Do you have a neighbor like Runya? TB Baba Batra 105

 Runya is a difficult neighbor. We first met him near the end of massekhet Baba Metzia 109a-b. “Runya was the planter of Ravina. He caused a loss, and Ravina removed him from his field. Runya came before Rava and said to him: Let the Master see what Ravina has done to me. Rava said to him: Ravina did well, as you caused him a loss. Runya said to him: But Ravina did not warn me beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava said to him: In this case it is not necessary to provide a warning. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: With regard to a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter, and a town scribe who drafts documents on behalf on the local residents, all of these are considered forewarned. Therefore, any loss incurred due to them is deducted from their wages, and they are fined without the need for prior warning. The principle of this matter is: With regard to any loss that is not recoverable they are considered forewarned.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 5 Ravina has to take Runya to court twice; however, this time the court rules in favor of Runya. The Mishnah on the previous daf discusses the liability of the owner of the inner field to pay for the fourth wall. “MISHNA: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Runya has two clashes with Ravina that exemplified the Gemara understanding of the Mishna. Unlike the case in Baba Metzia, here the court rules in favor of Runya.

Case #1 “It is related that a man named Runya had a field that was surrounded by fields belonging to Ravina on all four sides. Ravina built partitions around his fields and said to him: Give me your share of the expense in accordance with what I actually spent when I built the partitions, i.e., half the cost of the partitions. Runya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least your share of the expense in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. Runya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least the wage of a watchman. But he did not give even this to him.

“One day, Runya was harvesting dates. Ravina said to his sharecropper: Go take a cluster [kibbura] of dates from him. The sharecropper went to bring them, but Runya raised his voice at him in protest, whereupon Ravina said to him: You have revealed that you are pleased with the partitions and the protection that they provide you. Even if it were only a goat that entered your field, wouldn’t the field need safeguarding, to prevent the goat from eating the dates? Runya said to him: If it were only a goat, doesn’t one need merely to chase it away [le’akhluyei]? No partition is required. Ravina said to him: But wouldn’t you need a man to chase the goat away? Pay me then at least the wage of a watchman.

“Ravina came before Rava to adjudicate the matter. Rava said to Runya: Go appease Ravina with what he expressed his willingness to be appeased with, namely, the wage of a watchman. And if not, I will judge you in accordance with the ruling of Rav Huna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and you will be required to pay half the cost of the partition based on what Ravina actually spent on it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava’s decision is interesting. He could have imposed what the halakha demanded i.e. half the cost of the partition, but he told Runya he would be wise to accept Ravina’s last offer which was the least expensive option. If Runya still refuses to pay the cost of the watchman, then Rava will make that decision a costly one.

Case #2 “Incidental to that episode, the Gemara relates another encounter between Ravina and Runya. Runya once bought land adjoining property belonging to Ravina. Ravina considered removing him due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. When land is up for sale, the owners of the adjoining fields have the right of first refusal. If one of the neighbors is willing to match the highest price being offered to the seller, that neighbor has the preemptive right to purchase the property, and if somebody else buys it, that buyer can be removed. (See Baba Metzia 108aff for the discussion about the preemptive right to purchase contiguous property is up for sale-דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא-gg) Since Ravina owned the adjacent property, he thought that he enjoyed the right of first refusal. Rav Safra, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Ravina: People say: Four dinars for a large hide [tzalla], four for a small hide [tzelala]. Since Runya also owned land bordering the desired parcel, you cannot remove him even though his plot of land is smaller than yours.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

Even though Ravina had the right of first refusal Rav Safra sided with Runya because he was poor. He applied the verse “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18)” to Ravina.  Ravina should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.”