[mehezath. lit., ‘division’]. That being so, since they agreed to make a division, either can compelthe other to build a wall,
from which we infer that overlooking is recognised as a substantialdamage! — If that is the case,
why does the Mishnah say. WHO AGREED TO MAKE ADIVISION [MEHIZAH]? It should say, ‘who agreed lahazoth [to divide]’? — You
say then thatMEHIZAH means a wall. Why then does the Mishnah say. THEY MUST BUILD THE WALL? Itshould say simply. ‘They must build it’? — If the Mishnah had said ‘it’, I should have understoodthat a mere fence of sticks is sufficient. It tells us [therefore that the partition must be a wall]. THEY MUST BUILD THE WALL IN THE MIDDLE. Surely this is self-evident? — It had to bestated in view of the case where one of the partners had to persuade the other to agree. You mightthink that in that case the second can say to the first: When I consented to your request. I was willingto lose part of my air space.
but not part of my ground space.
Now we know [that he cannot sayso]. But is then overlooking no substantial damage? Come and hear: SIMILARLY WITH ANORCHARD?
— There is a special reason in the case of an orchard, as we find in a saying of R.Abba; for R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna, who said it in the name of Rab: It is forbidden to aman to stand about in his neighbour's field when the corn In It is In the ear.
But the Mishnah saysAND SIMILARLY?
— This refers to the gebil and the gazith.
Come and hear:
‘If the wall of a courtyard falls in, he [the joint owner] can be compelled to helpin rebuilding to a height of four cubits’?
— If it falls, the case is different.
But what then was thepoint of the objection?
— Because it could be said that this statement was required only as anintroduction to the next, which runs, ‘Above four cubits he is not compelled to help in rebuilding.’
Come and hear: [Every resident in a courtyard] can be compelled to assist in building a gateway anda door to the courtyard.
This shows, does it not, that overlooking is a substantial damage? Injuryinflicted by the public is in a different category. Is then overlooking by a private individual not aninjury? Come and hear [this]: ‘A courtyard need not be divided [on the demand of one party] unlessit is large enough to allow four cubits to each’,
which shows that if enough space will be left toeach, a division can be demanded. Must not that division be made by a wall? — No; a mere fence of sticks is sufficient.
Come and hear: ‘[A wall built facing] windows, whether above, below, or opposite. [must be kept]four cubits away’;
and in explanation of this it was taught that [if higher] it must be four cubitshigher so that one should not be able to peep over and look in, and [if lower] four cubits lower sothat one should not be able to stand on it and look in,
and four cubits away so as not to darken thewindows? — Damage [caused by looking into] a house is different.
Come and hear: ‘R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a man's roof adjoins his neighbour'scourtyard, he must make a parapet four cubits high’?
— There is a special reason there, becausethe owner of the courtyard can say to the owner of the roof, I have fixed times for using mycourtyard, but you have no fixed times for using your roof, and I do not know when you may begoing up there____________________
Because that part which is sown near the vineyard is regarded as being sown in the vineyard itself, and thereforewhen the produce reaches a certain height it becomes forfeit, according to the law in Deut. XXII, 9. Thou shalt not sowthy vineyard with mingled seeds.
To divide the courtyard by means of a wall and not merely by a fence of sticks.
Lit., ‘the damage of overlooking is not called damage’. The ‘overlooking’ is the power of either owner to see whatthe other is doing in his half of the courtyard.
Num. XXXI, 43.
And not merely a fence of sticks.