Amud 2b

תוס' ד"ה נתייאש

נתיאש הימנה ולא גדרה – He abandoned the wall and did not rebuild it

Summary: The פסוק states לא תזרע כרמך כלאים. We derive from this that the איסור כלאים is only when one is pleased with the כלאים growth; as is the case when one plants כלאים. Where one demonstrates that he is not satisfied with the כלאים growth, it is not כלאים.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה וחייב

וחייב באחריותו – And he is liable for its responsibility

Summary: כלאים is a היזק ניכר since it is obvious that the produce in this field (a mixture of grapes and grain) is אסור בהנאה.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ואימא

ואימא מאי מחיצה פלוגתא – I can say, what does מחיצה mean; a division.

Summary: The גמרא challenges the assumption that מחיצה means גודא. According to that assumption, we will maintain that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק. There are many sources which indicate that ה"ר שמיה היזק. Therefore it is preferable to interpret מחיצה to mean a division, thereby maintaining that ה"ר שמיה היזק; Even though this interpretation runs contrary to the usual interpretation of מחיצה.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה וכיון

וכיון דרצו בונין את הכותל בעל כרחו – And since they want to divide, they build the wall even against either one’s will .

Summary: According to the לשון that מחיצה means division then the משנה is discussing a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה. That is why their consent for division is necessary. The novelty of this דין is that neither can claim that my agreement to divide was based on the assumption that there will be no wall.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה הוה

הוה אמינא במסיפס בעלמא – I might have said that they divide the חצר with just a מסיפס .

Summary: תוספות introduces two types of מסיפס. A מסיפס גרוע is made of inferior materials. The מסיפס discussed here is a wall made of גויל וגזית; either with many windows or a wall less than ten טפחים. The explanation of the גמרא is as follows: We are discussing a חצר שיש בה דין חלוקה. The שותפין agreed to build a מחיצה. If it would say בונין אותו I would have thought that we can only obligate the partner to build a מסיפס of גויל גזית, but not a כותל.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה בונין

בונין את הכותל באמצע פשיטא – They build the wall in the middle; that is obvious!

Summary: The question פשיטא is only according to the מ"ד that מחיצה גודא . However according to the מ"ד that מחיצה פלוגתא, had the משנה not specifically told us that it must be in the middle, we would have given credence to the argument that היזק ראיה can only obligate one to pay for the expenses, but not to give up property.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה תא

תא שמע וכן בגינה – Come and hear; the משנה states: And the same rule applies by a garden.

Summary: The proof from וכן בגינה that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק is based on the conclusion of the גמרא, that when the משנה states וכן בגינה it means the following. A סתם גינה requires a dividing wall just as it is required in a מקום שנהגו לגדור.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה גינה

גינה שאני כדרבי אבא וכולי – A garden is different; as רבי אבא stated, etc.

Summary: A גינה requires a dividing wall (even if ה"ר לא ש"ה) because of the injunction of ר"א, since there is always produce growing in a גינה. However a בקעה does not require a wall since the crops are growing for only one month during the year.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה נפל

נפל שאני – It collapsed; that is different.

Summary: The היזק ראיה by a fallen wall is greater, since the neighbors are already accustomed to do much of their private work in the חצר.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ודקארי

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה – And the one who cited this משנה, why did he cite it.

Summary: The question ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה means that instead of attempting to prove from the משנה of הכותל שנפל, that ה"ר ש"ה, you should prove that ה"ר לא ש"ה, since he is obligated only to rebuild a wall, not to build a new wall.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה היזקא

היזקא דרבים שאני – Damage caused by many is different.

Summary: A חצר שאינה סמוכה לרה"ר is still subject to היזקא דרבים since זימנין דדחקי רבים. A door however, is required even if we are not concerned for זימנין דדחקי; since the בני רה"ר can look into the חצר from afar, if there is no door.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה מאי

מאי לאו בכותל – Does not that mean that they divide it with a wall

Summary: If it is assumed that חולקין means dividing a property by erecting a wall; then משנה of אין חולקין is teaching us that we divide a property שיש בה דין חלוקה by having each of the partners contribute (space) to the wall jointly. This proves that ה"ר ש"ה.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה שאני

שאני התם דאמר ליה בעל החצר לבעל הגג כולי – It is different there; for the owner of the חצר says to the owner of the roof, etc.

Summary: It would seem that we can prove הרש"ה, from the ברייתא, which states that in a case of ב' חצירות זו למעלה מזו, the עליון must jointly build the wall from the bottom up.

[View / Print]