Bava Batra — Daf 6a

או דילמא במקום חזקה לא אמרינן מה לי לשקר תא שמע בחזקת שנתן עד שיביא ראיה שלא נתן

היכי דמי אילימא שתבעו לאחר זמן ואמר לו פרעתיך בזמני פשיטא אלא לאו דאמר ליה פרעתיך בתוך זמני אלמא אפילו במקום חזקה אמרינן מה לי לשקר שאני הכא דכל שפא ושפא זמניה הוא

ת"ש מד' אמות ולמעלה אין מחייבין אותו סמך לו כותל אחר כו' עד שיביא ראיה שנתן

היכי דמי אילימא שתבעו לאחר זמנו ואמר לו פרעתיך בזמני אמאי לא אלא לאו דאמר פרעתיך בתוך זמני אלמא במקום חזקה לא אמרינן מה לי לשקר שאני הכא דאמר מי יימר דמחייבי לי רבנן

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ת"ש מנה לי בידך אמר לו הין למחר אמר לו תנהו לי אם אמר נתתיו לך פטור אין לך בידי חייב

מאי לאו נתתיו לך דא"ל פרעתיך בזמני אין לך בידי דא"ל פרעתיך בתוך זמני וקתני חייב אלמא במקום חזקה לא אמרינן מה לי לשקר לא מאי אין לך בידי לא היו דברים מעולם דאמר מר כל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי:

סמך לו כותל אחר מגלגלין עליו את הכל כו': א"ר הונא סמך לפלגא סמך לכולה ורב נחמן אמר למאי דסמך סמך למאי דלא סמך לא סמך

ומודה רב הונא בקרנא ולופתא ומודה ר"נ באפריזא ובקבעתא דכשורי

אמר רב הונא בי כוי לא הוי חזקה ואע"ג דעבד ליה הימלטי דא"ל אמינא לכי פייסת לי לא ליתרע אשיתאי

אמר ר"נ אחזיק להורדי לא אחזיק לכשורי לכשורי אחזיק להורדי רב יוסף אמר אחזיק להורדי אחזיק לכשורי

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אחזיק להורדי אחזיק לכשורי לכשורי אחזיק להורדי

אמר רב נחמן אחזיק לנטפי אחזיק לשפכי אחזיק לשפכי לא אחזיק לנטפי ורב יוסף אמר אפילו אחזיק לשפכי אחזיק לנטפי

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אחזיק לשפכי אחזיק לנטפי לנטפי אחזיק לשפכי אבל לצריפא דאורבני לא רב יוסף אמר אפילו צריפא דאורבני עבד רב יוסף עובדא בצריפא דאורבני

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה המשכיר בית לחבירו

or is the rule that where there is such a presumption we do not advance this plea? — Come and hear: EACH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE GIVEN HIS SHARE UNTIL THE OTHER BRINGS PROOF THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that the claim was made some time after the payment fell due, and the defendant pleads, I paid you when it fell due?  Then this is self-evident. We must suppose then that he pleads, I paid you before the time of payment; from which we would infer that even where there is a presumption against the defendant, we plead [on his behalf], What motive has he to tell a lie? The case here is different, because with every layer [that is finished some] payment becomes due. Come and hear: FOR REBUILDING HIGHER THAN FOUR CUBITS NEITHER CAN BE COMPELLED [TO CONTRIBUTE]. IF, HOWEVER, HE BUILDS ANOTHER WALL CLOSE TO IT … UNTIL HE ADDUCES PROOF THAT HE HAS GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that the claim is made some time after and the defendant pleads, I paid you when the money fell due? If so, why [should we] not [believe him]? We must suppose therefore that he pleads, I paid you before the time of payment, [and yet he has to contribute]; which would show [would it not] that where there is a presumption [against him], we do not plead [on his behalf], What motive has he to tell a lie? — Here the case is different, because he can say to himself, How do I know that the Rabbis will compel me to pay? Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: Come and hear [this]: [If a man says to another], You owe me a maneh, and the other says, That is so, and if on the next day when the lender says, Give it to me, the borrower pleads, I have given it to you, he is quit, but if he says, I do not owe you anything,  he is liable to pay. Now the expression, 'I have given it to you' is equivalent, is it not, to 'I paid when it fell due', and the expression, 'I do not owe you anything'  to 'I paid you before it fell due'; and we are told that in the latter case he is liable; which would show that where there is a presumption [against him]  we do not plead [on his behalf], what motive has he to tell a lie? — Not so: the expression 'I do not owe you anything' means 'I never borrowed from you,'  [and therefore he is liable] because a Master has laid down that to say 'I have not borrowed' is equivalent to saying 'I have not paid'. IF HE PUTS UP ANOTHER WALL CLOSE TO IT, THE COST OF THE WHOLE DEVOLVES ON HIM. R. Huna said: If the second wall matches half [the first wall],  it is the same as if it matched the whole.  R. Nahman, however, said that where it matches it matches, and where it does not it does not.  R. Huna, however, admits [that R. Nahman's ruling applies] to a projection joined on to a house;  and R. Nahman admits [that R. Huna's ruling applies] to a sustaining beam  or fittings for fixing planks. R. Huna said: [If in the part of the wall above four cubits] there are cavities,  this does not create a presumption that [the one who built it was assisted by the other], even if he made the wooden lining in the cavities; for he can plead [when claiming part payment for it from the other]: The reason why I put them In was to prevent my wall becoming damaged, should you persuade me [to let you put cross beams in]. R. Nahman said: If a man has acquired a prescriptive right  to rest small beams [upon his neighbour's wall], that does not give him the right to [rest] large beams upon it, but if he has acquired the right to [rest] large beams, that does give him the right to [rest] small beams. R. Joseph, however, said that if he has acquired the right to [rest] small beams, he also has the right to [rest] large beams. According to another version, R. Nahman said that if he has acquired the right for small beams he has the right for large beams, and if he has acquired the right for large beams he has the right for small beams. R. Nahman said: If a man has a prescriptive right  to let water drip [from his roof into his neighbour's courtyard], he also has the right to [carry it off there by means of] a gutter-pipe;  but if he has acquired the prescriptive right to [carry it off by means of] a gutter-pipe, he has not also the right to let it drip [from the roof]. R. Joseph, however, said that if he has acquired the right to [carry it off by means of] a gutter-pipe, he has also the right to let it drip [from the roof]. According to another version, R. Nahman said that if he has acquired the prescriptive right to carry it off by a gutter-pipe, he has the right to let it drip [from the roof], but he has not the right to [let it drip from] a cone-shaped roof of reeds;  whereas R. Joseph says that he has that right also. In a case which came before him, R. Joseph decided according to his own view. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man lets an apartment to another