Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.