(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 60

BAVA BASRA 60 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for the Torah and for those who study it.



(a) Our Mishnah prohibits - opening a door opposite a door in a Chatzer in which one resides, or a window opposite a window ...

(b) ... even if one already has a Chazakah to do so (for reasons of Tz'niyus).

(c) And he also prohibits - enlarging an existing window or opening two where one has a Chazakah on one.

(d) Opening a new door facing a door or a window is permitted however - if they are already facing a Reshus ha'Rabim.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk "And Bilam raised his eyes and he saw Yisrael dwelling according to their tribes" - to mean that he saw how that the openings to their tents did not face each other, and he declared that they were worthy of having the Shechinah rest among them.

(b) Rami bar Chama thought that it is only a door of four Amos that the Tana forbids to turn into one of eight - because he will then be taking up an extra four Amos (as we learned in the first Perek), but that he permits turning one of two Amos into four - because everyone is permitted an entrance of four Amos anyway.

(c) Rava refuted Rami's explanation however, on the grounds - that even turning a doorway of two into four is forbidden, because the other residents can protest that, whereas they were able to guard themselves against the original space of two Amos, they will not able do so against a space of four Amos.

(a) Rami bar Chama thinks that it is only a door of four Amos that the Tana forbids to turn into two doors of two each - because this enables him to receive eight Amos in the Chatzer instead of four, but turning a door of eight Amos into two doors of four each should be permitted, since he adds nothing to the eight Amos that he already has in the Chatzer.

(b) Rava disagrees with Rami's explanation on the grounds - that the other residents can stop him anyway, because they can claim that although they were able to keep out of his sight when he owned one doorway, they will not be able to, should he own two.

(c) The Tana permit opening a new door facing a door or a window, if they already face a Reshus ha'Rabim - seeing as he anyway has to be on his guard against passing pedestrians, who can peer into his house through the front door, and against horse and camel-riders, who can even peer into his windows.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah forbids - digging pits underneath the Reshus ha'Rabim ...

(b) ... even if he undertakes to pay for any damages that he causes.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer - permits it provided a wagon laden with stones can pass safely along the road.

(d) The Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer on the grounds - that it is now only immediate damage that concerns us, but that in the course of time, the earth may become wormy, causing the road on top to cave in. Rebbi Eliezer however, does not contend with the future.

(a) One may build a ledge on one's wall that protrudes into the Reshus ha'Rabim - only if one moves the wall back into one's own domain, so that no part of the ledge juts into the street.

(b) Someone who purchases a wall from which ledges or G'zuztera'os jut out into the street is not obligated to do this - because if the seller had claimed that he moved his wall back, and that he had been using it in that location for three years, he would have been believed. Consequently, Beis-Din make that claim on behalf of the purchaser ('To'anin le'Loke'ach', as we learned earlier in the Perek).

(c) Rebbi Ami instructed that man from whose wall a ledge jutted out into the street - to cut it down.

(d) When the man queried him about a ledge that jutted out from *his* wall into the alleyway that ran past his Chatzer, he replied - that the residents of his Mavoy had all been Mochel (foregone), something which is not possible to achieve in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

(a) People complained to Rebbi Yanai about the branches of a neighbor's tree that were hanging over the Reshus ha'Rabim - that threatened to damage passing camels and their riders.

(b) When the man arrived in court, Rebbi Yanai initially instructed him to go home and return the next day. The following day, when the defendant queried his right to order him to cut down his tree, on the grounds that he (Rebbi Yanai) himself, was guilty of the same offense, he replied - that he should indeed take his cue from him, and that, when he saw that, the previous night, he (Rebbi Yanai) had cut down his own tree, he should do likewise.

(c) Rebbi Yanai found it necessary to do what he did, rather than issue his ruling first and cut his own tree down later - because of the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "Hiskosheshu ve'Koshu", which teaches us that one should first put one's own house in order, before starting with somebody else's.

(d) And the reason that he did not cut down his tree earlier is - because initially, he thought that the tree was useful as a source of shade, until they came and complained about his neighbor's tree ... .




(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that, if the owner of the wall that adjoined the Reshus ha'Rabim moved it back without actually fitting a ledge, he could add it at a later date. Resh Lakish forbids it.

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov amends their basic Machlokes. In his opinion - both Amora'im agree that he may add ledges later, should he so wish, and they argue over whether he is permitted to rebuild his wall in its former position (without adding ledges [Resh Lakish]), or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's opinion now concurs with a statement of Rav Yehudah, who says - that once the public have established a pathway between two fields, the owner may not change its location (because effectively, the pathway becomes public property).

(d) Resh Lakish argues with Rebbi Yochanan) not because he disagrees with Rav Yehudah, but) - because this case is different, inasmuch as the public still have use of the rest of the street.

(a) The Beraisa forbids whitewashing one's house nowadays - in memory of the Churban Beis Hamikdash).

(b) The Tana also prohibits Kiyur and Piyuch. Kiyur is defined as painting pictures on the walls of one's house using lime or whitewashing with lime that is slightly less bright. 'Piyuch' as - painting pictures using other color paints.

(c) If, in the time of the Tana'im, someone purchased a Chazter already whitewashed, he could assume that it was from before the Churban, and leave it as it was. But if the Chatzer collapsed - he was not permitted to rebuild it.

(d) Nevertheless, Rav Huna permits someone who purchased a Chatzer with ledges that jut out into the street, to rebuild it, after it has fallen, on the basis of his Chazakah - because that is a money-issue, whereas the Beraisa's ruling pertains to Isur, where the Chachamim were more stringent.

(a) The Tana Kama of another Beraisa permits whitewashing one's house, provided one added sand or straw - because they detract from the whiteness.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah concedes that it is permitted if one added sand, but not straw - because straw turns it into Traksid, which increases the strength of the building, thereby making up for the lack of whiteness.

(a) The 'Perushim' (exceptionally righteous people), stopped eating meat and drinking wine after the Churban of the second Beis-Hamikdash - as a Zeicher le'Churban (to commemorate the destruction of the second Beis-Hamikdash), since the Korbanos and the Nesachim (the wine-offering that accompanied most offerings) ceased to function.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua asked them why, by the same token, they did not then desist from eating ...

1. ... bread - seeing as the Menachos too, ceased to function?
2. ... fruit - seeing as the Bikurim were no longer brought?
(c) They answered Rebbi Yehoshua that there was no point in not eating ...
1. ... bread - since they could always eat other fruit (presumably, in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that the 'tree' from which Adam ate was wheat).
2. ... fruit - since even if they ceased to eat the seven fruits from which Bikurim were brought, they would be able to eat other species of fruits.
(d) He caught them out however, when he asked them why they did not then desist from drinking water, since Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos) too, had been negated (see Tosfos DH 'Mayim').
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua final word in this matter, based on the Pasuk in Malachi "ba'Me'eirah Atem Ne'arim ... ha'Goy Kulo" was - that Chazal only decreed that what most of the people would be able to keep, and that beyond that, one should not, so to speak, be frummer than Chazal.

(b) When the Navi wrote ...

1. ... "ba'Me'eirah Atem Ne'arim", he was referring to the curse that the people had accepted upon themselves - if they did not give T'rumos and Ma'asros (which they undertook to bring to the Beis-Hamikdash).
2. ... "ve'Osi Atem Kov'im", he meant - that, in spite of that curse, they robbed Hashem (by depriving the Kohanim and Levi'im of their dues), by not carrying out what they had undertaken.
3. ... "ha'Goy Kulo" he meant - that the original undertaking had been on the part of the entire community (a sign that they were all, or at least most of them) able to abide by it. And it is from here that we derive that any decree must be one that the majority of the community can abide by.
(a) In fact, we conclude, one may whitewash one's house, as long as one leaves - one square Amah facing the main entrance (some say above the entrance) blank.

(b) The additional decree that Chazal instituted Zeicher le'Churban, with regard to ...

1. ... one's food was - leaving out one dish from the menu (which Rav Papa defines as 'Kasa de'Harsena' [a dish comprising fish fried in oil with flour]).
2. ... a woman's ornaments was not wearing one of her ornaments (which Rav defines as 'bas Tzid'a' [lime that they would apply to the temples in order to remove any excessive hair there]).
(c) The Tana learns all this from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Im Eshkachech Yerushalayim, Tishkach Yemini ... ". And from the continuation "Im Lo A'aleh es Yerushalayim *al Rosh Simchasi*" (according to the interpretation of Rav Yitzchak) - he adds that a Chasan should place burned ashes on the front of his head, there where Tefilin are normally worn.

(d) He derives this from the Pasuk "La'sum la'Aveilei Tziyon, Laseis Lahem Pe'er Tachas Eifer" - which teaches us that when Hashem comforts Yisrael, He will crown them with glory instead of ashes (from which we can extrapolate that, in connection with the Churban, we wear ashes instead of glory [a reference to Tefilin, which bear the title 'Keser Torah']).

(e) Someone who mourns over the destruction of Yerushalayim - will merit to participate in its ultimate rejoicing.

(a) The Romans later issued a terrible decree concerning 'Shevu'a ha'Ben' or 'Yeshua ha'Ben', meaning - that they forbade B'ris Milah, or Pidyon ha'Ben, in which case Chazal ought to have decreed ...

(b) ... that people should no longer marry (see Tosfos DH 'Din Hu'), even if it meant that Yisrael would become extinct.

(c) They did not do so however - because they knew that most people would not have been able to abide by such a decree.

(d) This is based on the principle - 'Mutav she'Yihyu Shogegin, va'Al Yihyu Mezidin' (it is better to let people sin inadvertently, than to implement a decree that will force them to sin on purpose [See Tosfos SH 'Mutav']).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,