Bava Batra 20

Bava Batra 20

הִיא גּוּפַהּ תֵּיחוּץ, דְּהָא כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא מִגַּבּוֹ! אֶלָּא דְּפוּמָּא לְגָאו. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּפוּמָּא לְבַר, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּחָבִית שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

let the barrel itself serve as a barrier. It should not be susceptible to impurity in this case, as an earthenware vessel does not contract impurity if its exterior is exposed to impurity. Rather, one must say that its opening faces inward, and it is rendered impure because the impurity enters through its opening. And if you wish, say instead that actually its opening faces outward, and with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a metal barrel, which does contract impurity through its exterior.

מֵיתִיבִי: עֲשָׂבִין שֶׁתְּלָשָׁן וְהִנִּיחָן בַּחַלּוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן בַּחַלּוֹנוֹת; וּמַטְלוֹנִיּוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ; וְהָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה; וְעוֹף שֶׁשָּׁכַן בַּחַלּוֹן, וְגוֹי שֶׁיָּשַׁב בַּחַלּוֹן, וּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה הַמּוּנָּח בַּחַלּוֹן; וְהַמֶּלַח, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס, וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה – כּוּלָּם מְמַעֲטִין בַּחַלּוֹן. אֲבָל הַשֶּׁלֶג, וְהַבָּרָד, וְהַגְּלִיד, וְהַכְּפוֹר, וְהַמַּיִם – כּוּלָּן אֵין מְמַעֲטִין בַּחַלּוֹן.

The Gemara raises another objection to the assumption that an item for which there is a use does not reduce the dimensions of a window, even if is not susceptible to impurity, from a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 14:6): With regard to grass that one plucked and placed in a window or that grew on its own in windows; and scraps of fabric that do not measure three by three fingerbreadths; and a limb or flesh dangling from an animal or a beast; and a bird resting in the window; and a gentile sitting in the window; and a child born after eight months of pregnancy, who is not expected to survive, that is placed in the window; and salt; and an earthenware vessel; and a Torah scroll, all these reduce the dimensions of the window. Consequently, impurity passes through only if there remains an open space of a square handbreadth. But with regard to snow, hail, frost, ice, and water, all these do not reduce the dimensions of a window.

וְהָא עֲשָׂבִין חֲזוּ לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ! בְּאַפְרַזְתָּא.

The Gemara proceeds to challenge Shmuel’s ruling from each of the cases of the baraita. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, who says that an item that has a use is not considered part of the window and does not reduce the dimensions of the space, grass is fit for consumption by one’s animal, so it will not remain in the window. Yet the baraita states that grass reduces the dimensions of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to afrazta, which is poisonous grass that is unfit for an animal to consume.

אוֹ שֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. כֵּיוָן דְּקָשׁוּ לְכוֹתֶל – שָׁקֵיל לְהוּ! אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּכוֹתֶל חוּרְבָּה. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹתֶל יִישּׁוּב – בְּבָאִין חוּץ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה לַחַלּוֹן.

The baraita teaches: Or grass that grew on its own also reduces the dimensions of the window. The Gemara asks: But since the grass damages the wall, the owner will remove it. Therefore, it should not serve as a barrier to impurity. Rabba says: This is referring to a wall of a ruin, whose structural integrity is insignificant, and therefore the owner will not trouble himself to remove the grass. Rav Pappa says: The baraita may even be referring to a wall in a settled house, and it is referring to a case where the grass comes from three handbreadths beyond the window. In other words, the grass does not grow on the window but takes root some distance away, and from there it reaches the window. The homeowner is not particular about this grass and will not uproot it.

מַטְלוֹנִיּוֹת – חֲזוּ לֵיהּ לִקְרִיעָה דִלְבוּשָׁא! בִּסְמִיכְתָּא. חֲזוּ לְאוּמָּנָא! בְּרִיסַּקָּא.

The Gemara further asks: Why do scraps of fabric reduce the dimensions of the window? After all, they are fit for patching a tear in a garment. The Gemara answers: This is referring to thick scraps, which are unsuitable for patching. The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, they are fit for a bloodletter to wipe up the blood at the point of incision. The Gemara answers: It is referring to sackcloth, which scratches the skin, and would not be used for that purpose.

אִי בְּרִיסַּקָּא, ״שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ״?! ״שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! כְּעֵין רִיסַּקָּא.

The Gemara asks: If it is referring to sackcloth, why does the baraita state that it is not three by three fingerbreadths? It should have said that it is not four by four handbreadths. Rough woven material of the kind used for sacks rather than clothes is susceptible to impurity only if its area measures at least four by four handbreadths. The Gemara answers: It is not actual sackcloth; rather, it is like sackcloth, i.e., it is stiff, and will therefore not be used by a bloodletter, but is woven like regular clothing.

וְהָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה – עָרְקָא וְאָזְלָא! בִּקְשׁוּרָה.

The baraita teaches: And a limb or flesh dangling from an animal or a beast reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Shmuel, why should this be so? After all, the animal can arise and escape, and therefore it should not be considered as part of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to an animal that is tied in place.

שָׁחֵיט לַהּ! בִּטְמֵאָה. מְזַבֵּין לַהּ לְגוֹי! בִּכְחוּשָׁה. פָּסֵיק, שָׁדֵי לַהּ לִכְלָבִים! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים, לָא עָבֵיד.

The Gemara challenges: But the owner of the animal will take it and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: It is referring to an animal that is non-kosher and will not be slaughtered. The Gemara challenges: Even so, he will take it and sell it to a gentile. The Gemara responds: It is referring to a lean animal, which no one will buy. The Gemara continues: Even if the animal does not move, there is a use for the part that is dangling, since he can cut it off and throw it to the dogs. The Gemara answers: Since there is suffering to an animal if he cuts it off, he will not do that.

וְעוֹף שֶׁשָּׁכַן בַּחַלּוֹן. פָּרַח וְאָזֵיל! בְּקָשׁוּר. שָׁחֵיט לֵיהּ! בְּטָמֵא. מְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לְגוֹי! בִּקְלָנִיתָא.

The baraita further teaches: And a bird resting in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara challenges: But it will fly away, and therefore it should not be considered as part of the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a bird that is tied in place. The Gemara further challenges: But the owner will take it and slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a non-kosher bird, which he will not slaughter. The Gemara continues: Even if it is non-kosher he will take it and sell it to a gentile. The Gemara responds: It is referring to a kelanita, a type of bird that is so bony that no one would purchase it to consume it.

יָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא! בִּמְסָרֵט. קְלָנִיתָא לָא מְסָרְטָא! כְּעֵין קְלָנִיתָא.

The Gemara asks: But even so, he can give it to a child to play with, so why does it reduce the dimensions of the window? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a bird that scratches. The Gemara challenges: But a kelanita does not scratch. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a type of bird that is like a kelanita in that it is bony, but is inclined to scratch people.

וְגוֹי שֶׁיָּשַׁב בַּחַלּוֹן. קָאֵי וְאָזֵיל! בְּכָפוּת. אָתֵי חַבְרֵיהּ, שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ! בִּמְצוֹרָע. אָתֵי מְצוֹרָע חַבְרֵיהּ, שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא בַּחֲבוּשֵׁי מַלְכוּת.

The baraita further states: And a gentile sitting in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara asks: But the gentile will arise and leave, so why does he reduce the dimensions of the window? The Gemara answers: This is referring to someone who is tied in place. The Gemara continues: Another person will come and release him. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a leper, whom people are afraid to touch. The Gemara challenges: Another leper will come and release him. Rather, this is referring to a prisoner of the monarchy. Since he is confined as a punishment, others are afraid to release him.

וּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה הַמּוּנָּח בַּחַלּוֹן. אָתְיָא אִמֵּיהּ, דָּרְיָא לֵיהּ! בְּשַׁבָּת; דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶבֶן, וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִמּוֹ שׁוֹחָה עָלָיו וּמְנִיקָתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.

The baraita teaches: And a child born after eight months of pregnancy who is placed in the window reduces its dimensions. The Gemara challenges: Perhaps his mother will come and remove him from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to Shabbat, when it is prohibited to move this child, as it is taught in a baraita: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and therefore it is prohibited to move him; but his mother may bend over the child and nurse him, due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill.

מֶלַח – חַזְיָא לֵיהּ! בִּמְרִירְתָּא. חַזְיָא לְעוֹרוֹת! דְּאִית בַּהּ קוֹצֵי.

The baraita teaches: Salt reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: It is fit for use and people will remove it from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to bitter salt, which is not used as a seasoning. The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is fit for tanning hides. The Gemara responds: It is referring to salt that has thorns mixed with it, and therefore it will not be used for tanning.

כֵּיוָן דְּקַשְׁיָא לְכוֹתֶל, שָׁקְלָא! דְּיָתְבָא אַחַסְפָּא. חַסְפָּא גּוּפָא תֵּיחוּץ!

The Gemara challenges: Even so, since this salt is damaging to the wall, he will remove it from there. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where it sits on a shard of earthenware, and consequently it does not damage the wall. The Gemara states: If it is resting on earthenware, let the shard itself serve as a barrier against the spreading of the impurity. Why, then, is the salt mentioned?

דְּלֵית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּרָא; כְּדִתְנַן: חֶרֶס – כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן בֵּין פַּצִּים לַחֲבֵירוֹ.

The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the shard does not have the sufficient measure for ritual impurity, and is therefore considered insignificant. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 82a): One who carries a shard of earthenware on Shabbat is liable only if it is equivalent in size to that which is used to place between one pillar and another when they are piled on the ground, to strengthen the pillars.

כְּלִי חֶרֶס – חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! דְּמִיטַּנַּף. חֲזֵי לְאוּמָּנָא! דִּמְנַקַּב.

The baraita teaches: An earthenware vessel reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: But it is fit for one to use; therefore, it is likely to be removed from the window. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the earthenware is dirty. The Gemara challenges: Even so, it is fit for a bloodletter to collect the blood. It would not matter to him if the earthenware were dirty. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is perforated and therefore unfit for that use.

סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה – חֲזֵי לְמִקְרָא! בְּבָלוּי. וְהָא בָּעֵי גְּנִיזָה! שָׁם תְּהֵא גְּנִיזָתָהּ.

The baraita teaches: A Torah scroll reduces the dimensions of a window. The Gemara challenges: But it is fit for reading; therefore, it might be removed. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a Torah scroll that is worn out and unfit for reading. The Gemara challenges: But one is required to place the Torah scroll in a repository for unusable sacred books; therefore, he will certainly remove it to be stored away. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who determines that its repository will be there. In other words, it was placed in the window with the intent of storing it there in its worn-out state.

וְאָמַר רַב: בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין מְחִיצָה, חוּץ מִמֶּלַח וּרְבָב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֶלַח. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי – הָא בְּמֶלַח סְדוֹמִית, הָא בְּמֶלַח אִיסְתְּרוֹקָנִית.

§ With regard to the halakha of the baraita referring to salt, the Gemara cites that which Rav says: One can construct a barrier to delineate a private domain on Shabbat or to block the spreading of ritual impurity with anything except for salt and fat, as salt crumbles and fat melts in the heat. And Shmuel says: Even salt can be used as a barrier. Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree, as this ruling of Shmuel is referring to Sodomite salt, which is like stone and can be used as a barrier, and that ruling of Rav is referring to isterokanit salt, which is taken from the sea and is composed of grains.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם שְׁנֵי צִבּוּרֵי מֶלַח וּמַנִּיחַ עֲלֵיהֶם קוֹרָה, שֶׁהַמֶּלַח מַעֲמֶדֶת אֶת הַקּוֹרָה וְהַקּוֹרָה מַעֲמֶדֶת אֶת הַמֶּלַח; אֲפִילּוּ מֶלַח אִיסְתְּרוֹקָנִית – וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא דְּאִיכָּא קוֹרָה, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא קוֹרָה.

The Gemara adds: And now that Rabba said: If a person makes two piles of salt at the opening to an alleyway and places a cross beam on top of them, so that the salt supports the cross beam and the cross beam supports the salt by weighing it down and compressing it, he can use this beam to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway on Shabbat, one can say that even isterokanit salt can be used as a barrier. And even so, Rav and Shmuel do not disagree: This ruling of Shmuel is referring to a case where there is a cross beam to weigh the salt down, and that ruling of Rava is referring to a case where there is no cross beam.

מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָרֵיחַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁכֶב, שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הָרֶכֶב וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם טִירְיָא. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: וְשֶׁל חֲמוֹר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הָאִיסְטְרוֹבֵיל שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַקֶּלֶת; הָתָם מַאי טִירְיָא אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם קָלָא.

§ The mishna teaches that one must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by a distance of three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone of the mill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one must distance a mill from the property of his neighbor? It is due to the vibrations it causes. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And the measure for distancing a mill on a base is three handbreadths from the lower millstone [ha’isterobil], which is four handbreadths from the mouth [hakelet], where the wheat is fed in? But there, what vibrations are there? Rather, the reason for the distancing is due to the noise generated by the mill.

וְאֶת הַתַּנּוּר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַכִּלְיָא, שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשָּׂפָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, כִּלְיָא דְּתַנּוּר טֶפַח; נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

The mishna teaches: And there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base of an oven until the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim of the oven. Abaye said: Learn from the mishna that the base of an oven is a handbreadth wider than its rim. The practical difference of this observation is with respect to buying and selling, i.e., a buyer should know that this is the proper ratio for the dimensions of an oven.

מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יַעֲמִיד אָדָם תַּנּוּר בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עַל גַּבָּיו גּוֹבַהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. הָיָה מַעֲמִידוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּיה – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא תַּחְתָּיו מַעֲזִיבָה שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. וּבַכִּירָה – טֶפַח.

MISHNA: A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space four cubits high above it, i.e., between the top of the oven and the ceiling, to avoid burning the ceiling, which serves as the floor of the residence above. If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick.

וְאִם הִזִּיק – מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַשִּׁיעוּרִין הָאֵלּוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הִזִּיק – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

And if he causes damage in any case, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: They said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions.

לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. בֶּאֱמֶת בַּיַּיִן הִתִּירוּ, אֲבָל לֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר.

The mishna continues: A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna comments: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine the Sages rendered it permitted to set up a bakery and a dye shop beneath, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. But they did not render it permitted to establish a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine.

גְּמָ׳ וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּתַּנּוּר אַרְבָּעָה, וּבַכִּירָה שְׁלֹשָׁה! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בִּדְנַחְתּוֹמִין, דְּתַנּוּר דִּידַן כִּי כִּירָה דְנַחְתּוֹמִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that in the case of an oven the plaster floor must be four handbreadths thick, and with regard to a stove it must be three? By contrast, the mishna says that the plaster floor beneath and oven and a stove must be three handbreadths and one handbreadth thick, respectively. Abaye said: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to ovens and stoves of bakers. Since they bake all day long, their implements get very hot. The oven discussed in our mishna is similar to a baker’s stove, which is why in both cases a distance of three handbreadths is required.

לֹא יִפְתַּח חֲנוּת וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: אִם הָיְתָה רֶפֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לָאוֹצָר – מוּתָּר. בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: כִּיבֵּד וְרִיבֵּץ לְאוֹצָר, מַהוּ?

The mishna teaches that one may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there. A Sage taught: If the cattle barn preceded the storeroom it is permitted, i.e., the barn owner is not required to move it. With regard to this point, Abaye raises a dilemma: If he cleaned and sprinkled the area, i.e., he prepared it for use as a storeroom but he has not yet filled it, what is the halakha? Is it considered a storeroom already, and therefore others may no longer put a cattle barn beneath it, or perhaps the halakha is that as long as it is empty he cannot prevent others from establishing a cattle barn?

רִיבָּה בַּחַלּוֹנוֹת, מַהוּ? אַכְסַדְרָה תַּחַת הָאוֹצָר, מַהוּ? בָּנָה עֲלִיָּיה עַל גַּבֵּי בֵּיתוֹ, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ. בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: תַּמְרֵי וְרִמּוֹנֵי, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

Similarly, if he added windows for ventilation, which demonstrates his intention to use it as a storeroom, what is the halakha? Likewise, if he establishes an enclosed veranda beneath the storeroom, what is the halakha? If he built an upper room on top of his house for storage, what is the halakha? None of these questions are answered, and the Gemara declares that they shall stand unresolved. The Gemara cites a similar question: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma: If he placed dates and pomegranates there, what is the halakha? Is this considered the start of its use as a storeroom or not? No answer was found to this question either, and the Gemara declares: The dilemma shall stand [teiku] unresolved.

בֶּאֱמֶת בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיחוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּסְרִיחוֹ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי דִּידַן, אֲפִילּוּ קוּטְרָא דִּשְׁרָגָא נָמֵי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְאַסְפַּסְתָּא כְּרֶפֶת בָּקָר דָּמְיָא.

§ The mishna teaches that in truth, it is permitted in the case of wine but not in the case of a cattle barn. The Gemara states that a Sage taught: They permitted it in the case of wine because the heat and the smoke improve the wine. But they did not permit one to establish a cattle barn, because a barn creates a bad odor. Rav Yosef said: This wine of ours spoils quickly, and therefore even the smoke of a candle also damages it. Rav Sheshet said: And alfalfa [ve’aspasta] is considered like a cattle barn in this regard, because it rots over time and creates a foul odor.

מַתְנִי׳ חֲנוּת שֶׁבְּחָצֵר – יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישַׁן מִקּוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמִקּוֹל הַיּוֹצְאִין. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה כֵּלִים – יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכֵר בְּתוֹךְ הַשּׁוּק, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישַׁן – לֹא מִקּוֹל הַפַּטִּישׁ, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הָרֵיחַיִם, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת.

MISHNA: If a resident wants to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him from doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering the store and the sound of people exiting. But one may fashion utensils in his house and go out and sell them in the market, despite the fact that he is not allowed to set up a store in the courtyard, and the neighbor cannot protest against him doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill that you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי: חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת – מוּתָּר! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states that one can prevent his neighbor from opening a store in the courtyard because the noise keeps him awake, and what is different in the latter clause, which states that one cannot protest when his neighbor performs labor that is noisy? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of one who operates in another courtyard, i.e., one cannot prevent activity in a separate courtyard that is connected to the alleyway in which he lives. Rava said to him: If so, let it teach that in a different courtyard it is permitted. Why does the mishna not specify that it is referring to a different courtyard? Rather, Rava said: