Siman 172

A courtyard that is being divided, they give to each doorway four amot even though they did not speak of this at the time they agreed to divide, because every doorway requires four amot before it into the courtyard to unload a burden, and even when there is a doorway to the public domain, as was written in siman 171, section 11. The remainder they divide equally. Regarding compelling the division of a courtyard, they do not compel until there are four amot for each person in the courtyard for use, aside from those before the doorways. And even if the doorway is very wide, he takes four amot along the length of the courtyard across the entire width of the doorway. If the doorway is not four wide, he completes it from the sides so that he has four by four, for less than this is nothing. If one person has two doorways to the courtyard and the second has one doorway, the one who has two doorways takes four amot for each doorway, and the one who has one doorway takes only four amot for his doorway, for according to the abundance of doorways, so is the abundance of uses for unloading burdens and the like.

In what case are these words said? Regarding two who acquired from ownerless property, such as if they built houses in an ownerless place and this one opened two entrances for himself and that one opened one entrance, and afterward they enclosed the place into a courtyard; and even if they enclosed it together, nevertheless, each one had already acquired [the area] in front of his house according to the entrances he opened. And some say that the same law applies if one divided his property by his word and gave to one of his sons a house with two entrances and to one a house with one entrance, it is as if he bequeathed to this one eight amot in the courtyard and to that one four amot. However, two who purchased or who inherited without a will, they purchased and inherited equally, portion for portion, both in the houses and in the courtyard; and in what way is his power superior to take more in the courtyard? And even if they preceded and divided the houses before they divided the courtyard, we do not say that the one to whose portion fell the house of two entrances acquired eight amot, but rather they divide equally. And even in acquisition from ownerless property, if they first enclosed the courtyard and afterward built the houses, they divide equally, for from the moment they enclosed the courtyard, each one acquired half of the courtyard [Sma]. And the same law applies if they performed another chazakah in the land of the courtyard and afterward built houses, they divide equally, for from the time of the chazakah, each one acquired half of the courtyard [it appears to me].

That which we have said, that when they purchased or inherited they divide the courtyard equally, in what case does this apply? When the two houses are equal and they divided house against house, or even if they are not equal in their quantity but their value is equal and they did not add a payment of money for one against the other. But if they are not equal in value and they appraised them and added a payment of money, and the one whose portion included the house with two openings gave his fellow a payment of money, included in this payment are also the four additional amot that he takes, and he takes four amot for each of his openings, even though they did not mention this at the time of the payment, for it is included automatically. Furthermore, even if the house that has only one opening is more valuable than the house with two openings and they appraised it with a payment of money, nevertheless the owner of the two openings acquires eight amot, and we say that were it not for this, the owner of the one opening would have needed to give him even more [ibid.]. The reason is that when they appraise house against house, all the needs of the house are included in this, and since the four amot in front of the opening are a need of the house, this is automatically included in the appraisal. However, there are those who disagree on this, that when the owner of one opening paid more, the owner of two openings does not have four amot for each opening [Taz], and so it appears primary for the law, for at the time of the appraisal of this house they spoke of the advantages of the house and not of its disadvantages.

These four amot that are before the entrance are not entirely his, as they were only given to him to unload his burden, and when they are vacant, the second person may also use them. Only in the case of a division of a house against a house with an appraisal of value, as has been explained, are they entirely his, for they are included in the appraisal like the house itself, as I have written.

An achsadra, which is a place before the house that has three walls and the fourth side is entirely open—if it is possible for him to enter into it with his load, such as when there is no obstruction on the fourth side like a small partition or columns close to one another, it does not have four amot. For since the four amot is for the purpose of unloading a load, he can enter with his load into the achsadra. Furthermore, even if the achsadra is before the entrance of the house, we do not give four amot to the entrance of the house either, because he can unload his load in the achsadra. And if there are not four amot in the achsadra, he completes it from the courtyard until four amot, and they count toward the calculation of the four amot before the house. And if it has obstructions on the fourth side, it has four amot. And a beit shaar, which is a small house before the entrance of a salon, or a balcony, which is a built place in the courtyard at a height before the upper stories and the entrances of the upper stories open to it, they have four amot. And if there were five upper stories open to the balcony and the balcony is open to the courtyard, it has only four amot, for we follow the balcony and not the houses of the upper stories. And a coop for chickens, even though it is made like a complete house, does not have four amot even if it has an entrance to the courtyard. And in the Gemara [11b] the reason is stated that it does not require the unloading of a load, for the chickens climb and ascend via the top of the wall into the coop. And according to this, if it is covered with a roof and they have no place to enter except through the entrance, it has four amot [and the Rif omitted this and it requires further study]. And a house that is half roofed and half not roofed, and it will always be so [it appears to me], and it is open to the courtyard, it does not have four amot. It is not necessary to state if its roofing is on the inside, for it is possible that he enters inside and unloads his load, but even if its roofing is toward the outside, he can enter with the load until the place that is not roofed and unload. And specifically when there are four amot by four amot in that which is not roofed; and if there are not four amot there, they complete it from the courtyard until four amot, as with an achsadra.

A house that had an opening and it was closed up has four amot, for it stands to be opened. But if one broke down its doorposts, it does not have four amot, for the status of an opening has been nullified from it. However, regarding the four amot in the courtyard required for use, aside from those in front of the opening, he has that portion; since he had a portion in the courtyard for entry and exit, and by the nullification of the opening, he did not remove himself from the use of the courtyard.

A house that has many openings from all its sides has four amot for each side, and if he designated one opening for it, he only has four amot opposite his opening. Thus wrote the Rambam in the second chapter of Laws of Neighbors and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3. It is implied from this wording that that which our sages, of blessed memory, said—that every opening has four amot—this is when the openings are not on one side; but if it has two openings or more on one side, he only takes for one opening. And logic dictates this, for regarding the unloading of a burden on one side, he can unload at one opening; granted, on two sides, it is possible that the burden cannot come to the other side, but on one side, what difference does it make? And according to this, that which was explained—that in a house where it was closed up it has four amot—this is specifically when it does not have another opening on this side [see Sma]. And furthermore we learned from the words of our teachers that it is specifically when they use all of them, but if the primary use is for one opening, he only has four amot for this opening, since they wrote that if he designated an opening for use, he only has four amot opposite this opening.

All that has been explained, that every entrance requires four amot, this is in an ordinary courtyard where each person has a house and the courtyard is in an ordinary partnership. But if each person has a known portion in the courtyard, such as if they purchased it thus or if they agreed among themselves, each one only takes according to what he has, and even if he has no place to unload his burden. And regarding the matter of one person compelling his fellow to divide the courtyard, this is not dependent on what is before the entrance; since they have nothing else, if each one has four by four amot in the courtyard before his house for usage, they may compel one another to divide. And any house that does not contain four by four amot does not have four amot in the courtyard facing the entrance, for it is not considered a house in this regard, as it does not have enough usage that it would require four amot to unload its burden. Therefore, regarding the division of the courtyard, if he has four by four amot in the courtyard up to the entrance of this house for his usage, they can compel one another to the division of the courtyard even though he does not have a separate four amot for unloading his burden. But when he does not have even this, they do not compel a division; for although he does not need to unload a burden for such a small house, nevertheless for usage it is necessary that he have four by four amot [such is the intention of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch section 8, and so wrote the Ra'avad in chapter 2 of Hilkhot Shekhenim, and so wrote the Maggid Mishneh; and that which he wrote "four amot for this one and four amot for this one" means they both have such a house, but if one of them has a large house, he requires four amot also facing the entrance, and examine this carefully].

The manure of a courtyard is divided according to the entrances, for with a multitude of entrances the manure increases; therefore, in places where they take money for manure, they divide it according to the entrances, because it is the way of the entrances that they threw it there until it became a dung heap [Rashi]. And it appears to me specifically when the manure is not from a known thing and not from the manure of the houses, but from the manure of animals, certainly whoever the animal belongs to takes its manure. And if both of them have animals and the manure became mixed, each one takes according to his animals. And the manure that the king's troop standing in the courtyards of the householders leaves behind is divided according to the people, for they station the number of the troop according to the number of people and not according to the entrances. And in places where the manure is not needed and requires expenditure to remove it, the expenditure is also divided according to the entrances, and regarding the manure of the troop, according to the people. And if they stationed the king's troop in a courtyard and each one must provide lodging for the troop, it is also divided according to the people, and in a house where there are many people they shall receive more troop members. However, this is also seen according to their status, and a greater burden is placed upon the wealthy than upon the poor [Tzemach Tzedek], and those who station more with the poor than with the wealthy are destined to give an accounting.

The Tur wrote in section 5: A pit of date stones has four amot in the courtyard in every direction. The explanation is: if one of them has a pit in his courtyard into which they place date stones or other uses, we give him four amot in the courtyard in all four of its directions. And if he designated one of the entrances of his house such that he is always accustomed to enter it through that entrance, we do not give him for its sake except for the four amot in front of the pit that are opposite that entrance. And the Ra'avad says: this is not to say that the pit should have four amot in every direction, but rather regarding this we say in the Gemara that he has four amot in every direction, that he has the right to clarify them for whichever direction he desires; and if he designated for it the entrance of his house, he cannot clarify, but rather he must take them opposite it. Thus far the words of the Tur. And in the Shulchan Aruch this was not brought at all, because according to the method of the Rambam, this is the law explained in section 7 [see in the Beit Yosef that this is the explanation of "pira de-sufla" in Bava Batra 11a according to the method of the Ri Migash].