Arról, hogy ablaknak van-e cházákája, már a Talmudban is vitatkozott R. Zérá és R. Iláé. A későbbi máásze szerint itt R. Iláét paszkenolták: lehet ellene tiltakozni, és nincs cházáká.
With regard to windows, Rabbi Zeira says: If one built a large window at a height that is lower than four cubits from the ground, he has the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, and therefore, his neighbor can protest the initial construction of the window. If one built a large window at a height that is above four cubits from the ground, he has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, and therefore his neighbor cannot protest its construction. And Rabbi Ile’a says: Even if it is built at a height that is above four cubits from the ground, he has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, but nevertheless, his neighbor can protest its construction.
A probléma: az első pszákot hozza Rámbám / Su"Á, de a másodiknak az ellenkezőjét.
...
If a person has opened a window overlooking a courtyard belonging to a colleague, and the owner of the courtyard waived his right to protest or displayed his willingness to consent - e.g., he helped him in the window's construction or he knew about this source of damage and did not protest - the owner of the window has established his right to the window. The owner of the courtyard cannot come at a later date and protest that he must close it.
What are the laws that apply with regard to this window that he was allowed to open? If it is large enough for a person to insert his head, or it is less than four cubits high, even if it is not large enough for a person to insert his head into it, the owner of the courtyard may not build a wall opposite or at its side unless he moves four cubits away, as explained in the previous halachah.
KM idézi a Turt. Ő még a Rámbám nevében is azt hozza, hogy nincsen cházáká (ami a Gemárában valóban áll). De itt (7. fejezet) a Rámbám az ellenkezőjét mondja!
...
Azt mondja, hogy az a problémája, hogy a Rámbám maga is a 2. fejezetben azt írja, hogy nincs cházáká, mert a hezek reijá valóságos hezek.
The following rule applies with regard to a courtyard owned in partnership that is large enough to divide or one that was divided by consent, even though it is not large enough to divide. Each of the partners may compel the other to join in the building of a wall in the middle of the courtyard, so that one will not see the other when using the courtyard.
The rationale is that damage caused by an invasion of privacy is considered to be damage.
Neither partner can claim that it is an established fact that the courtyard has remained without a wall. Instead, even though the courtyard stood many years without a divider, one partner can compel the other to join in the building of a divider whenever he desires.
KM chilukja: az ablaknál volt máásze, mert kitörték az ablakot – az ellen kellett volna tiltakoznia, ha ezt nem tette, akkor a másiknak lesz cházákája!
Ezzel szemben az udvarnál pontosan ellenkezőleg, ott minden baj forrása nem a cselekedet, hanem a cselekedet hiánya volt, hogy csak kettéosztották az udvarukat, de nem építettek közé falat – így ott sosem lesz cházáká, mindig lehet tiltakozni.
A Mágid Misne leírja, hogy Rif-Ri Migás máchloket van, hogy hogyan kell érteni a Gemárában az idézett szugját. Rámbám a tanárát, Ri Migást követi ebben, hogy csak bizonyos ablakokra paszkenoljuk, hogy nincsen cházáká, de általában igenis van.
...
Ezt a különbségtételt a Su"Á paszkenolja is.
...