Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The following rules apply when a person owns a loft that is situated above a house belonging to a colleague. If one of the walls of the house falls, the owner of the loft is not required to pay any of the costs incurred by the owner of the house in repairing it. And he may compel the owner of the house to repair it as it was originally. If, by contrast, one of the walls of the loft falls, the owner of the house cannot compel the owner of the loft to repair it.

The ceiling is the responsibility of the owner of the house. The plaster above it is the responsibility of the owner of the loft.

If both the house and the loft fall, both owners share equally in the wood, the stones and the sand.

If some of the stones are broken, we determine which of the stones were more likely to have broken, the stones of the house or the stones of the loft. This can be determined by the manner in which the stones fell: whether the upper stones fell on the lower stones and destroyed them or the lower stones slipped out and the upper stones fell and were destroyed. If it cannot be determined how the stones fell, both the whole stones and the broken stones should be divided equally.

The following rule applies when both structures fall, and the owner of the loft tells the owner of the house to rebuild his home so that he can build his loft upon it, but the owner of the home refuses to do so. The owner of the loft may rebuild the home to its original size and live inside it until the owner of the home reimburses him for all his costs. Then he must leave, and he may build his loft upon it if he desires.

If neither of them is able to rebuild the building, the owner of the loft receives one third of the land, and the owner of the house receives two thirds of the land.

If the owner of the house desires to rebuild his home, he should rebuild it as it was originally. The following laws apply if he desires to change the structure of the walls: If he desires to strengthen them and increase their width beyond their previous measures, his desire is heeded. If he desires to make them narrower or weaker - e.g., originally, they had been made from stone, and now he wants to make them from bricks - his desire is not heeded.

If he desires to build the ceiling with heavier and stronger beams, his desire is heeded. If he desires to make them narrower than they were originally, his desire is not heeded.

If he desires to add more windows or increase the height of the house, his desire is not heeded. If he desires to reduce the number of windows or diminish the height of the house, his desire is heeded.

Similarly, the owner of the loft should rebuild it as it was originally. If he desires to change the structure of the walls, to increase their width and strengthen them, his desire is not heeded, because he places an additional burden on the lower walls. If he desires to make them narrower, his desire is heeded.

Similar laws apply with regard to the beams of the ceiling of the loft. If he desires to exchange them for lighter ones, his desire is heeded. If he desires to use heavier beams, his desire is not heeded.

If he desires to add more windows or diminish the height of the loft, his desire is heeded. If he desires to reduce the number of windows or increase the height of the house, his desire is not heeded.

The following rules apply when the beams of the ceiling sink lower and descend into the space of the house. If they reach within ten handbreadths of the ground, the owner of the house may destroy and rebuild the entire structure. If they do not reach that low, the owner of the loft may prevent him from doing so. Even if the owner of the house tells the owner of the loft: "I will rent you another place to live until I repair the ceiling," his desire is not heeded. For the owner of the loft will tell him: "I do not want the difficulty of moving from place to place so that you can repair your home."

If an agreement was made between the two of them that as long as the house is high enough that a person can enter while carrying an ordinary sized burden on his head despite the fact that the beams have bent lower, the owner may not tear it down. If, however, he cannot enter while carrying such a burden unless he bends his head, he may tear it down, repair it and rebuild it, then the owner of the loft may not prevent him. For this was the agreement they made at the outset.

The following rule applies when an olive press is built in the midst of a mountain, a garden is located upon it, and then the top of the olive press becomes opened four handbreadths or more. The owner of the garden may descend and sow the earth of the olive press until the owner of the olive press makes a covering for the olive press, so that the owner of the higher property can restore the earth of his garden and sow it.

The following rules apply when there are two gardens, one on top of the other on the slope of a mountain, and there are vegetables growing on the surface of the earth between them. Any vegetables to which the owner of the higher property can extend his hand and pull out by their roots belong to him, provided he does not strain himself. The remainder belong to the owner of the lower property.

If the owner of the higher property can reach the leaves of the vegetables, but cannot reach their roots, he should not take them. If, however, he does take them, they should not be expropriated from his possession.

Different laws apply with regard to a tree that stands on the boundary line between two properties. Even though it leans into the field belonging to one of them, both of them may divide the fruits.

The following rules apply if a river washes away olive trees belonging to one person and plants them in a field belonging to another. If the owner of the trees says: "I want to take my olive trees, his desire is not heeded, in order that the land be settled. Instead, they should remain in their place.

If the river uproots the trees together with their earth when it replants them, the owner of the field and the owner of the olive trees should divide the fruit for the first three years. After three years, all the produce belongs to the owner of the field. If they were not uprooted together with their earth, the owner of the field is entitled to the entire benefit immediately.

Similar concepts apply when a person sells his olive trees to be used as wood. If the agreement was that he would cut them down immediately, all the fruit they produce belongs to the owner of the land. If the agreement was that he could cut them down whenever he desires, all the fruit they produce belongs to the owner of the trees.

The following rules apply when the trees were sold without a specific agreement. If they produce no more than a revi'it per se'ah beyond the costs involved, they belong to the owner of the olive trees. If they produce more than a revi'it per se'ah beyond the costs involved, they should be divided.

When a courtyard is jointly owned by partners, each one may compel the other to build a gate-keeper's room, a door, and any other element that is sorely needed for a courtyard or anything that is customary for the local people to build. He cannot compel him with regard to other matters - paintings and designs and the like. If one of the partners in the courtyard made such an addition on his own initiative, and then another demonstrated that he appreciated what his colleague did, he is held responsible for his share in the entire project and must pay his portion of the costs.

When a person has a house in another courtyard besides the one in which he lives, the inhabitants of the courtyard in which he does not live, can force him to contribute toward the building of a door, a bolt and a lock. However, he cannot be compelled to contribute to other matters. If he dwells with them in the courtyard, he can be forced to contribute to everything.

When one of the owners of a house in the courtyard seeks to put an animal or a mill in the courtyard or to raise chickens there, his colleagues can prevent him from doing so. Similarly, with regard to other things that people are not accustomed to doing in their courtyards, the partners can prevent him from doing this.

There is an exception: doing laundry. For it is not the custom of the daughters of Israel to shame themselves by doing laundry at the riverside.

In a courtyard owned jointly by several owners or a lane that ends in a cul-de-sac, all the inhabitants of the lane or the courtyard can restrain one of their number so that he makes use of the lane only in a manner in which other people living in that country make use of lanes.

If one of the partners in a courtyard put an animal, a mill or the like into a courtyard, and the other partner did not protest against him, he may prevent him from doing so at any time. If he erected a partition ten handbreadths high in front of the animal or the like, he has established his claim to it. For partners will protest if one erects a partition. Since the partner did not protest, but instead allowed the partition to remain, he forgoes his right to protest.

When does the above apply? In a courtyard that is jointly owned by partners. If, however, a person placed an animal in a courtyard belonging to another person, even if he erects a partition, he has not established his claim to it. For it is known that the owner only lent him the space. Similar laws apply if one brought in an oven or a range, or raised chickens or the like. This is certainly the law. For if one would say that the visitor establishes his claim to the space, a person will never lend space to a colleague.

If one of the partners in a courtyard desires to open up a new window from his house overlooking the courtyard, his colleague may prevent him from doing so, for this allows him the possibility of looking at him at all times. If he opens such a window, he must close it.

Similarly, partners in a courtyard should not open the entrance of a house opposite the entrance of a colleague's house, or a window opposite a colleague's window. In the public domain, by contrast, a person may open an entrance opposite a colleague's entrance and a window opposite a colleague's window. For if the colleague would protest, he could tell him: "I am just like one of the people in the public domain who see you."

Nevertheless, even in the public domain, a person should not open up a store opposite the entrance to a colleague's courtyard, for this represents an ongoing damage. The passersby in the public domain go to and fro, while this person will sit in his store the entire day and look at his colleague's entrance.

When one of the partners in a courtyard purchases a home in another courtyard, he may not open an entrance from his new home into the courtyard that he shares.

Even if he built a loft over his home, he is not entitled to open a new entrance for it to his courtyard, for he is making passage through the courtyard slower. It is as if the other partners in the courtyard had only one neighbor, and suddenly they were given many neighbors. One may, however, build an entrance to the loft within one's own home. And if a person desires to divide his apartment into two, he may.

From this, one may deduce that if one of the partners in a courtyard brings people from another house to his house, the partners in the courtyard may prevent him from doing so, because he makes passage through the courtyard slower.

Similarly, if a person rents his house to the master of another household, who later brings his relatives and friends to dwell with him together in this one house, the owner who rents out the house can prevent him from doing so.

If the entrance to a courtyard from the home of one of the partners was small, he may not enlarge it, for another partner may protest: "When your entrance is small, I could hide from you when making use of the courtyard. I cannot hide from you when your entrance is large."

Similarly, if a person has a large entrance, he may not divide it in two, for another person may protest: "I am able to hide myself when there is only one entrance. If there are two entrances, I will not be able to hide myself."

When, by contrast, a person has a small entrance from his house to the public domain and he desires to enlarge it, or he has a wide entrance and he would like to divide it into two, a person who lives opposite him - and needless to say, the people within the public domain - cannot prevent him from doing so.

The inhabitants of a lane may compel each other to share in the construction of a pole or a beam for the lane.

When a person has an entrance from his private domain to a lane, the inhabitants of the lane do not have the right to compel him to erect a gate for that entrance to the lane, for he can tell them: "I want to enter carrying my burden up to my entrance."

When a lane has entrances to the public domain at either of its ends, and the inhabitants of the lane desire to erect gates at the entrance to the lane, the people in the public domain may prevent them from doing so, for at times people in the public domain are pressed for space and enter the lane.

When a person seeks to open an entrance from his home to a lane that ends in a cul-de-sac, the inhabitants of the lane may prevent him from doing so, because he makes passage through the courtyard slower. If the lane has openings to the public domain on either side, he may at the outset open any opening he desires.

If a person has an entrance to his home that has been closed in a lane that ends in a cul-de-sac, he may open it at any time. If, however, he had destroyed the door frames, the inhabitants of the lane can prevent him from doing so.

Similarly, when one of the inhabitants of a lane desires to close the entrance to his home and transfer it to another lane, the inhabitants of the first lane may prevent him from doing so. For perhaps a tax will be levied against the lane, and the presence of another person reduces the share of the tax each of the inhabitants of the lane must pay.

Accordingly, when there is no fixed tax levied on the inhabitants of the lane, the person may close his entrance whenever he desires.

The following laws apply when there are five courtyards that open up to a lane ending in a cul-de-sac. All of the inhabitants of the courtyards use the portion of the lane near the outer courtyard, while the inhabitants of the outer courtyard use only the portion of the lane near their own property. Similarly, the inhabitants of the second courtyard use the portion of the lane near their own property and the outer courtyard, but they do not use the portion of the lane near the others. Thus, the inhabitants of the innermost courtyard use the portion of the lane near all the others as well as that near their own property.

Therefore, if the owner of the second courtyard built a bench in front of his entrance, blocking it, the owner of the outer courtyard may not prevent him from doing so. The inhabitants of the inner courtyards may prevent him from doing so for he is lengthening their path, by making them walk around the bench.

Similarly, if the owner of the second courtyard opens a second entrance between his courtyard and the outer courtyard, the owner of the outer courtyard may not prevent him from doing so, for he is allowed to use only the land that is outside that entrance. If, however, the owner of the second courtyard opens a second entrance between his courtyard and the third courtyard, the owners of the inner courtyard may prevent him from doing so, for the owner of the second courtyard is allowed to use only the land in the lane that is outside his first entrance and to its exterior. The same laws apply with regard to all the other owners.

The inhabitants of a city may compel each other to participate in the building of a wall, gates, a bolt, to build a synagogue for the inhabitants and to purchase a Torah scroll, and scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, so that any member of the community who desires may read from it.

When a person buys a city in Eretz Yisrael, the court may compel him to purchase a path to the city from all four directions for the sake of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael.

People who own fields among a stretch of fields in a valley may compel each other to dig a trench and a smaller trench around the valley.

Although a person owns a courtyard in one city, if he also owns property in another city, the inhabitants of the latter city can compel him to participate in the digging of cisterns, caverns and irrigation ditches. He is not, however, compelled to join in other communal matters. If he dwells together with them in that city, he is compelled to participate in all matters.

When a levy is placed upon a city's inhabitants for the construction of the wall, the levy is made according to the proximity of the houses to the wall. Those whose homes are closer to the wall must pay more.

Whenever a person lives in a city for twelve months or buys a dwelling there, he must contribute together with all the inhabitants of the city for the improvements that must be made - e.g., the walls, the gates, the wages of the soldiers who guard the city and all similar matters that are necessary for the protection of the city.

Payment for all the things necessary for the protection of a city is collected from all of its inhabitants, even from orphans, with the exception of Torah scholars. For Torah scholars do not require protection; their Torah study protects them. Payment for the improvement of the thoroughfares and the streets, by contrast, is collected even from the scholars.

If the people go out and fix the streets themselves, the Torah scholars should not go out to work with them. For it is not the practice of Torah scholars to demean themselves in the presence of common people.

If the inhabitants of a city contracted workers to dig a river to bring water to a city, we collect even from orphans. For this is to their benefit, so that their fields and vineyards are watered.

Therefore, if it transpired that despite the work, the water did not come, since the orphans did not benefit, everything that was taken from them should be returned to them. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The inhabitants of a lane can compel each other to prevent a tailor, a leather craftsman or any other craftsman from opening a business in the lane.

If a craftsman lived in the lane, and no protest was lodged against his practice of his craft, or there was a bathhouse, a store or a mill in the lane, and another person came and built another bathhouse opposite it or built another mill, the owner of the first establishment cannot prevent him, claiming: "You are destroying my livelihood. "This applies even if he comes from another lane, for this trade is already practiced in this lane.

If, however, a stranger from another city comes to establish a store next to a person's store, or a bathhouse next to this person's bathhouse, they can prevent him from doing so. If, however, he pays the head-tax of the king together with them, they cannot prevent him from establishing his business.

When perfume merchants travel from city to city, the inhabitants of a city may not prevent them from selling their wares. For it is one of the ordinances established by Ezra for these merchants to travel in this manner so that perfume will be easily available for Jewish women. They may not, however, establish a fixed place where they sit and sell their wares unless the inhabitants of the city consent. If, however, the merchant is a Torah scholar, he may establish a fixed place wherever he desires.

When merchants bring their wares to sell in cities, the inhabitants of the city may prevent them from doing so. If, however, they would sell their wares only on the market day, they cannot prevent them, provided they sell their wares only in the marketplace. They may not, however, go from door to door selling them, even on the market day.

If they have an outstanding loan in the city, they are permitted to sell what is necessary for their livelihood, even on days other than market day, until they repay their loan and move on.

When one of the inhabitants of a lane that ends in a cul-de-sac desires to open up a profession as a blood letter, a weaver or a teacher of gentile children, the inhabitants of the lane may prevent him, for he increases the number of people coming in and going out of the lane.

Similarly, a person who owns a house in a courtyard shared by others may not rent it to a doctor, a blood letter, a weaver, a Jewish scribe who writes legal contracts or a teacher of gentile children.

When a store is located in a courtyard, the neighbors can protest, telling the owner: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by the people going in and out. " Instead, he should perform his work at home and sell it in the marketplace.

They may not, however, protest against him and say: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by your hammer," or "your mill," for he has already established his right to perform these activities.

Similarly, a person may teach Jewish children Torah in his house. The other partners in his lane may not protest against him, saying: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by the school children."

When one person owns a cistern within a house belonging to a colleague, he may enter only when it is customary for people to enter, and must depart when it is customary for people to depart. He may not bring his animal through his colleague's home to provide him with water from the cistern. Instead, he should fill up buckets with water and water it outside.

They both are entitled to make a lock on the entrance to the cistern: the owner of the cistern to protect his water, and the owner of the home, because of his suspicions concerning his wife, so that she will be able to enter there only when he knows.

When one person owns a garden whose entrance is within a garden belonging to a colleague, he may enter only when it is customary for people to enter, and must depart when it is customary for people to depart. He may not bring merchants through his colleague's garden, nor may he enter it to go to another field. The owner of the outer garden may sow vegetables on the path.

If both agree to move the path to the side of the garden, the owner of the inner garden may enter and depart when he desires, and he may bring merchants in. He may not, however, enter it to go to another field, Either of the parties can prevent the other from sowing vegetables in the path that was placed on the side.