MISHNAH: Confirmation of claim of undisturbed possession 1:1, Note 30 . of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns, and bath houses, and dove-cotes, oil presses, irrigated land, and slaves 1:3, Notes 347–355 . , and everything which yields continuously is three years from day to day. The claim of undisturbed possession of an unirrigated field is three years, but not from day to day.
HALAKHAH: “The claim of undisturbed possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns,” etc. From where confirmation of claims of undisturbed possession? Rebbi Joḥanan said, we heard from those who went to Usha that they learned it from the notorious bull. Rebbi Yose said, who holds that a bull becomes notorious after three days? Not Rebbi Jehudah? As we stated there 2:6 . Only R. Jehudah requires that the agressive behavior of the bull be confirmed by testimony for three consecutive days; R. Meïr holds that three incidents are sufficient, not necessarily on consecutive days. But nobody holds that legal possession can be claimed on the basis of 3 incidents of interrupted squatting. : “Rebbi Jehudah said, they said three years only for the case that if he is in Spain, he should be in possession for one year; they went and told him during one year, and he returns within one year.”
Chapter 1, from which most of this paragraph is taken. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someboldy is selling a house to another, when he delivered the key [the buyer] took possession 1:4, Note 435 . The text here agrees with the Babli ( Bava qamma 51a/52b ) against the Yerushalmi Qiddušin. . Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody is selling a house to another, when [the buyer] stored produce there, he took possession 1:4, Note 435 . . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, only produce usually stored. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody is selling a cistern to another, when he handed over its pails [the buyer] took possession 1:4, Note 434 . There, the statement is by R. Simeon bar Abba in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi. . Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish 1:4 (Notes 432–433 ), it is in the name of R. Yannai. : If somebody sold a flock to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît ? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a pandura 1:4 Note 433 . . And some say, the bell-wether. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: If somebody is selling a burial chamber to another, when that one buried there one dead it is confirmation of claim for the entire chamber. When he buried three dead in three chambers, it is confirmation of claim for the entire burial cavern.
“And slaves.” 4:2, Notes 107–111 . Rebbi Simon the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and its father and mother are like two witnesses. Rebbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected to say about one who is not his son that he is his son? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert father and mother. But once he is married in Jewish law, the Torah gives the father the sole power to recognize his child; Deut. 21:17 . ? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that in this form we heard it from Rav Ada bar Abuh I §340 (end): Rabba bar Abuh. This seems to be the correct attribution. . Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But [the case of] a baby which is moving refers to what Rebbi Joḥanan said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession it parallels the conclusion reached by the Babli, 36a . .
1:5, Notes 502–513 ; cf. Babli 52b/53a . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields of a proselyte were involved as Roman citizen could not inherit from her native Egyptian mother (cf. R. Taubenschlag, loc. cit. Bava meṣia‘ 1, Note 84, p. 142.) The fields can be acquired only by performing some agricultural work, e. g., weeding. But work on a field only acquires real estate adjacent to the place on which the work was done. , with a boundary strip in between. If he cut off from one of them with the intent of taking possession also of the other but not the boundary strip in between, the one was acquired by him but not the other. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting [from] the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North by cutting off with the intent of also acquiring the one to the South, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he acquired the one to the North but not the one to the South 1:5 where the two statements refer to different situations. . There, we have stated 1:5 Note 513 . : “If it was connected to the ground and he cut off anything, he acquired.” Samuel said, he acquired only what he cut off. Rebbi Eudaimon the Emigrant said, this was said concerning the property of a proselyte. Rav Ḥisda said, Rebbi Isaac: It was reported that this was said concerning the property of a proselyte, so it should present no difficulty for Samuel.
1:4, Notes 414–417 . Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession1:4 . . “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not] take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not) take possession. Rebbi Nasa Yose. said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state 6:3, Notes 79–83 , and its slightly garbled parallel in Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 439–441 . : He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.
4:2, Notes 112–117 . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife as long as [the woman] sits on the birthing chair, from the verse: “The midwife took and wound, etc.” A caravan, as Rebbi Simon, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi, said in the name of Rav: As long as [a baby] and the context. lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother may become its two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there 9:4. : “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months. Rebbi Aqiba says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rebbi Ismael said, when has this been said? A field of grain. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield 22:9 is called “the vineyard’s yield”. , lifted his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years 18:1 were 14 months, 18 months, or three full years. .
MISHNAH: There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession: Judea, Transjordan 9:2, Note 39 . , and Galilee. If he was in Judea and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Galilee, or in Galilee and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Judea, it is not undisturbed possession unless he be in the same province. Rebbi Jehudah said, they said three years only for the case that if he is in Spain, he should be in possession for one year; they went and told him during one year, and he returns within one year.
HALAKHAH: “There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rav said, this was taught in emergency situations.
Rebbi Ḥanina said, the years of ‘orlah are in dispute between them.
Rav said, there can be no claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, nor one made from one country to another. Samuel said, there can be a claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, and a claim of undisturbed possession made from one country to another. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac Isaac. said, a verse supports what Samuel said: “The king gave her an adjutant, 8:6 . Since the Ṣhunamite woman needed the king’s intervention after an absence of 7 years in the Land of the Philistines it follows that she could get no relief in the regular courts since a claim of undisturbed possession could be made against a proprietor living in another country. ” etc.
Rebbi Eleazar said: Even two אבטיניות, e. g., שלומי and נבירו Babli 55a , Tosephta 7:3 ) the spelling is אבטליות or אבטלאות; with a change of liquids, also אבטיניות. In E and Megillah 1:1 l. 44: אבטוניות. In Sefer haIṭṭur 1–2, p. 88b (מודעא) אפסיטואות. Meïri Bava batra ad 38a (ed. A. Schreiber p. 213) אכסניות “hostelries”. ‘Arukh explains “big cities”; no acceptable etymologies are known. (If the word be Greek, the Yerushalmi transliteration would be more reliable than the Babylonian. But Jastrow’s αὐτονομία is doubtful, as is Zuckermandel’s ἀποτέλειοι.) The names of the towns appear as שלומי, השולמי or נבירו, נמירי, נמורי ;נמר (גבירו, נמוכי). S. Klein-י) (עבר הירדן היהודי 1925 ם determines the places as Bet Nimra in Transjordan opposite Alexandria in Cisjordan. separated by the Jordan and a person may see another taking possession of the field, his property, there is no creation of a claim of undisturbed possession unless he was in the same locality, in the same province.
12:1, Note 29. Rav said, the main confirmation of a claim of possession is storing the produce. Does Rav not agree about weeding and turning the soil? Rav agrees about weeding and turning the soil. What does it mean that Rav said, the main indication of a claim of possession is storing the produce? That if they saw him ploughing, and harvesting, and binding into sheaves, and threshing, and grading, but did not see him storing the produce, there is no claim of possession without storing the produce.
12:1, Notes 27–28 , about the act of freeing the childless widow from levirate marriage. It is quoted here as an appendix to the previous paragraph. Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, the ḥaliṣah is invalid unless she slips off and spits. Rav agrees “unless she slips off and spits”; it is implied by what Rav said, the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest does not have to be filed before a court. But some say, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan’s student: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest must be filed before a court. Samuel said, even if he protested against him in front of workers, it is a protest, but he has to protest in each one of the three years. Giddul ben Minyamin had a case; his judges were Ḥilqiah bar Tobi, Rav Huna, and Ḥiyya bar Rav. Ḥiyya bar Rav told them, so said my father: Once he protested the first three years, he is not required to protest further. It was stated thus: “If he ate it as his own for six years, he protested against him the first three years; then he said, you sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, there is no claim of undisturbed possession. Because of an initial claim it would have been a claim of undisturbed possession since any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession.” Samuel said, if it is so, nothing would be left for the great people of the Land of Israel 5:1, Note 9 . .
MISHNAH: Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession. How is this? He said to him, what are you doing on my property? Nobody ever said anything to me is not a claim of undisturbed possession. You sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, is a claim of undisturbed possession. A person entering because of inheritance does not need a claim.
HALAKHAH: “Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership,” etc. But it needs proof of undisturbed possession. There 2:2 . If a person informs another that property which he holds did belong to his father, he must be believed without proof that he holds legal title since “the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permitted.” , we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to anothet, ‘this field’, etc.” 2:2, Notes 37–43 . As the following. Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands it over to Simeon. Reuben went and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to him. Rav: “The rabbis here” who disagree with the Babylonian decision and hold that a revision of a prior court decision has to be treated as a new case and must follow standard court procedure. said, when you gave it to him, you gave it on the basis of a court decree. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Who informs? Rebbi Abba said, the witnesses to the death inform. Think of it, if the witnesses did not know! Rebbi Yose said, the field always is in the possession of its owner. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant as owner and possessor. The burden of proof in an attack on his title rests on the attacker. .
MISHNAH: Partners and sharecroppers have no claim of undisturbed possession. A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property, nor a wife in her husband’s property, nor a father in his son’s property, nor the son in his father’s property. When has this been said? For one who claims undisturbed possession. But if one is given a gift, or brothers distributed the estate, one takes possession of a convert’s property, when he locked, fenced in, or made any breach that is a legal form of taking in possession Halakhah 1:5 . This can be any act only the proprietor would perform, not a visitor. .
HALAKHAH: “Partners and sharecroppers,” etc. “A partner.” Samuel said, “partner” is not mentioned here. Does the partner not have a claim to undisturbed possession? Did not Samuel say that the partner who went and planted, planted with permission? When you say, the partner who went and planted, planted with permission, if he was there. When you say, the partner has no claim of undisturbed possession, if he was not there. What does he include in his stead sharecroppers,” it is clear that some word must precede the statement. ? Artisans and robbers have no claim of undisturbed possession. “If somebody saw his slave at an artisan’s, or his garments at the washer’s, and told him, give me my slave, give me my garments, but he answered him, you gave him to me as a gift; you sold him to me; this is no claim of undisturbed possession. You told me to sell him; you instructed to give him to me as a gift, this is a claim of undisturbed possession.”
“Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper, but a temporary sharecropper has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he is satisfied with him and let him have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession 14:2, this refers only to the case that the son claims to have bought the property. But if he claims that the father bought it and he inherited, the burden of proof is on him and he cannot claim undisturbed possession since the father could not have claimed it. ; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son have a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage sub-sharecroppers.
In truth, should a man supervising his wife’s properties have a claim of undisturbed possession, since usually husbands supervise their wife’s properties? “A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property” during her lifetime. But after her death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor a wife in her husband’s property” during his lifetime. But after his death she has a claim of undisturbed possession . “Nor a son in the father’s property” during his lifetime. But after the father’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor the father in his son’s property” during his lifetime. But after the son’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession.
Rav said, if he lowered it below ten [handbreadths] or increased above ten. Samuel said, even if he made a breach at a place where a breach was irrelevant or a fence where a fence was irrelevant, it is legally taking possession.
As we have stated: If somebody sells a field to another but the buyer was lazy and did not enter into possession when the seller went and legally took possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift.
MISHNAH: Two testify for him that he ate its yield for three years; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him 19:19 . . Two for the first [year], two for the second, two for the third, pay together. Three brothers and another joins them; these are three testimonies which count as one testimony.
HALAKHAH: “Two testify for him,” etc. One said to another “what are you doing in my field?” “For I have the years of undisturbed possession of it.” He went and brought witnesses that he had the years of undisturbed possession of it. The first one went and proved the witnesses of the second perjured. He has to give him the field and the yield of three years.
7:4, Note 46 . The fact of perjury, rather than conviction by the court, disqualifies the perjurer; his testimony is nonexistent even if the fact is not realized by the court at the time. Therefore, if the testimony about the first year was perjured, the true testimony about years 2 and 3 becomes void; there is no testimony about three years of undisturbed possession, and nobody has to pay. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that the perjurer is not disqualified by the court.
MISHNAH: The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession and the following do not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. If one put his animals into a courtyard, an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, or raises chickens, or puts his manure in a courtyard, it does not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. But if he made for his animals an enclosure ten [handbreadths] high, or did it for an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, brought chickens into the house, or made a place for his manure three [handbreadths] low or three high: this counts for a claim of undisturbed possession.
HALAKHAH: “The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, co-owners usually permit chickens to one another. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah 5:1 (Note 4 ): Co-owners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another are forbidden to raise chickens in the common courtyard. says otherwise: “Both of them are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raised chickens in a courtyard which is not his, it is taking in possession. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you take it, if he has permission to raise chickens there, he raises them. If he does not have permission to raise, it would be legally taking in possession.
MISHNAH: The drain pipe does not represent a right of possession; its location represents a right of possession a right possessed by one property owner which restricts the property rights of another. In all cases mentioned in the Mishnah, it is presumed that the house was built in conformity with the rules and without protest by its neighbors. The מַזְחֵילָה “leader, drain pipe” is the fixed tube which brings the rainwater from the roof to the ground; מַרְזֵב is a small movable pipe which takes the water coming out of the leader away from the house into the courtyard. (In modern Hebrew, מַזְחֶלֶת is a sled, מַרְזֵב is the leader, drain pipe.) If the leader ends on another owner’s property, this owner may move the direction of the marzeb but may not remove it. . The leader represents a right of possession. An Egyptian ladder does not represent a right of possession; a Tyrian one represents a right of possession. An Egyptian window does not represent a right of possession; a Tyrian one represents a right of possession. What is an Egyptian window? Any where a man’s head cannot enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it has a wooden frame it represents a right of possession even if a man’s head cannot enter.
HALAKHAH: “The drain pipe does not represent a right of possession.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to lengthen and to widen it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all of that direction, as we have stated: the leader has a domain of four cubits. You have to say, in all this direction. Similarly, the drain tube does not represent a right of possession in all of this direction. It was stated thus: “The location of the drain tube does represent a right of possession, the location of its spout does not represent a right of possession.”
3, 6c l. 56. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three steps it is like a chair. Rebbi La said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to impurity. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to rights of possession. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to the Sabbath 7:1 it is stated that two courtyards separated by a wall higher than 10 handbreadths are two separate domains for the rules of the Sabbath. If the wall is higher, it is possible to make the two courtyards into one domain by putting up ladders, even Egyptian ones, if only the remaining height is less than 10 handbreadths. But the ladder has to have at least 4 steps. .
Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this where it is referred to the remark in Yebamot 12:3 (Notes 93,94) that one may open an Egyption window looking out on somebody else’s courtyard without asking permission on condition that the opening be higher than 4 cubits above the ground. In general, the rules of privacy do not allow the owner of a house to open windows that give him the possibility to see his neighbors’ activities which before he could not see. R. Hoshaia states that the rule from Yebamot holds for narrow windows opening on a courtyard which cannot be used to observe the courtyard if they are high enough. But if the new window is built in the wall of an upper storey level with the roof of a house bordering on the courtyard, the argument does not apply and the owner of that house can prohibit the opening of the window by claiming “damage by looking”. The damage feared may be from the evil eye; cf. Latin invideo “to look in; to cast an evil eye”, from which invidia, ae “envy, grudge” (E. G.). only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. [Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.
MISHNAH: A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession but he can object; less than a handbreadth does not establish a right of possession but he cannot object.
HALAKHAH: “A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If the molding is [up to] one handbreadth wide he may extend it all the way, to draw it all the way. Nathan, Rebbi Hoshaia: About one who divides his house.
MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.
HALAKHAH: “A person may not open windows,” etc. vol. 5, #106. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley. And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into are usually made to protrude .” That would refer to Halakhah 9 (Note 133 ) but probably is a corruption. . Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that there, one states: If somebody opens a window in the wall of somebody else’s courtyard in the presence of the other (four cubits), [Rebbi says] he takes down with his left hand and closes with his right. Think of it, was he not standing there? He may tell him, I wanted to enjoy myself. If he handed him stones? He may tell him, I was making fun of this 5, 1934, pp. 100–101.) man.
If there were five openings one inside another, the measure of all of them is a drill hole. This supports what the builders say, viz., that a window open above a stone bench is made only to let light in. Since it cannot represent a right of possession, it cannot bring impurity 13:1 states that if the window was made for light only, the minimal size which makes it a conduit of impurity is the size of the drill-hole of a builder’s drill, which in Kelim 17:12 is said to be equal to the size of a Neronian tetradrachma or a circular disk of about 25mm diameter. A window made for use to bring vessels to or from the building must be at least one handbreadth square; for people it must let a person crawl through. Since five successive windows of minimal size do not let light in, they are not made for light and do not transmit impurity. Then it is stated that a window which does not transmit impurity is an Egyptian window which cannot represent a right of possession (J. Benvenisti in Śede Yehoshua .) .
MISHNAH: One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it 1:1, Note 20 ). . One does not build protrusions and balconies “gallery, lobby, balcony”. The Babylonian spelling is גזוזטרא. Mishnah Ahilut 14:1 defines a זיז as protrusion without a railing, גיזרא as one with a railing. above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.
HALAKHAH: “One makes no hollow,” etc. If they collapsed and he wants to rebuild. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he gave up his rights. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he did not give up his rights. A Mishnah supports one, a baraita supports the other. A Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If a public road went through somebody’s field and he took it and gave them on the side. What he gave, he gave, but his own did not come to him.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, if they collapsed he rebuilds them based on his right of possession.”