Bava Batra

so that I may keep out of your sight. Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. It was presumed [in the Beth Hamidrash] that mehizah means 'division', as in the verse, and the congregation's mehezath was etc. Since then the partners agree to make a division, they are compelled [according to the Mishnah] to build a wall. This would show that overlooking is a substantial damage. May I not say, however, that mehizah means a wall, as we have learnt: 'If the mehizah of a vineyard has been broken down, the owner [of an adjoining cornfield] can require the owner of the vineyard to restore it. If it is broken down again, he can again require him to restore it. If [the owner of the vineyard] neglects the matter and does not restore it, he causes his neighbour's produce to become forfeit, and is responsible for his loss.' [This being so],  the reason why either can be compelled [to assist in putting up the wall] is because they both agreed; but if either did not agree, he cannot be compelled. From which we infer that overlooking is not a substantial damage. If that is so,  instead of THEY SHOULD BUILD THE WALL, the Mishnah should say, they should build it'? — You say then that mehizah means 'division'. If so, instead of 'who agreed to make a division', the Mishnah should say, 'who agreed to divide'? — It is usual for men to say, 'Come, let us make a division.' But if overlooking is a substantial damage, why does it speak of the partners agreeing? Even if they do not agree, [either should be able to demand a division]? — To this R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishnah is speaking of a courtyard where there is no right of division,  and where therefore [a division is made only] if both agree. The Mishnah then tells us [according to this] that where there is no right of division, they may still divide, if they so agree. We have learnt this already, [in the following passage]: 'When does this rule apply?  When both of them do not consent to divide; but if both consent, even when it is smaller than this they divide'?  — If I had only that to go by, I should say that where it is smaller than this they may divide with a mere fence of sticks. Therefore it tells us here that it must be a wall. But could not the Mishnah then state this case and omit the other?  — The other case was stated to introduce the succeeding clause: Scrolls of the Scriptures must not be divided even if both [joint owners] agree. How then have you explained the Mishnah? As applying to a courtyard in which there is no right of division. If it is speaking of one in which there is no right of division, even if both owners consent, what does it matter? Either of them can retract? — R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: We assume that each made a formal contract with the other, by means of a kinyan.  But even if they made such a contract what does it matter, seeing that it relates only to a verbal agreement?  — [We assume that] they contracted by a kinyan to take different sides.  R. Ashi said: [And this becomes effective if] for instance one traverses his own part and takes formal possession  and the other does likewise. IN DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS USUAL TO BUILD etc. GEBIL denotes untrimmed stones; GAZITH, squared stones, as it is written, All these were of costly stones according to the measure of hewn stones [gazith].  KEFISIN are half bricks and LEBENIM whole bricks. Rabbah the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: How do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones, and that the extra handbreadth  is to allow for the projection of the rough edges? May it not be that gebil is half the thickness of gazith, and this extra handbreadth is to allow for the mortar between the rows, in the same way as we defined kefisin to be half-bricks and lebenim whole bricks, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? — He replied: Granting your analogy [between gebil and kefisin], how do we know that kefisin means half-bricks? From tradition. Similarly we know from tradition [that gebil means untrimmed stones]. According to another version, R. Aha the son of R. Awia said to R. Ashi: How do we know that kefisin means half bricks and the extra handbreadth is for the mortar between the rows? May it not be that kefisin means untrimmed stones and the extra handbreadth is for the projection of the rough edges, in the same way as we define gebil to be untrimmed stones and gazith to be polished stone, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? — He replied: Granting your analogy [between kefisin and gebil], how do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones? From tradition. So we know this also from tradition. Abaye said: We learn from this  that the space between the layers [in a wall] should be a handbreadth.  This, however, is the case only if it is filled with mortar,  but if with rubble,  more space is required. Some say: This is the case only if it is filled with rubble, but if mortar is used, not so much is required. [The Mishnah seems] to assume that where squared stones are used, if for every four cubits of height there is a breadth of five handbreadths, the wall will stand, but otherwise not. What then of the Ammah Traksin  which was thirty cubits high but only six handbreadths broad, and yet it stood? — The one extra handbreadth enabled it to stand.  Why was there no Ammah Traksin in the Second Temple?  — A thickness of six handbreadths will sustain a wall of thirty cubits but not more.  How do we know that the Second Temple Was higher [than the first]? — Because it is written, Greater shall be the glory of the latter' house than the former.  [The word 'greater' was interpreted differently by] Rab and Samuel [or, according to another report, by R. Johanan and R. Eleazar], one referring it to the size and the other