harm to both. If he builds it with his own materials, he may tear it down; because it is his property exclusively. If his partner says: "I will pay you half the cost of the construction, so do not tear it down," he is not compelled to accept; because since he was not compelled to build it, he is not compelled to preserve it. If someone other than the builder wishes to tear it down, or to compel the builder to tear it down, he has no right to do so, according to both narrations; for if he does not have the right to prevent him from building it, then he certainly does not have the right to compel him to tear it down. If he had a right of usage on the wall, or a placement of timber, he may say to him: "Either accept from me half its value and enable me to utilize it and place my timber, or tear down your wall so we may rebuild it together." The other is then obliged to respond to him; because he does not have the right to invalidate his foundations and his benefit through his construction. If he does not wish to utilize it, and the builder demands the cost or the value from him, he is not obliged to pay it; because if he is not compelled to build, he is certainly not compelled to pay the cost, unless he had granted permission for the construction and expenditure, in which case he is bound by what he permitted. As for the first narration, whenever he refuses, the judge compels him to do so. If he fails to act, the judge takes from his wealth and spends on it. If he has no wealth, and the partner spends on it with the judge's permission, or the partner's permission, he may return to collect from him when he is able. If he wishes to build it, the partner cannot prevent him. Regarding what was spent: if he did so voluntarily, he has no right to reclaim it; but if he intended to reclaim it, does he have the right to do so? There are two potential views, based on the issue of settling another's debt without his permission. If he builds it for himself with the debris, it is shared between them. If he builds it with his own materials, it is his exclusively. If he wishes to tear it down, he may do so, unless his partner pays him half its value, in which case he cannot tear it down; because if he was compelled to build it, he is all the more compelled to preserve it.
Section: If there is no old wall between their properties, and one of them asks the other to construct a wall to partition their properties, and he refuses, he is not compelled to do so, according to a single narration. If he wishes to build it alone, he may not build except on his own property exclusively; because he does not have the right to dispose of his neighbor's property that is particular to him, nor the shared property without having a foundation (rasm) for it, and here there is no foundation. I know of no disagreement on this.
(22) In the original: "to tear it out (qal'ihi)".
مَضَرَّةٌ عليهما. وإن بَنَاهُ بآلَةٍ من عنده، فله نَقْضُه؛ لأنَّه مِلْكُه خَاصَّةً. فإن قال شَرِيكُه: أنا أَدْفَعُ إليك نِصْفَ قِيمَةِ البِنَاءِ ولا تَنْقُضْهُ. لم يُجْبَرْ؛ لأنَّه لمَّا لم يُجْبَرْ على البِنَاءِ، لم يُجْبَرْ على الإِبْقَاءِ. وإن أرَادَ غيرُ البانِى نَقْضَه، أو إِجْبَارَ بَانِيه على نَقْضِه، لم يكُنْ له ذلك، على الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ جميعا؛ لأنَّه إذا لم يَمْلِكْ مَنعَه من بِنَائِه، فَلأَنْ لا يَمْلِكَ إجْبَارَهُ على نَقْضِه أَوْلَى، فإن كان له على الحائِطِ رَسْمُ انْتِفَاعٍ، ووَضْعُ خَشَبٍ، قال له: إمَّا أن تَأْخُذَ مِنِّى نِصْفَ قِيمَتِه، وتُمَكِّنَنِى من انْتِفَاعِى وَوَضْعِ خَشَبِى، وإمَّا أن تَقْلَعَ حَائِطَكَ، لِنُعِيدَ البِنَاءَ بيننا. فيَلْزَمُ الآخَرَ إجَابَتُه؛ لأنَّه لا يَمْلِكُ إِبْطَالَ رُسُومِه وانْتِفَاعِه بِبنَائِه. وإن لم يُرِد الانْتِفَاعَ به، فطَالَبَهُ البَانِي بالغَرَامَةِ أو القِيمَةِ، لم يَلْزَمْهُ ذلك؛ لأنَّه إذا لم يُجْبَرْ على البِنَاءِ، فأَوْلَى أن لا يُجْبَرَ على الغَرَامَةِ، إلَّا أن يكونَ قد أَذِنَ في البِنَاءِ والإِنْفَاقِ، فيَلْزَمُه ما أَذِنَ فيه. فأمَّا على الرِّوَايَةِ الأُولَى، فمتى امْتَنَعَ أجْبَرَهُ الحاكِمُ على ذلك، فإن لم يَفْعَلْ، أخَذَ الحاكِمُ من مَالِه وأنْفَقَ عليه. وإن لم يكُنْ له مَالٌ، فأَنْفقَ عليه الشَّرِيكُ بإِذْنِ الحاكِمِ، أو إِذْنِ الشَّرِيكِ، رَجَعَ عليه متى قَدَرَ. وإن أرَادَ بِنَاءَهُ، لم يَمْلِك الشَّرِيكُ مَنْعَهُ. وما أَنْفَقَ؛ إن تَبَرَّعَ به لم يكُنْ له الرُّجُوعُ به، وإن نَوَى الرُّجُوعَ به، فهل له الرُّجُوعُ بذلك؟ يَحْتَمِلُ وَجْهَيْنِ، بنَاءً على ما إذا قَضَى دَيْنَه بغيرِ إذْنِه. وإن بَنَاهُ لِنَفْسِه بآلَتِه، فهو بينهما. وإن بَنَاهُ بآلَةٍ من عنده، فهو له خَاصَّةً. فإن أرَادَ نَقْضه (٢٢)، فله ذلك، إلَّا أن يَدْفَعَ إليه شَرِيكُه نِصْفَ قِيمَتِه، فلا يكونُ له نَقْضُه؛ لأنَّه إذا أُجْبِرَ على بِنَائِه، فأَوْلَى أن يُجْبَرَ على إِبْقَائِه.
فصل: فإن لم يكُنْ بين مِلْكَيْهِما حَائِطٌ قَدِيمٌ، فطَلَبَ أحَدُهما من الآخَرِ مُبَانَاتَه حَائِطًا يَحْجِزُ بين مِلْكَيْهما، فامْتَنَعَ، لم يُجْبَرْ عليه. رِوَايَةً واحِدَةً. وإن أرَادَ البِنَاءَ وَحْدَه، لم يكُنْ له البِنَاءُ إلَّا في مِلْكِه خَاصَّةً؛ لأنَّه لا يَمْلِكُ التَّصَرُّفَ في مِلْكِ جَارِه المُخْتَصِّ به، ولا في المِلْكِ المُشْتَرَكِ بغيرِ مالَه فيه رَسْمٌ، وهذا لا رَسْمَ له. ولا أعْلَمُ في هذا خِلَافًا.
(٢٢) في الأصل: "قلعه".
