שוף אכריסך‎—שוף… your stomach O VERVIEW The גמרא discusses the case of a two story house that is sinking until the ceiling of the lower level is very low. The owner of the upper level can resist the efforts of the lower level owner to rebuild, by saying to him even though your ceiling is very low, nevertheless שוף אכריסך‎. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of this phrase. -------------------- פירש הקונטרס שחה קומתך‎ – רש"י interprets this to mean, bend down to your stomach. ולרבינו יצחק נראה שוף לשון שפשוף שמתחכך בארץ: However, it seems to the ר"י, that the word שוף means rubbing; that he is rubbing his stomach on the ground, because he needs to ‘crawl on his stomach’ to get into the house. S UMMARY There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות if the word שוף means bending down (י"רש), or rubbing (תוספות). T HINKING IT OVER 1. It seems according to תוספות that the lower level is so low that he must crawl. However the גמרא states that if the ceiling fell below ten טפחים, he can force him to rebuild. If he has to crawl it would seem that it is lower than ten טפחים‎! 2. Is there any practical difference between רש"י and תוספות (since the גמרא states the ten טפחים rule)?
בוקי סריקי‎—Pitchers that are סריקי O VERVIEW רבה heard a statement in the name of רב נחמן, which he felt was absurd. He admonished the students, saying; ‘haven’t I told you that you should not hang בוקי סריקי on רב נחמן‎. תוספות wants to clarify the meaning of סריקי‎. ------------------------ אנשים רקים מתרגמינן גוברין סריקין (שופטים יא): The תרגום translates the words אנשים ריקים‎– ‘empty headed people, as people who are סריקין (empty [coarse] ). We see that the root of the word סריקי in Aramaic is ריק or empty in Hebrew; in the sense that it is lacking any (serious) content (and perhaps worse). S UMMARY The translation of בוקי סריקי is ‘empty pitchers’. T HINKING IT OVER Was רבה merely ridiculing the ideas purported to be said in the name of רב נחמן, or was he also gently chastising those who attributed this statement to רב נחמן (according to תוספות)?
היינו הך‎—This is the same as that O VERVIEW The גמרא related two similar incidents where one petitioned his neighbor to rebuild (part of) the neighbor’s house. In both incidents the neighbor’s position was upheld. He need not leave his house in order to have it rebuilt, regardless of the accommodations the petitioner will provide for him. The גמרא subsequently asked why there is a need to relate both incidents; they seem to teach us the exact same law. תוספות will question this assumption, and subsequently uphold it. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא אשמעינן בהאי עובדא דחדתא אעתיקא לא קאי דלא שמעינן מההיא דלעיל‎ – And if you will say; that in this (latter) story we are taught something different, than in the first incident, namely that a new wall will not stand atop of an old wall; this is something which we cannot derive from the previous incident. תוספות anticipates that one may argue that the question היינו הך may (also) mean that the second incident is sufficient; why relate the first story. תוספות responds: ולעיל איצטריך כדאמרינן והני מילי דלא מטו כשורי למטה מי' וכולי‎ – And it was necessary to relate that previous incident as well as the גמרא mentions there, ‘and these words apply only when the beams did not reach down below ten טפחים, etc.’ This ruling cannot be derived from the second incident. תוספות question is that it is necessary to relate both incidents for each one teaches us something that the other does not. Why does the גמרא maintain היינו הך that both incidents are the same?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמילתא דפשיטא היא דחדא חדתא וכולה עתיקא לא קאי‎ – And one can say; that it is an obvious fact that one new wall amongst all old walls will not last. ומשום הא לא הוה צריך לאתויי האי עובדא: And only on account to teach us this fact that לא קאי עתיקא וכולה חדתא חדא it was not necessary to relate this incident. We know this on our own. This is not a ruling of הלכה‎. This is a practical reality. S UMMARY It is not necessary for the גמרא to inform us of (physical) facts, which people are (generally) aware of. T HINKING IT OVER תוספות explains (in his question) why the first incident is (also) necessary. Seemingly this answer is necessary even according to the מסקנא of the גמרא; why does תוספות insert it here in his question?
אספלידא‎—A house O VERVIEW The גמרא relates that two brothers divided their father’s estate. One received an אספלידא, the other a תרביצא (garden). Subsequently the בעל התרביצא built a wall (on his property) which blocked the light to the אספלידא‎. רב חמא ruled that the בעל התרביצא had the right to build in his property, even though the בעל האספלידא may claim that originally I received an אספלידא and you made it into a dark room. תוספות will discuss what is the translation of אספלידא‎. -------------------------- פירש רש"י טרקלין יפה‎ – רש"י interprets אספלידא to mean a beautiful banquet hall – ובערוך פירש מערה כדמתרגם (תהלים נג) מפני שאול במערה באספלידא‎ – And in the ערוך he interprets אספלידא as a cave as the תרגום renders the word(s) in תהלים, ‘ from שאול in the מערה;’ the תרגום of במערה is באספלידא‎. תוספות disagrees with the ערוך: ואומר רבינו יצחק דאספלידא דהכא אי אפשר להיות מערה‎ – And the ר"י says that the אספלידא that is mentioned here in our גמרא, it is impossible that it refers to a cave – מדקאמר )נמי( [נהי]דעלו להדדי בכשורי והודרי ובמערה ליכא כשורי והודרי‎ – Since the גמרא states, concerning the dividing of the אספלידא (and the תרביצא) ; ‘granted that they appraised each other ’s share concerning the slats and the beams’ of the אספלידא, etc. It is evident from the גמרא that the אספלידא has הורדי וכשורי‎. However in a cave there are no וכשורי הורדי, proving that אספלידא is not a cave. תוספות offers an additional proof that אספלידא in our גמרא cannot be a cave: ועוד מדקאמר מעיקרא אספלידא והשתא אידרונא ובמערה ליכא אורה כלל – And furthermore, since the גמרא states that the owner of the אספלידא claims that originally I had an אספלידא and now (after you blocked me) it is a dark room; inferring that originally it was (very) well lit – however in a cave there is no light at all. Therefore אספלידא cannot mean a cave (in our גמרא). תוספות offers a new interpretation of אספלידא: ומפרש רבינו יצחק דאספלידא דהכא הוי אכסדרה שיש בה אורה גדולה שפרוצה ברוח אחד‎ – And the ר"י explained that the אספלידא here in our גמרא is an (open) portico that is very well lit for one side is completely open without a wall – כדאמרינן בלא יחפור (לקמן דף כה, א) עולם דומה לאכסדרה וכולי‎ – As the גמרא states in פרק לא יחפור, ‘the world is similar to an אכסדרה, etc.’, that on the northern border it is not surrounded, indicating that an אכסדרה has no wall on one side. תוספות offers proof that an אספלידא is an אכסדרה: וכן מוכח בהקומץ רבה (מנחות דף לג, ב ושם דיבור המתחיל אספלידא) דאמר אביי‎ – And this is also evident from the גמרא in פרק הקומץ רבה that an אספלידא and an אכסדרה are the same. The גמרא there relates that אביי said – חזינא להו לאספלידי דבי מר דאית להו פצימי ולית להו מזוזה‎ – I have seen the various איספלידי of the master (רבה) that they have door posts and they do not have מזוזות affixed to them. ופריך מיתיבי בית שער ואכסדרה ומרפסת חייבין במזוזה: And the גמרא there challenges s'אביי assertion that they did not have מזוזות, we will refute you, for we learnt in a ברייתא that a gatehouse and a portico and a porch require a מזוזה‎. The question is how can it be that the מר דבי אספלידי do not have a מזוזה, since the ברייתא states that אכסדרה, בית שער and a מרפסת do require a מזוזה‎. An אספלידא is (certainly), neither a בית שער or a מרפסת‎. Obviously the challenge to אביי was from אכסדרה‎. That proves that an אכסדרה and an אספלידא are one and the same. S UMMARY תוספות mentions three interpretations of אספלידא‎. A. רש"י - a beautiful banquet hall. B. ערוך‎ – a cave. C. תוספות‎ – a portico with one wall completely open; an אכסדרה‎. T HINKING IT OVER Why did not תוספות refute the ערוך from the original protest of the בעל האספלידא, namely that you are making it dark for me (קא מאפלת עלי)? Why is that not sufficient proof that an אספלידא cannot mean a cave?
אמר ליה בדידי קבנינא‎—He told him — I am building in my property O VERVIEW The גמרא relates the story of the brothers who divided the estate; one taking the garden, the other the house. Subsequently the garden owner built a wall, on his own property, blocking the light of the house. The homeowner complained, arguing that you are darkening my home; you are turning it into a dark room, etc. רב חמא ruled in favor of the garden owner. The issue at hand is to what degree is the garden owner permitted to block out the light of the homeowner. תוספות will discuss three opinions on this matter. ------------------------------- פירש הקונטרס אתה אין לך עלי חזקת אורה של שלש שנים – רש"י explained that the builder of the wall (בעל התרביצא) said to the owner of the building (בעל האספלידא) you have not acquired from me as of yet the rights of proper lighting which require three years to establish. Therefore I am entitled to build on my property any building, even if it will deprive you from adequate lighting. תוספות asks on רש"י: ותימה שהיה יכול להאפילו עליו שלא יהא לו בטרקלין אורה כלל – And it is incredible that the garden owner was permitted to darken his house to the extent that he should have no light at all in his ‘banquet hall’. תוספות has an additional question on רש"י: ועוד דמאי קאמר באוירא לא עלו אהדדי – And furthermore, what is it that the גמרא states they did not include the open air rights when they assessed each other’s property values. How can the גמרא maintain that! פשיטא דעלו נמי באוירא דבית בלא אורה אינו שוה כלום‎ – It is obvious that they also included in their assessment the value of the open air rights, for a house without light is worthless. תוספות offers a different interpretation of the גמרא: ומפרש רבינו תם שמאספלידא היה יכול לראות לשדותיו דרך התרביצא‎ – And the ר"ת explains that from within the אספלידא the owner of the אספלידא was able to see his own fields that were distant from the אספלידא by way of the תרביצא; until the בעל התרביצא built the wall which prevented the בעל האספלידא from observing his fields. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty with this interpretation: ודקאמר מאפלת עילווי היינו שהיה מעכבו שלא היה יכול לראות שדותיו‎ – And that which the גמרא quotes the בעל האספלידא complaining, ‘you are darkening upon me,’ which would seemingly indicate that the new wall did not merely prevent him from observing his fields but rather, as רש"י maintains, darkened his house; תוספות responds that the expression מאפלת עילווי: means that the בעל התרביצא was preventing the בעל האספלידא so that he was not able to see his fields. The word ‘darkening’ need not be understood literally, but figuratively; I cannot see my fields because of your wall. My fields are in darkness they cannot be seen. This approach will also resolve an additional difficulty: וקרי לה נמי אידרונא שלא היה יכול להביט למרחוק‎ – And the בעל האספלידא also referred to the אספלידא after the wall was built as an אידרונא – a darkened room; again it is not to be understood literally but rather the בעל האספלידא meant to say that he could not look afar; his view was blocked. וכן מפרש ההוא דלקמן אין להם חלונות זה על זה‎ – And the ר"ת similarly interprets that which the גמרא states later concerning brothers who divided inherited property that they have no window rights against each other ; any brother can build against his brother’s window. תוספות has a difficulty with the s'ר"ת interpretation: ומיהו קשיא לרבינו יצחק דמאי קפריך מאי שנא מהא דתניא כולי – However the ר"י has a difficulty with the s'ר"ת interpretation; what does the גמרא mean by asking ‘how does the case of אספלידא differ from that which we learned in a ברייתא, etc’. התם ודאי יש לו ד' אמות לפי שהם צורך לעבודת הכרם – There in the ברייתא the בעל הכרם definitely acquires ד' אמות in the שדה הלבן for those ד' אמות are necessary to tend the vineyard – אבל הכא זה לא היה צורך האספלידא משום הכי בדין קאמר ליה‎ – However here, concerning the view to his fields; this viewing is not a requirement of the אספלידא. An אספלידא is made to live in; not necessarily to have a grand view, therefore the בעל התרביצא justifiably said to the בעל האספלידא ‘I am building in my own property’. The בעל התרביצא was not diminishing the intended use of the אספלידא‎. What is the s'גמרא question?! תוספות offers another interpretation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דודאי היה מאפיל עליו האורה‎ – And the ר"י is of the opinion that certainly this new wall darkened the אספלידא and diminished its light – שלא היה בו אורה גדולה כאשר צריך לאכסדרה אבל עדיין היה בו אור גדול‎ – For it did not have a large amount of light which is appropriate for an אכסדרה however there was still plenty of light. Therefore the בעל התרביצא was able to build, since there was still sufficient light in the אספלידא (even though it was less that it is customary). תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this interpretation: והא דאמר ומכנגדן מרחיק ד' אמות שלא יאפיל‎ – And that which the ברייתא says that one must distance a wall from opposite the windows a distance of ד' אמות in order that he should not darken the windows. תוספות responds; there, concerning the prohibition from building a wall within ד' אמות of the windows; the term שלא יאפיל does not mean that he is merely darkening his room that it will not have as much light as before, but rather שלא יאפיל means: היינו שלא יאפיל לגמרי עד שלא יהא ראוי להשתמש בו יפה‎ – That he should not darken him completely to the extent that he cannot use the room properly. תוספות goes on to explain the גמרא according to the ר"י: ומשום הכי קרי ליה אידרונא משום דלגבי אכסדרה אידרונא היא‎ – And the reason wherefore he called it an אידרונא is because compared to the light required for an אכסדרה this is now considered an אידרונא, since it had much less light than an אכסדרה usually has. והשתא נמי אתי שפיר דלא עלו להדדי באוירא שהוא צורך האכסדרא: And now it is also properly understood that the גמרא says that they did not take the air space into consideration when they assessed the respective values of the תרביצא and the אספלידא; that airspace is referring to the airspace that is required for an אכסדרה; it was only that additional airspace that was not assessed. However the normal air space that is required that there should be sufficient lighting was certainly taken into consideration. S UMMARY רש"י is of the opinion that if one does not have a חזקת ג' שנים for his air/light rights, a neighbor may block out his entire light, if he builds on his property. The ר"ת and the ר"י disagree with רש"י, and maintain that one’s right to light must be respected, even without חזקת ג' שנים‎. The ר"ת interprets the story of the אספלידא that merely his view was blocked. The ר"י interprets it, that the extensive light of the אכסדרה was diminished to a normal house light. T HINKING IT OVER Explain the differences between רש"י and the ר"י ור"ת concerning whether and why blocking entirely the light is permitted or prohibited. Is there a difference להלכה between the ר"ת and the ר"י‎?
והוא דקרו ליה בית כור‎—Provided that they call it בית כור O VERVIEW The גמרא teaches us that if a buyer offers to sell a בית כור to a seller, and instead gives him a smaller land that is called בית כור it is a valid sale, provided that people call this property בית כור‎. Our תוספות will be discussing a few issues; a) was the buyer aware that there is a field called בית כור; b) was the buyer aware of the size of the negotiated field; and finally c) how much did the buyer pay; for a complete בית כור or for less than a בית כור‎. -------------------------- תוספות makes an additional proviso: וכגון שהלוקח יודע שיש לו קרקע שקרוי בית כור – And for instance that the buyer is aware that the seller owns a piece of land which is commonly called by everyone בית כור‎. It is only in this case, that the sale is valid. תוספות explains his point: דאם לא כן הרי הטעהו‎ – for if it were not so; if the buyer is not aware that the seller owns a (small) field that is called בית כור, then even if the seller owns such a field, nevertheless it is not a valid sale. The reason the sale is not valid for the seller misled him. The seller offered to sell him a בית כור‎. The buyer was not aware that the seller owned a property that was commonly called בית כור‎. The buyer was under the assumption that he would receive a field that was the size of a בית כור‎. The owner dealt with him dishonestly, therefore the sale is void. תוספות now discusses an additional issue: This ruling that the buyer must be aware that the seller owns a property called בית כור; otherwise the sale is void; this is true – ואפילו אם רואה בשעת מכירה שאין שם בית כור‎ – (and) even if the buyer sees at the time of the sale, that the proposed field for sale does not contain a בית כור; the buyer sees that the intended field is smaller than a בית כור; one might assume that since the buyer is aware of the size of the field and he agreed to buy it, it should be a valid sale regardless of its size. Nevertheless the sale will be void if the buyer is not aware that the owner possesses a field which is called בית כור‎. The reason the sale is void is because the buyer – יכול לומר סבור הייתי שהיית משלים לי בית כור‎ – is empowered to claim, ‘I was under the impression that even though the negotiated field did not have a בית כור, nevertheless since you told me you were selling me a בית כור, I was sure that you were planning to augment me a complete בית כור;’ that in addition to this (small) field, you would give me additional fields, that together would total a בית כור‎. Therefore if the buyer was not aware that the seller had a field that was called בית כור, even if the negotiated field was less than a בית כור it is a voided sale. However if the buyer is aware that the seller owns a (small) property called בית כור, then the sale is valid even if the buyer did not see the negotiated field. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ונימא דדמים מודיעים – And if you will say; let the amount of money being paid in this transaction inform us as to the intent of the buyer. If the price paid was for a field less than a בית כור, then the buyer cannot revoke the sale (even if he was not aware that the seller owns a small field called בית כור), for it is obvious that he would receive a small field; that is what he paid for – ואם נתן לו דמי בית כור אפילו קרו ליה בית כור ישלים לו בית כור שלם – And if the buyer gave the seller the money for a complete בית כור, then even if they call it בית כור (and the buyer is aware that seller owns a field which is called בית כור), nevertheless the seller should be required to supplement his sale until he gives him a complete בית כור, since that is what the buyer paid for. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמיירי כגון דאוזיל גביה ואינו נותן לו אפילו דמי לתך‎ – And one can say; that we are discussing a case where the seller is lowering the price for this buyer and the buyer is not paying the seller even the price of a לתך (which is half the size of a בית כור) – ואי קרו ליה בית כור אפילו אין בו אלא לתך הגיעו‎ – So if they call the negotiated field a בית כור even if it does not contain but a לתך (half a בית כור) he attained his goal; the sale is valid. The לוקח knew that the מוכר owned a לתך of land called בית כור and he agreed to buy it. In fact he paid less than the price of a לתך‎. ואי לא קרו ליה בית כור חייב לתת לו בית כור שלם‎ – However if they do not call this לתך field, בית כור (the buyer is not aware of any field being called בית כור), then then the seller is obligated to give to the buyer a complete בית כור‎. The amount paid is irrelevant. The seller sold the property for a price below market value. Nothing can be determined by looking at the price paid. The seller sold a בית כור; he is required to give the buyer a בית כור‎. If however the buyer paid market value then the price will determine the validity of the sale. תוספות offers an alternate solution: אי נמי דלא אוזיל גביה וכגון דנתן לו דמי לתך‎ – Or you may also say; that he did not sell it cheaper to this buyer, but charged him the regular price and for instance that the buyer paid the seller the price of a לתך which is the size of the field that is known as בית כור‎ – והשתא אי לא קרו ליה בית כור היה יכול לומר לוקח‎ – And therefore if they do not call it בית כור the buyer would be able to claim – אם תרצה לתת לי בית כור שלם ולעמוד במקחך עמוד ואם לאו תחזור לי מעותי – If you are willing to sell to me a complete בית כור, for the price paid, as was stipulated that a בית כור is being sold, and to stand by the transaction; then stand by it! Give me a complete בית כור‎. and if not; you do not want to give me a full בית כור; but rather you want me to accept this smaller field which is called בית כור (of which I was never aware), then return my money to me; there is no sale at all! אבל אי קרו ליה בית כור הגיעו אף על פי שאין בו אלא לתך: However if they called this field בית כור and the לוקח was aware of it, then the sale is valid, even though the field is only the size of a לתך‎. The לוקח knew that the owner owns a small field called בית כור‎. The לוקח realized that he is paying for the value of a לתך; he has no recourse but to accept this sale. S UMMARY The case of the valid sale of a field the size of a לתך that is called בית כור is under the following circumstances: The buyer is aware that the seller owns a field that is called בית כור and paid less than the price of a לתך\בית כור; otherwise even if the buyer was aware that the field in question was less than a בית כור the sale is void. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Is the לוקח merely required to know that the מוכר owns a field which is called בית כור; or is he also required to know that the field which is called בית כור is actually smaller than a בית כור‎? 2. What is the ruling if the buyer paid the price of a לתך and he did not know that the seller owns property that is called בית כור‎? 3. What is the ruling if the buyer paid the price of a complete בית כור‎? 4. Why is it that in his question תוספות only mentions the option if the field is called בית כור; however in both answers תוספות discusses both options whether the field is called בית כור or not?
