## Bava Batra Daf 57b

###### Bava Batra 57b:1
[Bava Batra 57b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:1)

הָכָא בַּחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין עָסְקִינַן – דִּבְהַעֲמָדָה כְּדִי לָא קָפְדִי, אַמְּחִיצָה קָפְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here we are dealing with a courtyard belonging to partners, where they are not particular with regard to the mere placing** of items in the courtyard, but **are particular with regard to** the construction of **a partition.** The presumption of ownership is established only where the lack of a protest indicates that the prior owner concedes that the property is no longer his. The co-owner’s silence in the face of his partner using the courtyard for a temporary purpose does not indicate a concession, but silence in the face of one who constructed a partition is a concession.


###### Bava Batra 57b:2
[Bava Batra 57b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:2)

וּבְהַעֲמָדָה כְּדִי לָא קָפְדִי?! וְהָא תְּנַן: הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁנָּדְרוּ הֲנָאָה זֶה מִזֶּה – אֲסוּרִין לִיכָּנֵס לֶחָצֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And are** they **not particular with regard to the mere placing** of items? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 45b): **Partners who through vows prohibited** themselves **from deriving benefit from one another are forbidden to enter into a courtyard** jointly owned by them, since each one has a portion in it, and it would be considered a violation of one’s vow if one were to benefit from any part of the other’s property? This indicates that partners are particular even with regard to passage through the field; all the more so are they particular with regard to placing animals or vessels in the field.


###### Bava Batra 57b:3
[Bava Batra 57b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא בִּרְחָבָה שֶׁל אֲחוֹרֵי בָתִּים עָסְקִינַן; דִּבְהַעֲמָדָה כְּדִי לָא קָפְדִי, וְאַמְּחִיצָה קָפְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with** a fenced-in **yard** located **behind** a group of **houses** that is used to store items not in regular use, **where they are not particular with regard to the mere placing** of items **but are particular with regard to** the construction of **a partition.**


###### Bava Batra 57b:4
[Bava Batra 57b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:4)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָּפִין; וְאִיכָּא דְּקָפְדִי וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא קָפְדִי; גַּבֵּי מָמוֹנָא – לְקוּלָּא, גַּבֵּי אִיסּוּרָא – לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: This and that,** i.e., the rulings of the mishna in tractate *Nedarim* as well as the rulings of the mishna here, are stated **with regard to a courtyard belonging to partners, and** the reason for the difference in the rulings is that **there are those who are particular** with regard to the other partner placing items in or passing through the courtyard, **and there are those who are not particular.** Therefore, in the mishna here, which issues a ruling **concerning monetary matters,** the *halakha* is **to** be **lenient,** and it is assumed that the partner is not particular about placing items in the courtyard, and the presumption of ownership is established. In the mishna in tractate *Nedarim*, which issues a ruling **concerning ritual matters,** the *halakha* is **to** be **stringent,** to prevent one from violating a vow.


###### Bava Batra 57b:5
[Bava Batra 57b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:5)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא קָפְדִי, וְהָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ וִיתּוּר אָסוּר בְּמוּדַּר הֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Actually,** partners **are not particular** about placing items in the courtyard, **and** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna in tractate *Nedarim*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: Even** negligible benefits ordinarily **waived** are **forbidden in** the case of **one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit** from another. In other words, one prohibited by a vow may not derive any benefit from the other, even a benefit that people commonly are not particular about and allow others to enjoy without first receiving permission. Therefore, although people are ordinarily not particular about others passing through their property, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his partner is prohibited from walking on the property.


###### Bava Batra 57b:6
[Bava Batra 57b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: בַּכֹּל שׁוּתָּפִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, חוּץ מִן הַכְּבִיסָה – שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִתְבַּזּוֹת עַל הַכְּבִיסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: Partners may prevent each other** from using their courtyard **for any** purpose **except for** washing **laundry.** This is **because it is not the way of Jewish women to be degraded over** washing **laundry** by laundering their clothing in a public area. Therefore, they must be allowed to launder in the courtyard.


###### Bava Batra 57b:7
[Bava Batra 57b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:7)

״וְעֹצֵם עֵינָיו מֵרְאוֹת בְּרָע״ – אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: זֶה שֶׁאֵין מִסְתַּכֵּל בְּנָשִׁים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַכְּבִיסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In connection with the matter of laundry being washed in public, the Gemara quotes the homiletic interpretation of a verse: “He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, **and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil”** (Isaiah 33:15). **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: This** is referring to one **who does not gaze at women while they are standing over the laundry,** as it was common for them to stand in the water and raise the hems of their garments while laundering their clothing.


###### Bava Batra 57b:8
[Bava Batra 57b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:8)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחְרִיתָא – רָשָׁע הוּא! אִי דְּלֵיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחְרִיתָא – אָנוּס הוּא! לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחְרִיתָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמֵינַס נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances? If** it is referring to a case **where there is another way** by which the one walking could reach his destination, then one who walks past the women, consequently placing himself in a situation where he will be tempted to gaze at them, **is wicked.** Alternatively, **if** it is referring to a case **where there is no other way** by which he can reach his destination, then **he** is **a victim of circumstance,** so why is he required to shut his eyes? The Gemara explains: **Actually,** it is referring to a case **where there is no other way** by which he can reach his destination, **and even so, he is required to compel himself** to avoid gazing at the women.


###### Bava Batra 57b:9
[Bava Batra 57b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:9)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי בְּנָאָה: חָלוּק שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ נִרְאֶה מִתַּחְתָּיו. טַלִּית שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חֲלוּקוֹ נִרְאֶה מִתַּחְתָּיו טֶפַח. שֻׁלְחָן שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי גְּדִיל, וּשְׁלִישׁ גְּלַאי – וְעָלָיו קְעָרוֹת וְיָרָק. וְטַבַּעְתּוֹ מִבַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara quotes additional matters that Rabbi Yoḥanan learned from Rabbi Bena’a. **Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Bena’a: How** should **the garment of a Torah scholar** worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear **any** garment long enough **that his flesh is not visible from beneath it.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: **How** should **the cloak of a Torah scholar** be fashioned? He replied: He can wear **any** garment long enough **that a handbreadth of his garment** worn under his clothes **is not visible from beneath it.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: **How** should **the table of a Torah scholar** appear? He replied: **Two-thirds** of the table is covered with **a cloth, and one-third** is **uncovered, and upon** that third are **dishes and vegetables. And its ring,** used to hang the table, should be positioned **on the outside,** not on the side that faces the one who is eating.


###### Bava Batra 57b:10
[Bava Batra 57b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:10)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: טַבַּעְתּוֹ מִבִּפְנִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִיכָּא יָנוֹקָא, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא יָנוֹקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **its ring** should be positioned **on the inside?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case **where there is a child** who may play with the ring and overturn the table, while **that** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case **where there is no child** present.


###### Bava Batra 57b:11
[Bava Batra 57b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:11)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא יָנוֹקָא; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִיכָּא שַׁמָּעָא, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא שַׁמָּעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that both **this and that** refer to a case **where there is no child** present, **and** this is **not difficult: This** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case **where there is an attendant** who may bump into the ring, while **that** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case **where there is no attendant.**


###### Bava Batra 57b:12
[Bava Batra 57b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:12)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דְּאִיכָּא שַׁמָּעָא; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא בִּימָמָא, הָא בְּלֵילְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that both **this and that** refer to a case **where there is an attendant, and** this is **not difficult: This** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to when the meal is eaten **during the day,** when the attendant can see the ring and avoid it, while **that** *baraita*, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to when the meal is eaten **during the night.**


###### Bava Batra 57b:13
[Bava Batra 57b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/57b:13)

וְשֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ – דּוֹמֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: All of the above is referring to the table of a Torah scholar, **but** the table **of an ignoramus is similar**