{"id":3960,"date":"2017-02-14T09:13:14","date_gmt":"2017-02-14T07:13:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3960"},"modified":"2017-02-14T09:13:19","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T07:13:19","slug":"bava-batra-23","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2017\/02\/bava-batra-23\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Batra 23"},"content":{"rendered":"

One needs to distance one’s ladder on a shared wall from another’s dovecote 4 cubits so that a mongoose doesn’t climb up and eat the doves. \u00a0In the context of this, the gemara raises issues of indirect damages and that one cannot lay a claim to land via chazaka\u00a0<\/em>in a case where is causes damages. \u00a0However, the latter one is narrowed to very specific types of damages. \u00a0One needs to distance one’s dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one’s doves from eating seeds or grains of others. \u00a0But if one purchased a field that had a dovecote within a short distance from one’s neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). \u00a0The mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area – how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? \u00a0Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, and there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that each lead to different conclusions, one follows the majority. \u00a0Three cases are brought (including our mishna) that seem to indicate proximity would be the more compelling factor. \u00a0Each one is resolved.<\/p>\n

\n