Bava Metzia

if not, they cannot walk there [in any case]'. Rabbah son of R. Nahman was travelling in a boat, when he saw a forest on the river bank. Said he: 'To whom does this belong?' — 'To Rabbah son of R. Huna', he was informed. He thereupon quoted, 'Yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.  Cut it down, cut it down', he ordered. Then Rabbah son of R. Huna came and found it cut down. 'Whoever cut it down', he exclaimed, 'may his branches be cut down!'  It was related that during the whole lifetime of Rabbah son of R. Huna none of Rabbah son of R. Nahman's children remained alive. Rab Judah said: All must contribute to the repair of the breaches in the wall,  even orphans; but not the Rabbis. Why? — The Rabbis need no protection.  But for the digging of wells [for drinking purposes] even the Rabbis are liable. But that is only if they [the townspeople] do not go out in bands;  if however, they do, [the Rabbis] are not [liable], because it is not In keeping with their dignity. Rab Judah said: When the river needs dredging,  those dwelling on the lower reaches must aid the upper inhabitants, but not vice versa.  But it is the reverse in respect to rain water. It has been taught likewise: If five gardens draw their water from the same well, and the well is damaged, all must assist the upper field; hence the lowest must aid all the rest, yet must repair by himself.  Likewise, if five courts run off their [surplus] water into one dyke, and the dyke is damaged, all must assist the lowest in the repairs;  hence the highest must assist all in repairing, yet must repair by himself [receiving no aid from the others.] Samuel said: He who takes possession of the wharfage of a river is an impudent person, but cannot be [legally] removed.  But nowadays that the Persian authorities write [in the warrant of ownership], 'Possess it [sc. the field on the river bank] as far as the depth of water reaching up to the horse's neck', he is removed. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one takes possession  [of an estate lying] between [the fields belonging to] brothers or partners, he is an impudent man, yet cannot be removed. R. Nahman said: He can even be removed too; but if it is only on account of the right of pre-emption, he cannot be evicted.  The Nehardeans said: He is removed even on the score of the right of pre-emption, for it is written, And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord. What if one came to take counsel of him [sc. the neighbour who enjoys the right of pre-emption] and asked, 'Shall I go and buy it?' and he replied, 'Go and buy it': is formal acquisition from him necessary,  or not? — Rabina  ruled: No formal acquisition is necessary; the Nehardeans maintained: It is. And the law is that a formal acquisition is needed.  Now that you say that a formal acquisition is necessary, — if he did not acquire it of him [and bought the field], it advances or falls in his [the abutting neighbour's] ownership.  Now, if he bought it for a hundred [zuz], whereas it is worth two hundred, we see: if he [the original vendor] would have sold it to any one at a reduced figure, he [the abutting neighbour] pays him [the vendee] a hundred [zuz] and takes it. But if not [and it was a special favour to the vendee], he must pay him two hundred and only then take it. But if he bought it for two hundred, its value being only one hundred, — it was [at first] thought that he [the abutting neighbour] can say to him, 'I sent you for my benefit, not for my hurt.'  But Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda,  said to R. Ashi: Thus did the Nehardeans say in R. Nahman's name: There is no law of fraudulent purchase in respect to real estate. If one sold a griwa  of land in the middle of his estate, we see: if it is of the choicest or of the most inferior quality, the sale is valid;