Neighbors Chapter 11

מִי שֶׁעָשָׂה גֹּרֶן בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. אוֹ קָבַע בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא. אוֹ מְלָאכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אָבָק וְעָפָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ הֶעָפָר אוֹ רֵיחַ בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא אוֹ הָאָבָק לַחֲבֵרוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַזִּיקוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָרוּחַ הוּא שֶׁמְּסַיֵּעַ אוֹתוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ וּמוֹלִיכָה אֶת הֶעָפָר אוֹ נְעֹרֶת הַפִּשְׁתָּן וְהַמּוֹץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וּמַגִּיעָתָן לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַרְחִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעוּ וְלֹא יַזִּיקוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי הָרוּחַ מְצוּיָה שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ כְּמִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ בְּחִצָּיו הֵן:

When a person makes a threshing floor within his own property, or establishes a latrine or a place to perform work that creates dust, dirt or the like, he must distance the place of his activity far enough that the dirt, the odor of the latrine, or the dust does not reach his colleague and cause him damage. Even if it is the wind that brings dirt, the loose strands of flax or the chaff or the like, generated when he performs his activity to his colleague's premises, he must separate himself so that it does not reach his colleague's property and cause damage even when this is caused by an ordinary wind. For all of these situations can be likened to causing damage with one's arrows.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהַרְחִיק כָּל כָּךְ אִם הוֹלִיכָה הָרוּחַ הַמְצוּיָה הַמּוֹץ וְאֶת הֶעָפָר וְהִזִּיקָה בָּהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהָרוּחַ הוּא שֶׁסִּיֵּעַ אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין נֵזֶק זֶה בָּא מִכֹּחַ מַזִּיק עַצְמוֹ:

Even though a person is obligated to make such a separation, if an ordinary wind carried the chaff or the dirt and it caused damage, the person performing the activity is not liable to pay. For it is the wind's influence that caused the damage; it did not come about because of the force of the person whose acts led to the damage.

הַכּוֹתֵשׁ אֶת הָרִיפוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וּבְעֵת שֶׁמַּכֶּה מְנַדְנֵד לַחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּדְנְדָה כִּסּוּי הֶחָבִית עַל פִּי הֶחָבִית הֲרֵי זֶה מַזִּיק בְּחִצָּיו וְחַיָּב לְהַרְחִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְדֹּד אוֹ יְבַטֵּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁמַּזֶּקֶת. וְאִם הִזִּיק בְּעֵת הַנִּדְנוּד חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי מִכֹּחוֹ בָּא הַנֵּזֶק:

When someone crushes groats or the like in his own property, but when he beats upon them, his colleague's adjoining courtyard shakes to the extent that a cover falls off a jug, he is considered to have caused damage with his arrows. He must either move far enough away so that the courtyard does not shake, or must cease the tasks that cause the damage. Moreover, if he causes damage when the courtyard shakes, he is liable to pay, because the damage came from his force.

כָּל הַהַרְחָקוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּפְּרָקִים שֶׁל מַעְלָה אִם לֹא הִרְחִיק וְרָאָה חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁתַק הֲרֵי זֶה מָחַל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְהַצְרִיכוֹ וּלְהַרְחִיקוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁמָּחַל כְּגוֹן שֶׁסִּיֵּעַ עִמּוֹ מִיָּד אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹ שֶׁרָאָהוּ שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּצִדּוֹ בְּלֹא הַרְחָקָה וְשָׁתַק וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עַל זֶה זָכָה. שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנֵזֶק זָכָה בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהֶחְזִיק בִּשְׁאָר נְזָקִין חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי נְזָקִין אֵלּוּ הָאֲמוּרִים בְּפֶרֶק זֶה שֶׁהֵן הֶעָשָׁן וְרֵיחַ בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וְהֶאָבָק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְנִדְנוּד הַקַּרְקַע. שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁתַק הַנִּזָּק כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְכוֹפֵהוּ לְהַרְחִיק. וְכֵן הֶזֵּק רְאִיָּה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ מְחִצָּה כּוֹפֵהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִצָּה בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְלָמָּה שִׁנּוּ נְזָקִים אֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר נְזָקִין לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם סוֹבֶלֶת נֵזֶק מֵאֵלּוּ וְחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל שֶׁהֶזֵּקוֹ הֶזֵּק קָבוּעַ. וְאִם קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁמָּחַל בִּנְזָקִים אֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ:

The following principles apply with regard to all of the required separations mentioned in the previous chapters. If the person who was required to separate failed to do so, and the neighbor saw the disturbing factor and yet remained silent, he is considered to have waived his right to protest, and he may not raise a protest later to require him to move. The above applies provided it is obvious that he waived his right to protest - e.g., he immediately helped his colleague in performing this activity, he told him to do so, or he saw him perform this activity next to him and remained silent and did not take issue with him. The general principle is: Whenever a person establishes a right to perform a damaging activity, that right is entrenched as his own, as has been explained. When does the above apply? When he established his right to perform any damaging activity with the exception of the four mentioned in this chapter: smoke, the odor of a latrine, dust and the like, and the shaking of the ground. For with regard to these activities, one can never establish his right to perform them. Even if the person suffering from this damage remains silent for several years, he may come and force his neighbor to distance himself. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the invasion of privacy in places where it is required to build a partition. He may compel him to build a partition whenever he desires, as explained. Why are these damaging factors different from all other damaging factors? Because a person's disposition will never be willing to bear these damaging activities, and we assume that he has not waived his right to protest. For the damage is of an ongoing nature. If, however, a kinyan was concluded, confirming that he waives his right to protest these activities, he may not retract.

מִי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלֶאכֶת דָּם אוֹ נְבֵלוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּמְקוֹמָן וְיָבוֹאוּ הָעוֹרְבִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּגְלַל הַדָּם וְיֹאכְלוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן מְצֵרִין לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּקוֹלָם וְצִפְצוּפָם אוֹ בַּדָּם שֶׁבְּרַגְלֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין עַל הָאִילָנוֹת וּמְלַכְלְכִין פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶם. אִם הָיָה חֲבֵרוֹ קַפְּדָן אוֹ חוֹלֶה שֶׁצִּפְצוּף הַזֶּה מַזִּיקוֹ אוֹ שֶׁפֵּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ נִפְסָדִין לוֹ בַּדָּם חַיָּב לְבַטֵּל אוֹתָהּ הַמְּלָאכָה אוֹ יַרְחִיק עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לוֹ הֶזֵּק מֵחֲמָתוֹ. שֶׁהֶזֵּק זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְרֵיחַ בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְכֵן בְּנֵי מָבוֹי אוֹ בְּנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֻמָּן וְלֹא מִחוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזַק וְהָיוּ הָעָם נִכְנָסִין וְיוֹצְאִין לִקְנוֹת וְשָׁתְקוּ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק בְּדָבָר זֶה וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם בְּכָל עֵת לְעַכֵּב וְלוֹמַר אֵין אָנוּ יְכוֹלִין לִישֹׁן מִקּוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין שֶׁזֶּה הֶזֵּק קָבוּעַ הוּא כְּמוֹ הֶעָשָׁן וְהֶאָבָק. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים:

Similar rules apply with regard to a person who has established himself in a profession involving blood, animal carcasses or the like on his premises, and ravens and other birds of that type will come because of the blood, and eat. While doing so, they cause discomfort to the person's neighbor with their sounds and chirping, or with the blood on their feet. For they sit on the neighbor's trees and soil his produce. If the neighbor is irritable or sick, and the chirping of the birds harms him, or his produce is spoiled because of the blood, the person performing the task must cease or must separate to the extent that his neighbor does not suffer any harm because of him. For this type of harm is comparable to the odor of a latrine and the like, for which one can never establish the right to perform a task. Similarly, if one of the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard became a craftsman, and the other inhabitants did not protest, he established his right to practice this profession.Nevertheless, if there are people constantly coming in and out to purchase his wares, despite the fact that the neighbors remained silent, the craftsman does not establish his right to have his customers enter. At any time, the neighbors may protest and say: "We cannot sleep because of all the people coming in and going out. " For this damage is of an ongoing nature, like smoke or dust. The Geonim ruled in this fashion.

מִי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּנֵזֶק שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁפָּתַח חַלּוֹן אוֹ הֶעֱבִיר אַמַּת הַמַּיִם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִרְחִיק מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהַרְחִיק וַהֲרֵי הַמַּחֲזִיק טוֹעֵן אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹ מָחַלְתָּ לִי אַחַר שֶׁרָאִיתָ אוֹ הֻכַּר הַנֵּזֶק וְשָׁתַקְתָּ וְלֹא מָחִיתָ בִּי. וְהַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר עַכְשָׁו הוּא שֶׁרָאִיתִי וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי מִקֹּדֶם. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁרָאִיתִי מָחִיתִי בְּךָ וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ עַתָּה אַרְחִיק אוֹ אֶסְתֹּם וְאַתָּה מַדְחֶה אוֹתִי מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּקְבַּע הֶזֵּקְךָ. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן עַל הַנִּזָּק לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּזִּיק הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר:

The following rules apply when a person is known to have exercised a privilege that encroaches upon a colleague in a situation where his establishment of the right to this privilege would be recognized - e.g., he opened a window overlooking his neighbor's property, he diverted the direction of an irrigation ditch, or did not distance himself from his neighbor's property to the extent required. The person who established the right told his neighbor "You told me to do this, " "You waived your right to protest against me after you saw what I did, " or "The encroachment against your property was recognized, and yet you remained silent and did not protest against me. " The person whose rights were encroached, by contrast, claims: "This is the first time I saw it; I did not know of it beforehand, " or "When I saw it, I protested against you and you told me: 'I will distance myself,' or 'I will close it,' and you are continuously deferring me so that you can establish your rights to the privilege. " In all claims of this or a similar nature, it is the responsibility of the person whose rights were encroached to bring proof of his claim. If he does not bring proof, the person whose actions encroached upon his colleague may take a sh'vuat hesset and depart.

הֶחֱזִיק בְּנֵזֶק שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה כְּגוֹן עָשָׁן וּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְטָעַן הַמַּזִּיק שֶׁקָּנָה מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁל נִזָּק עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא יִשָּׁבַע הַנִּזָּק הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ עַל כָּךְ וִיסַלֵּק זֶה הֶזֵּקוֹ:

Different rules apply when a person is known to have exercised a privilege that encroaches upon a colleague in a situation where his establishment of the right to this privilege would not be recognized - e.g., producing smoke, the foul odor of a latrine and the like. If the person encroaching on his colleague claims that he established a kinyan with his neighbor with regard to this privilege, it is the responsibility of the person encroaching upon his colleague to prove that a kinyan was indeed performed. If he cannot produce proof, the neighbor whose rights were encroached must take a sh'vuat hesset that he never entered into a kinyan with regard to this matter. Afterwards the person who encroached upon his colleague must remove the disturbance.