:  “He has bought the ground”. When they grow (branches), he (the seller) may not trim them. What comes up from the stem belongs to him (the buyer) but what comes up from the roots belongs to the seller. And if they die, the ground is not his [to replant new trees]. If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the buyer). And if they die the ground is his.
  He who has sold the head of a large animal, has not sold the feet. If he sold the feet, he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has not sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs. But in the case of a small animal: If he sold the head he has sold the feet. If he sold the feet he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.
  There are four rules with regards to those who sell:If one has sold good wheat and it turns out to be bad, the buyer can retract. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can retract. [But if one sold] bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither may retract. [If one has sold] dark wheat and it turned out to be white; Or white and it turned out to be dark; Or [if he sold] olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood; Or sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood; Or [if he sold] wine and it turned out to be vinegar; Or vinegar and it turned out to be wine; Either of them may retract.
  If a man sold produce to his fellow and the buyer drew it towards him but did not measure it, [the buyer] has acquired [the produce]. If [the seller] had measured it but [the buyer] did not draw it towards him, he has not acquired [the produce]. If [the buyer] is clever he will rent the place [in which the produce is located]. If a man bought flax from his fellow he has not acquired it until he has moved it from one place to another. If it was still attached to the ground, and he plucked any small quantity of it, he has acquired possession.
  If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. [After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says:  “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.”
  If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a coin) in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a pondion) worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt.
  The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “The rule is just the opposite.” The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said:  “When is this so (that one needs to clean out measures)?  With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary. [And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures. Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures. Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down.
  
  
  
  If a man sold grain to his fellow [and after it was sown] it did not sprout, even if it was flax-seed he is not liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “If it was garden-seeds, which are not used for food, he is liable.”
  If a man sold grain to his fellow, the buyer must agree to accept a quarter-kab of refuse with every seah. [If he bought] figs he must agree to accept ten that are eaten by worms for every one hundred. [If he bought] a cellar of wine, he must agree to accept ten jars gone sour in every one hundred. [If he bought] jars in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten which are not fully dry (and therefore are more easily broken) in one hundred.
  If a man sold wine to his fellow and it turned sour he is not responsible. But if it was known [to the seller] that his wine would [soon] turn sour, this is a mistaken purchase. If he had said to him, “I am selling you spiced wine”, he is responsible for its remaining [good] until Shavuoth. [If he said] it is old wine, it must be from last year’s. [If he said] it is vintage old wine, it must be from the year before last.
  If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120 inches), according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says:  “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x. A large house eight by ten (160 x. An eating hall ten by ten (200 x. The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”
  If he had a cistern behind his fellow’s house, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in his cattle and let them drink from his cistern, rather he must draw water and let them drink outside. He and the owner of the house should each make themselves a lock.
  If he had a garden behind his fellow’s garden, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in merchants, or enter through it into another field. [The owner of] the outer garden may plant seeds on the path. But, if with the other’s consent, he has been given a path at the side [of the other’s garden] he may go in and out when he wishes. And he may bring in merchants, but he may not enter through it into another field. And neither of them has the right to plant seeds on the path.
  If a public path passed through a man’s field and he took it and gave them [another path] by the side of the field, what he has given he has given and what he has taken for himself does not become his. A private path is four cubits. A public path is sixteen cubits. The king’s path has no prescribed measure. The path to a grave has no prescribed measure. The halting places, according to the judges of Tzippori, should be four kab’s space of ground.
  If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide. Rabbi Shimon says:  “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left. He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says:  “Four, one on each of its sides.” Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “All depends on the nature of the rock.”
  
  
  
  If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you a kor’s space of soil”, and it contained crevices ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, these are not included in the measurement. But if they were less than this they are included. If he said to him, “About a kor’s space of soil”, even if it contained crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are included in the measurement.
  [If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. What does he (the buyer) give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus.
  [If he said], “I will sell you [a piece of land] as measured by the rope, whether it is less or more” the condition “whether it is less or more” makes void the condition “as measured by the rope”. [And if he said], “Be it less or more, as measured by the rope”, the condition “as measured by the rope” makes void the condition “be it less or more”, according to Ben Nanas. [If he said, I will sell you a piece of land] by its marks and its boundaries”, and the difference was less than a sixth, the sale stands. If it was as much a sixth the buyer may reduce the price.
  If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you half of the field”, it must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes half of the field [which the other allots to him]. [If he said, “I will sell you] the southern half”, the field must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes the southern half. He accepts responsibility for [providing the ground] for the dividing wall and the large and small ditches. How large is the large ditch?  Six handbreadths. And the small ditch?  Three handbreadths.
  
  
  
  There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.These inherit and bequeath:  a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath. A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath. A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit. And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.
  This is the order of inheritance:  “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter. The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’ Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers. This is the general rule:  whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence. The father has precedence over all his offspring.
  The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of Israel): The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s father); And, in that he (Zelophehad) was the first-born, he took a double portion.
  The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property.
  If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says:  “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.”
  If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid.
  If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.
  If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike. If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance]. If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].
  
  
  
  If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says:  “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says:  “I approve of Admon’s opinion.”
  If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful gender) onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males. If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives. If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.
  If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit. So, too, if a woman (a widow) improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.
  If brothers were partners and one of them fell into a public office, it falls to the common benefit. If one [of them] got sick and needed healing, his healing is at his own expense. If certain of the brothers in their father’s lifetime had made a present as groomsmen [at their father’s expense] and [after his death] the present was restored to them, it is restored to the common benefit, for the groomsmen’s gift [counts as a loan] and can be recovered in a court of law. But if [one of the brothers in his father’s lifetime] sent his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, they cannot be recovered through a court of law, since they count [not as a loan but] as a charitable deed.
  If a man sent betrothal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, and he sent there 100 maneh (10,000 dinar) and he ate a betrothal meal of but one dinar, [and he afterward divorced his wife] they (the betrothal gifts) are not recoverable. But if he did not eat the betrothal meal, they are recoverable. If he sent many betrothal gifts in order for them to return with her to her his house [when he marries her], they are recoverable. If he sent few betrothal gifts which were to be used in her father’s house, they are not recoverable.
  If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the gift) said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say:  “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.”
  If a man divided his property orally, Rabbi Eliezer says:  “Whether he was healthy or at the point of death, property for which there is security (land) can be acquired only by money, by a document or by possession; property for which there is no security (movable objects) can be acquired only by being drawn [into the possession of the one acquiring]. They (the Sages) said to him:  “It once happened that the mother of the sons of Rokhel was sick and said, ‘Give my veil to my daughter’, and it was worth twelve hundred maneh (1,200 dinars) and she died and they fulfilled her words. He said to them:  “May their mother bury the sons of Rokhel.” The Sages say:  “On a Sabbath his words remain valid, since he cannot write, but not on a weekday.” Rabbi Joshua says:  “If they have stated this rule on the Sabbath, how much more so on a weekday.” Similarly, others may acquire possession on behalf of a minor, but not on behalf of an adult. Rabbi Joshua says:  “If they have stated this rule with regards to a minor, how much more so does the rule apply to an adult.
  If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor:  the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says:  “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says:  “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].”
  If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says:  “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says:  “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.”
  If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and Hillel) agree that the they split the property. Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him:  “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”
  
  
  
  A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says:  “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Everything should follow local custom.”
  A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document:  “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.
  They may write out a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, or a receipt (stating that the husband has paid the ketubah debt) for the wife even if her husband is not with her, provided that he (the scribe) knows them. And the husband pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a document for the debtor even though the creditor is not with him, but they may not write out a document for the creditor unless the debtor is with him. And the debtor pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a deed of sale for the seller although the buyer is not with him, but they may not write it out for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the (scribe’s) fee.
  They may not write documents of betrothal or marriage except with the consent of both parties. And the bridegroom pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of tenancy and sharecropping except with the consent of both parties. And the tenant pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of arbitration or any document drawn up before a court except with the consent of both parties. And both parties pay the (scribe’s) fee. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Two documents are written for the two parties, one copy for each.”
  If a man had paid part of his debt and gave the debt document to a third party, and the debtor said to him, “If I have not paid you back by such and such a day, give him (the creditor) back the debt document” and the time came and he had not paid, Rabbi Yose says:  “He should give it to him.” Rabbi Judah says:  “He should not give it to him.”
  If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says:  “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says:  “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said:  “It turns out that this one (the debtor) will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him:  “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the creditor) have not been damaged.
  If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do?  They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say:  “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”
  If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him:  “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable?  [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.