Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 5, 2017 | 讝壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 101

Cases are brought where a tree belongs to one person and the land to another. 聽In what situations do we assume the fruits belong exclusively to one of them and in which cases do we split them 50/50? 聽If a tree got uprooted by a river and placed in someone else’s field, can the owner take it back? 聽What if someone planted a tree in someone’s property without the owner’s knowledge? 聽Does he receive payment for it and how much? 聽Would the law be the same for a house that one built in someone else’s ruin without the property owner’s knowledge? 聽How much notice does a landlord need to give the renter that he wants him to move out? 聽The amount depends on what season he rented it for (depends on supply), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence and what type of store it was. 聽What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讛讜爪讗讛

 

is exclusive of the expense of processing the olives to produce oil.

 

砖讟祝 谞讛专 讝讬转讬讜 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞注拽专讜 讘讙讜砖讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专 砖诇砖

 

搂 The mishna teaches: In the event that a river swept away one鈥檚 olive trees and deposited them in the field of another, and they took root there and yielded olives, then the olives are divided between the owner of the trees and the owner of the field. Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew; and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew after three years since the trees took root in the new field. After three years there is no longer any prohibition of orla (see Leviticus 19:23) on the olives even if one presumes that the olives were nourished from the field owner鈥檚 land.

 

讗讘诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讛讻诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讝讬转讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 谞讟注转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗讻诇转

 

But during the first three years after the trees took root in the new field, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the olive trees, as he can say to the owner of the field: Even if you had planted the trees yourself at the time that they took root in your field, would you have eaten the olives during the first three years? If you claim that the nourishment from your land yielded the olives, the olives will be prohibited as orla. The only reason for them to be permitted is if it is assumed that they were nourished only from the clods of earth in which they were initially planted over three years ago, in which case they should belong entirely to me, as the owner of both the trees and the clods.

 

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗讻诇转 驻诇讙讗 讘讛讚讗讬

 

The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the field say to him: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years I could have consumed all of the olives yielded by them. Now that I let your trees remain and so you have a right to consume half with me, in return I should be entitled to half the yield during the first three years as well.

 

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞注拽专讜 讘讙讜砖讬讛谉 讜讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛

 

The Gemara suggests another interpretation: Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Reish Lakish: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew, and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew during the first three years since the trees took root in the new field. But after the first three years, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the land, as he can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years, could I not have consumed all of the olives produced by them?

 

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 谞讟注转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻诇转 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讗讻诇转 驻诇讙讗 讘讛讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 讛讜讛 拽讟讬谞讬 讜讝专注谞讗 转讞讜转讬讬讛讜 住讬诇拽讗 讜讬专拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the trees say to him: Even if you had planted trees yourself at the time my trees took root in your field, then during the first three years you would not have consumed their fruit at all. How, then, can you come now and claim you are entitled to consume half of the olives together with me during those first three years? The Gemara answers: He has a right to demand half of the olives due to the fact that the owner of the field can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, they would be slender plants that do not cast heavy shadows, and I would have planted chard [silka] and vegetables underneath the trees and made a significant profit. Since, instead, I let your trees remain, in return I should be entitled to half of the fruit during the first three years.

 

转谞讗 讗诪专 讛诇讛 讝讬转讬讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗 爪专讬讻讗 专讘讛

 

搂 The Sages taught in a baraita: If the other one, the owner of the trees, said: I am uprooting and taking my olive trees back, the court does not listen to him. What is the reason? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage explain it, as that reason is not self-evident.

 

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

 

We learned in a mishna there (Demai 6:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors from a gentile under a sharecropping agreement, i.e., he is granted the right to cultivate the land and keep its produce in return for giving a portion of the produce to the gentile owner, must first tithe the produce grown in that field and only then give the gentile his portion from among the tithed produce.

 

住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 砖讚讛 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘

 

Initially, when the Sages studied this mishna, they assumed the following interpretation: What is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is a reference to any field in Eretz Yisrael. And why did they call it: A field of his ancestors? Because it is a field of his forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

讜拽住讘专 讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专

 

According to this interpretation, the mishna is referring to a field which was legitimately acquired by the gentile and to which the Jew has no claim. The Gemara explains why the Jewish sharecropper is required to tithe the produce he will give the landowner: And the reason the sharecropper tithes that produce is that the tanna holds that a gentile鈥檚 acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not abrogate its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce.

 

讜诪拽讘诇 讻讞讜讻专 讚诪讬 诪讛 讞讜讻专 讘讬谉 注讘讚 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚 讘注讬 注砖讜专讬 讜诪讬转谉 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 驻讜专注 讞讜讘转讜 讚诪讬 讗祝 诪拽讘诇 谞诪讬 讻讬 驻讜专注 讞讜讘转讜 讚诪讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

 

And Rabbi Yehuda also holds that the obligation of one who receives a field of his ancestors, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is like that of a tenant farmer, i.e., just as a tenant farmer, whether the field produces a crop or whether it does not produce a crop, is required to procure produce from somewhere, tithe it, and then give it to the landowner, as he is like one paying his debt, so too, one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, is also is like one paying his debt, and he must consequently first tithe the produce and then give it to the landowner. Since his obligation to the landowner is regarded as a debt, apparently before the produce is given to the landowner, it belongs to the tenant farmer or sharecropper, who is therefore required to tithe it.

 

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪诪爪讬拽 谞讻专讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪爪讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讬拽 谞诪讬

 

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappi, and some say that he said it to Rav Zevid: But this explanation is challenged by that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors under a sharecropping agreement, from a gentile oppressor who seized it, first tithes produce and then gives the gentile his portion. According to the Sages鈥 initial understanding, why does the baraita specifically refer to an oppressor who stole the land? Even if the gentile was not an oppressor, the ruling of the baraita would also apply.

 

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专 讜诪拽讘诇 诇讗讜 讻讞讜讻专 讚诪讬

 

Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that a gentile鈥檚 acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael abrogates its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce, and he also holds that the obligation of one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is not like that of a tenant farmer. Since under the sharecropping arrangement the landowner retains a percentage stake in the yield, when the sharecropper provides the landowner with a portion of the produce, he is not considered to be paying a debt to him, but simply to be providing the landowner with the latter鈥檚 own produce. Therefore, fundamentally the sharecropper should not have to tithe the produce before giving it to the landowner. The requirement to do so is a fine the Sages imposed upon him, as the Gemara will explain.

 

讜诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪诪砖 讜诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讜讗讝讬诇 诪拽讘诇 诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗

 

And, according to this explanation, what is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is referring to a field that belonged to his actual ancestors, of whom he is their heir, and it was then seized by a gentile. And it is only him whom the Sages penalized and required to take tithes from produce before giving it to the gentile oppressor, as, since the land is dear to him, he will more readily go and receive it in a sharecropping arrangement from the gentile, despite the Sages鈥 requirement. But with regard to another person of the world at large, the Sages did not penalize him, as no one else would be willing to receive the land under such disadvantageous terms.

 

讜诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘专讛 讘讬讚讜

 

This explains why the Sages limited the fine to a person who has an ancestral claim to the field, but what is the reason that the Sages penalized him? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It was in order to encourage him to purchase the field, so that it will be clearly in his possession. The disadvantageous conditions will make it preferable for him to purchase the land outright from the gentile instead of entering into a sharecropping arrangement with him.

 

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗 爪专讬讻讗 专讘讛

 

Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage to explain it.

 

讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讟注讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘砖讚讛 讝讜 诇谞讜讟注讛

 

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another鈥檚 field and planted trees in it without the permission of the owner of the field. Since the owner of the field profits from the planter鈥檚 actions, he is required to pay him. Rav says: The court appraises both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements and the planter is at a disadvantage, i.e., the owner of the field pays the lesser of the two amounts. And Shmuel says: The court estimates how much a person would be willing to give for someone to plant trees in this field, and that is how much the owner of the field must pay.

 

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讬讟注 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬讟注

 

Rav Pappa said: And Rav and Shmuel do not disagree. Here, Shmuel鈥檚 ruling is with regard to a field that is designated for planting, while there, Rav鈥檚 ruling is with regard to a field that is not designated for planting.

 

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗

 

The Gemara notes: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated implicitly. As there was a certain person who came before Rav after someone had planted trees in that person鈥檚 field. Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements. The owner of the field said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he is at a disadvantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him only the lesser of the two amounts. The owner of the field again said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav did not persist with his ruling, indicating that he conceded that the owner of the field was not obligated to pay.

 

诇住讜祝 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讙讚专讛 讜拽讗 诪谞讟专 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讬讱 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

 

Eventually, Rav saw that the owner of the field had fenced in the field and was safeguarding the trees. Rav said to him: By doing so you have demonstrated your opinion that having those trees in your field is satisfactory to you. Therefore, I rule that you should go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he has the advantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him the greater of the two amounts.

 

讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 讞讜专讘转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘谞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注爪讬讬 讜讗讘谞讬讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another鈥檚 ruin and built it up using his own materials but without the landowner鈥檚 permission, and then later, the builder said to the landowner: I will dismantle the structure and take my timber and my stones back. Rav Na岣an says: The court listens to him and he is allowed to do so. Rav Sheshet says: The court does not listen to him and he is not allowed to do so.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

 

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:6) about the same case: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? That is untenable, as this is not listed as one of the specific exceptions to the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

 

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: According to both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the court listens to him; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him.

 

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

 

The Gemara inquires: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

 

讘讘讬转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

In the case of a house, the court listens to him, but in the case of a field, the court does not listen to him.

 

讘砖讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讞砖讗 讚讗专注讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

 

The Gemara asks: In the case of a field, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? It is that due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. There are those who say that it is for a different reason: It is due to the weakening of the land already caused by the tree roots, as it made the land unsuitable for other uses. Therefore, the owner of the trees may not just take them and leave the land in its worsened condition. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these reasons? The practical difference between them is whether outside of Eretz Yisrael, the one who planted the trees may uproot them.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讘讞谞讜讬讜转 讗讞讚 注讬讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 讻专讻讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬诐 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬诐 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

 

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents out a house in a town to another in the rainy season, the owner cannot evict the renter from the house from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. If the rental was in the summer, he must give thirty days鈥 notice before he can evict him. And for a house located in the cities [uvakerakim], both in the summer and in the rainy season he must give twelve months鈥 notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months鈥 notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker鈥檚 shop or a dyer鈥檚 shop, one must give three years鈥 notice.

 

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻讬 讗讙专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬转讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讙专 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讗讙专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬转讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讙专 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讙专

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different about the rainy season that one cannot evict his renter? The Gemara suggests: Because when a person rents a house during the rainy season, it is presumed that he rents it for the entire rainy season. The Gemara challenges this: But in the summer as well, the same halakha should apply, because when a person rents a house, he rents it for the entire summer. The Gemara offers a different explanation: Rather, in the rainy season, this is the reason that he cannot evict him: It is because at that time, houses for renting are not found on the market. Since alternative housing is not available, even if he is renting the house month by month, one cannot evict him.

 

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讜 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讬 砖讻讬专讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讙专

 

The Gemara asks: If that is the reason for the first clause of the mishna, say and try to explain accordingly the latter clause that states: And for a house located in the cities, both in the summer and in the rainy season, one must give twelve months鈥 notice. It arises from this ruling that if the twelve month rental period would be completed during the rainy season, he could evict him then. But why is this acceptable, given that houses for renting are not found on the market at that time?

 

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛讜讚讬注 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 住转诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讚讬注讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗

 

Given this difficulty, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of the mishna: Rav Yehuda said: The mishna teaches about the requirement to give notice before eviction, and this is what it is saying: Although in general in a case of one who rents out a house to another without specification of when the rental period will end, both the landlord and the renter can end the rental whenever they so decide, the landlord cannot evict the renter during the rainy season, i.e., from the festival of Sukkot until Passover, unless he gives him notice of thirty days from the outset, i.e., before the rainy season begins. Since it would still be summer, it would be possible for the renter to find alternate housing. But if a fixed rental period was agreed upon, the renter may be evicted upon its completion without prior notice.

 

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讜 讜讻砖诐 砖诪砖讻讬专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讻讱 砖讜讻专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讜讚注转谉 讛讜讛 讟专讞谞讗 讜诪讜转讬讘谞讗 讘讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 诪注诇讬讗

 

This is also taught in a baraita: When they said, in the mishna: Thirty days, and when they said: Twelve months, they said it only with regard to the requirement to give notice before eviction. And just as a landlord needs to give notice to his renter before he evicts him, so too a renter needs to give notice to his landlord before he can terminate the rental. The Gemara explains why the renter must give notice: As the landlord can say to him: Had you given me notice, I would have exerted myself to find and settle a respectable person in my house.

 

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诐 谞讻谞住 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 注讚 讛驻住讞 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 谞讻谞住 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讛谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞

 

Rav Asi says: If one day of the rental enters into the rainy season without notice being given, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. The Gemara challenges this: But didn鈥檛 we say that he must be given thirty days鈥 notice? Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling indicates that if notice was given even a day before Sukkot, that would be sufficient. The Gemara explains: This is what Rav Asi is saying: If one day of these thirty days of notice enters into the rainy season without notice being given, i.e., if notice was given fewer than thirty days before Sukkot, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover.

 

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇专讘讜转 讘讚诪讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诇谞拽讟讬讛 讘讻讜讘住讬讛 讚诇砖讘拽讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽讜专 讘转讬

 

Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Na岣an said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days鈥 notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.

 

驻砖讬讟讗 谞驻诇 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

 

搂 It is obvious that if the house in which the landlord lives fell down, then he can evict his renter from the house that he is renting to him, without giving notice, as he can say to him: You are no better than me. Since the landlord needs to find a new house to live in, he can demand that he should move into his rental property and it should be his renter who must look for new housing. He cannot be expected to have given notice, as he could not have foreseen that his house would fall down.

 

讝讘谞讬讛 讗讜 讗讜专转讬讛 讗讜 讬讛讘讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讙讘专讗 讚讗转讬转 诪讬谞讬讛

 

If a landlord sold the rental property to another, or bequeathed it to his heirs, or gave it to another person as a gift, the renter can say to the new owner: You are no better than the person from whom your ownership of the property came. Since he was required to give me notice before evicting me, so must you.

 

讻诇诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

 

If a landlord marries off his son, and wishes to evict his current renter to provide a home for the newly married couple, then we see: If it was possible for him to have given notice, as the couple had already been engaged for some time, then he is required to give notice and cannot evict his renter otherwise, but if it was not possible to give timely notice, then he can say to his renter: You are no better than me and my needs. I need the property now for my son, so it should be you who should go and find alternate housing.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谉 讗专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞 讚讜讻转讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讚讜讻转讗 诇讗讜讙专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诇 拽讚砖讛 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讚讜讻转讗 诇注讬讬诇讬讛 讗讝诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 砖讚专 诇讛 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 讗讙专讗 砖拽讜诇讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讙诪讜诇讜 讬砖讜讘 讘专讗砖讜

 

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.

 

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞爪专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讜诇讱 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讚诪讬转 注诇讬 讻讬 讗专讬讗 讗专讘讗

 

The Gemara explains Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling: It is not necessary to state that the woman is entitled to evict the man if the place she rented out to him was a courtyard that did not stand to be rented out, in which case she is not expected to rent it to anyone; rather, even if it was a courtyard that stands to be rented out, she could say to him: It is amenable for me to rent the place to everyone else, but it is not amenable to me to rent it to you, as you are to me like a preying lion. Since you deceived me, I do not wish to have any dealings with you.

 

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬诐 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讬驻谉 诪专讜讘讛

 

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker鈥檚 shop or a dyer鈥檚 shop, one must give three years鈥 notice. It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:27): The need for this unusually long period of notice is due to the fact that the length of the credit extended by these businesses to their customers is extensive. They must be provided with enough time to collect their debts before being forced to relocate.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛诪砖讻讬专 讞讬讬讘 讘讚诇转 讘谞讙专 讜讘诪谞注讜诇 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛砖讜讻专 注讜砖讛讜

 

MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it.

 

讛讝讘诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 诇砖讜讻专 讗诇讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讜诪谉 讛讻讬专讬诐 讘诇讘讚

 

The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.

 

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讻讬专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讚诇转讜转 诇驻转讜讞 诇讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇讞讝拽 诇讜 转拽专讛 诇住诪讜讱 诇讜 拽讜专讛 讜砖讜讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜诇诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 诪注拽讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 诪专讝讘 讜诇讛讟讬讞 讗转 讙讙讜

 

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility to install doors for it, to open windows in its walls to provide light for it, to strengthen its ceiling, and to support its cross beam. And the renter bears the responsibility to make a ladder for it to provide access to the roof, to erect a parapet for its roof (see Deuteronomy 22:8), to construct a gutter for it to carry away rain which falls on the roof, and to plaster its roof so that rain does not leak through it.

 

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 诪讬 诪讝讜讝讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜讘转 讛讚专 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 诪讬

 

The students in the study hall raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: Upon whom is the obligation to affix a mezuza (see Deuteronomy 6:9)? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: Why did they ask about a mezuza; doesn鈥檛 Rav Mesharshiyya say: Affixing a mezuza is the obligation of the resident? It is certainly the responsibility of the renter. The Gemara emends the dilemma: Rather, their dilemma was: Upon whom is the responsibility to prepare the place where the mezuza will be affixed, e.g., to bore a slit in a stone doorpost to insert the mezuza there?

 

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛砖讜讻专 注讜砖讛讜 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗驻砖专 讛讜讗

 

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned this in the mishna: With regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. And this task is also something that does not require the work of a craftsman, as it is possible

 

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 101: Uprooted Trees and Evicted Homes

The daf discusses the ownership of a tree that is uprooted and lands on someone else鈥檚 property. How much notice...

Bava Metzia 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 101

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讛讜爪讗讛

 

is exclusive of the expense of processing the olives to produce oil.

 

砖讟祝 谞讛专 讝讬转讬讜 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞注拽专讜 讘讙讜砖讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专 砖诇砖

 

搂 The mishna teaches: In the event that a river swept away one鈥檚 olive trees and deposited them in the field of another, and they took root there and yielded olives, then the olives are divided between the owner of the trees and the owner of the field. Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew; and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew after three years since the trees took root in the new field. After three years there is no longer any prohibition of orla (see Leviticus 19:23) on the olives even if one presumes that the olives were nourished from the field owner鈥檚 land.

 

讗讘诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讛讻诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讝讬转讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 谞讟注转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗讻诇转

 

But during the first three years after the trees took root in the new field, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the olive trees, as he can say to the owner of the field: Even if you had planted the trees yourself at the time that they took root in your field, would you have eaten the olives during the first three years? If you claim that the nourishment from your land yielded the olives, the olives will be prohibited as orla. The only reason for them to be permitted is if it is assumed that they were nourished only from the clods of earth in which they were initially planted over three years ago, in which case they should belong entirely to me, as the owner of both the trees and the clods.

 

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗讻诇转 驻诇讙讗 讘讛讚讗讬

 

The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the field say to him: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years I could have consumed all of the olives yielded by them. Now that I let your trees remain and so you have a right to consume half with me, in return I should be entitled to half the yield during the first three years as well.

 

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞注拽专讜 讘讙讜砖讬讛谉 讜讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讻诇 诇讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛

 

The Gemara suggests another interpretation: Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Reish Lakish: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew, and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew during the first three years since the trees took root in the new field. But after the first three years, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the land, as he can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years, could I not have consumed all of the olives produced by them?

 

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转 谞讟注转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻诇转 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讗讻诇转 驻诇讙讗 讘讛讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞讗 谞讟注讬 讛讜讛 拽讟讬谞讬 讜讝专注谞讗 转讞讜转讬讬讛讜 住讬诇拽讗 讜讬专拽讗

 

The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the trees say to him: Even if you had planted trees yourself at the time my trees took root in your field, then during the first three years you would not have consumed their fruit at all. How, then, can you come now and claim you are entitled to consume half of the olives together with me during those first three years? The Gemara answers: He has a right to demand half of the olives due to the fact that the owner of the field can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, they would be slender plants that do not cast heavy shadows, and I would have planted chard [silka] and vegetables underneath the trees and made a significant profit. Since, instead, I let your trees remain, in return I should be entitled to half of the fruit during the first three years.

 

转谞讗 讗诪专 讛诇讛 讝讬转讬讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗 爪专讬讻讗 专讘讛

 

搂 The Sages taught in a baraita: If the other one, the owner of the trees, said: I am uprooting and taking my olive trees back, the court does not listen to him. What is the reason? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage explain it, as that reason is not self-evident.

 

转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

 

We learned in a mishna there (Demai 6:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors from a gentile under a sharecropping agreement, i.e., he is granted the right to cultivate the land and keep its produce in return for giving a portion of the produce to the gentile owner, must first tithe the produce grown in that field and only then give the gentile his portion from among the tithed produce.

 

住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 砖讚讛 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘

 

Initially, when the Sages studied this mishna, they assumed the following interpretation: What is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is a reference to any field in Eretz Yisrael. And why did they call it: A field of his ancestors? Because it is a field of his forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

讜拽住讘专 讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专

 

According to this interpretation, the mishna is referring to a field which was legitimately acquired by the gentile and to which the Jew has no claim. The Gemara explains why the Jewish sharecropper is required to tithe the produce he will give the landowner: And the reason the sharecropper tithes that produce is that the tanna holds that a gentile鈥檚 acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not abrogate its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce.

 

讜诪拽讘诇 讻讞讜讻专 讚诪讬 诪讛 讞讜讻专 讘讬谉 注讘讚 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚 讘注讬 注砖讜专讬 讜诪讬转谉 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 驻讜专注 讞讜讘转讜 讚诪讬 讗祝 诪拽讘诇 谞诪讬 讻讬 驻讜专注 讞讜讘转讜 讚诪讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

 

And Rabbi Yehuda also holds that the obligation of one who receives a field of his ancestors, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is like that of a tenant farmer, i.e., just as a tenant farmer, whether the field produces a crop or whether it does not produce a crop, is required to procure produce from somewhere, tithe it, and then give it to the landowner, as he is like one paying his debt, so too, one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, is also is like one paying his debt, and he must consequently first tithe the produce and then give it to the landowner. Since his obligation to the landowner is regarded as a debt, apparently before the produce is given to the landowner, it belongs to the tenant farmer or sharecropper, who is therefore required to tithe it.

 

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪诪爪讬拽 谞讻专讬 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪爪讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讬拽 谞诪讬

 

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappi, and some say that he said it to Rav Zevid: But this explanation is challenged by that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors under a sharecropping agreement, from a gentile oppressor who seized it, first tithes produce and then gives the gentile his portion. According to the Sages鈥 initial understanding, why does the baraita specifically refer to an oppressor who stole the land? Even if the gentile was not an oppressor, the ruling of the baraita would also apply.

 

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专 讜诪拽讘诇 诇讗讜 讻讞讜讻专 讚诪讬

 

Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that a gentile鈥檚 acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael abrogates its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce, and he also holds that the obligation of one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is not like that of a tenant farmer. Since under the sharecropping arrangement the landowner retains a percentage stake in the yield, when the sharecropper provides the landowner with a portion of the produce, he is not considered to be paying a debt to him, but simply to be providing the landowner with the latter鈥檚 own produce. Therefore, fundamentally the sharecropper should not have to tithe the produce before giving it to the landowner. The requirement to do so is a fine the Sages imposed upon him, as the Gemara will explain.

 

讜诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 砖讚讛 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪诪砖 讜诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讜讗讝讬诇 诪拽讘诇 诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗

 

And, according to this explanation, what is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is referring to a field that belonged to his actual ancestors, of whom he is their heir, and it was then seized by a gentile. And it is only him whom the Sages penalized and required to take tithes from produce before giving it to the gentile oppressor, as, since the land is dear to him, he will more readily go and receive it in a sharecropping arrangement from the gentile, despite the Sages鈥 requirement. But with regard to another person of the world at large, the Sages did not penalize him, as no one else would be willing to receive the land under such disadvantageous terms.

 

讜诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽谞住讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘专讛 讘讬讚讜

 

This explains why the Sages limited the fine to a person who has an ancestral claim to the field, but what is the reason that the Sages penalized him? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It was in order to encourage him to purchase the field, so that it will be clearly in his possession. The disadvantageous conditions will make it preferable for him to purchase the land outright from the gentile instead of entering into a sharecropping arrangement with him.

 

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗 爪专讬讻讗 专讘讛

 

Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage to explain it.

 

讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讟注讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘砖讚讛 讝讜 诇谞讜讟注讛

 

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another鈥檚 field and planted trees in it without the permission of the owner of the field. Since the owner of the field profits from the planter鈥檚 actions, he is required to pay him. Rav says: The court appraises both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements and the planter is at a disadvantage, i.e., the owner of the field pays the lesser of the two amounts. And Shmuel says: The court estimates how much a person would be willing to give for someone to plant trees in this field, and that is how much the owner of the field must pay.

 

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讬讟注 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬讟注

 

Rav Pappa said: And Rav and Shmuel do not disagree. Here, Shmuel鈥檚 ruling is with regard to a field that is designated for planting, while there, Rav鈥檚 ruling is with regard to a field that is not designated for planting.

 

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗

 

The Gemara notes: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated implicitly. As there was a certain person who came before Rav after someone had planted trees in that person鈥檚 field. Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements. The owner of the field said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he is at a disadvantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him only the lesser of the two amounts. The owner of the field again said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav did not persist with his ruling, indicating that he conceded that the owner of the field was not obligated to pay.

 

诇住讜祝 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讙讚专讛 讜拽讗 诪谞讟专 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讬讱 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讝讬诇 砖讜诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

 

Eventually, Rav saw that the owner of the field had fenced in the field and was safeguarding the trees. Rav said to him: By doing so you have demonstrated your opinion that having those trees in your field is satisfactory to you. Therefore, I rule that you should go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he has the advantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him the greater of the two amounts.

 

讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 讞讜专讘转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘谞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 注爪讬讬 讜讗讘谞讬讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another鈥檚 ruin and built it up using his own materials but without the landowner鈥檚 permission, and then later, the builder said to the landowner: I will dismantle the structure and take my timber and my stones back. Rav Na岣an says: The court listens to him and he is allowed to do so. Rav Sheshet says: The court does not listen to him and he is not allowed to do so.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

 

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:6) about the same case: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? That is untenable, as this is not listed as one of the specific exceptions to the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

 

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: According to both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the court listens to him; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him.

 

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

 

The Gemara inquires: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

 

讘讘讬转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

 

In the case of a house, the court listens to him, but in the case of a field, the court does not listen to him.

 

讘砖讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讞砖讗 讚讗专注讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

 

The Gemara asks: In the case of a field, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? It is that due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. There are those who say that it is for a different reason: It is due to the weakening of the land already caused by the tree roots, as it made the land unsuitable for other uses. Therefore, the owner of the trees may not just take them and leave the land in its worsened condition. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these reasons? The practical difference between them is whether outside of Eretz Yisrael, the one who planted the trees may uproot them.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讘讞谞讜讬讜转 讗讞讚 注讬讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 讻专讻讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞谞讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬诐 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬诐 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

 

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents out a house in a town to another in the rainy season, the owner cannot evict the renter from the house from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. If the rental was in the summer, he must give thirty days鈥 notice before he can evict him. And for a house located in the cities [uvakerakim], both in the summer and in the rainy season he must give twelve months鈥 notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months鈥 notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker鈥檚 shop or a dyer鈥檚 shop, one must give three years鈥 notice.

 

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻讬 讗讙专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬转讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讙专 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讗讙专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬转讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讙专 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讙专

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different about the rainy season that one cannot evict his renter? The Gemara suggests: Because when a person rents a house during the rainy season, it is presumed that he rents it for the entire rainy season. The Gemara challenges this: But in the summer as well, the same halakha should apply, because when a person rents a house, he rents it for the entire summer. The Gemara offers a different explanation: Rather, in the rainy season, this is the reason that he cannot evict him: It is because at that time, houses for renting are not found on the market. Since alternative housing is not available, even if he is renting the house month by month, one cannot evict him.

 

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讻专讻讬诐 讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讜 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讬 砖讻讬专讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讘讬转讗 诇诪讬讙专

 

The Gemara asks: If that is the reason for the first clause of the mishna, say and try to explain accordingly the latter clause that states: And for a house located in the cities, both in the summer and in the rainy season, one must give twelve months鈥 notice. It arises from this ruling that if the twelve month rental period would be completed during the rainy season, he could evict him then. But why is this acceptable, given that houses for renting are not found on the market at that time?

 

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛讜讚讬注 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 住转诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讚讬注讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗

 

Given this difficulty, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of the mishna: Rav Yehuda said: The mishna teaches about the requirement to give notice before eviction, and this is what it is saying: Although in general in a case of one who rents out a house to another without specification of when the rental period will end, both the landlord and the renter can end the rental whenever they so decide, the landlord cannot evict the renter during the rainy season, i.e., from the festival of Sukkot until Passover, unless he gives him notice of thirty days from the outset, i.e., before the rainy season begins. Since it would still be summer, it would be possible for the renter to find alternate housing. But if a fixed rental period was agreed upon, the renter may be evicted upon its completion without prior notice.

 

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讜 讜讻砖诐 砖诪砖讻讬专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讻讱 砖讜讻专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讜讚注转谉 讛讜讛 讟专讞谞讗 讜诪讜转讬讘谞讗 讘讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 诪注诇讬讗

 

This is also taught in a baraita: When they said, in the mishna: Thirty days, and when they said: Twelve months, they said it only with regard to the requirement to give notice before eviction. And just as a landlord needs to give notice to his renter before he evicts him, so too a renter needs to give notice to his landlord before he can terminate the rental. The Gemara explains why the renter must give notice: As the landlord can say to him: Had you given me notice, I would have exerted myself to find and settle a respectable person in my house.

 

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诐 谞讻谞住 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 注讚 讛驻住讞 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 谞讻谞住 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讛谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讙 讜注讚 讛驻住讞

 

Rav Asi says: If one day of the rental enters into the rainy season without notice being given, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. The Gemara challenges this: But didn鈥檛 we say that he must be given thirty days鈥 notice? Rav Asi鈥檚 ruling indicates that if notice was given even a day before Sukkot, that would be sufficient. The Gemara explains: This is what Rav Asi is saying: If one day of these thirty days of notice enters into the rainy season without notice being given, i.e., if notice was given fewer than thirty days before Sukkot, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover.

 

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇专讘讜转 讘讚诪讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诇谞拽讟讬讛 讘讻讜讘住讬讛 讚诇砖讘拽讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽讜专 讘转讬

 

Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Na岣an said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days鈥 notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.

 

驻砖讬讟讗 谞驻诇 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

 

搂 It is obvious that if the house in which the landlord lives fell down, then he can evict his renter from the house that he is renting to him, without giving notice, as he can say to him: You are no better than me. Since the landlord needs to find a new house to live in, he can demand that he should move into his rental property and it should be his renter who must look for new housing. He cannot be expected to have given notice, as he could not have foreseen that his house would fall down.

 

讝讘谞讬讛 讗讜 讗讜专转讬讛 讗讜 讬讛讘讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讙讘专讗 讚讗转讬转 诪讬谞讬讛

 

If a landlord sold the rental property to another, or bequeathed it to his heirs, or gave it to another person as a gift, the renter can say to the new owner: You are no better than the person from whom your ownership of the property came. Since he was required to give me notice before evicting me, so must you.

 

讻诇诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讚讬驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

 

If a landlord marries off his son, and wishes to evict his current renter to provide a home for the newly married couple, then we see: If it was possible for him to have given notice, as the couple had already been engaged for some time, then he is required to give notice and cannot evict his renter otherwise, but if it was not possible to give timely notice, then he can say to his renter: You are no better than me and my needs. I need the property now for my son, so it should be you who should go and find alternate housing.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谉 讗专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞 讚讜讻转讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讚讜讻转讗 诇讗讜讙专讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讝诇 拽讚砖讛 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讚讜讻转讗 诇注讬讬诇讬讛 讗讝诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 砖讚专 诇讛 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 讗讙专讗 砖拽讜诇讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讙诪讜诇讜 讬砖讜讘 讘专讗砖讜

 

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.

 

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞爪专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讜诇讱 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讚诪讬转 注诇讬 讻讬 讗专讬讗 讗专讘讗

 

The Gemara explains Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling: It is not necessary to state that the woman is entitled to evict the man if the place she rented out to him was a courtyard that did not stand to be rented out, in which case she is not expected to rent it to anyone; rather, even if it was a courtyard that stands to be rented out, she could say to him: It is amenable for me to rent the place to everyone else, but it is not amenable to me to rent it to you, as you are to me like a preying lion. Since you deceived me, I do not wish to have any dealings with you.

 

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬诐 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讬驻谉 诪专讜讘讛

 

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker鈥檚 shop or a dyer鈥檚 shop, one must give three years鈥 notice. It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:27): The need for this unusually long period of notice is due to the fact that the length of the credit extended by these businesses to their customers is extensive. They must be provided with enough time to collect their debts before being forced to relocate.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛诪砖讻讬专 讞讬讬讘 讘讚诇转 讘谞讙专 讜讘诪谞注讜诇 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛砖讜讻专 注讜砖讛讜

 

MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it.

 

讛讝讘诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 诇砖讜讻专 讗诇讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讜诪谉 讛讻讬专讬诐 讘诇讘讚

 

The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.

 

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讻讬专 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讚诇转讜转 诇驻转讜讞 诇讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇讞讝拽 诇讜 转拽专讛 诇住诪讜讱 诇讜 拽讜专讛 讜砖讜讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 住讜诇诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 诪注拽讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 诪专讝讘 讜诇讛讟讬讞 讗转 讙讙讜

 

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility to install doors for it, to open windows in its walls to provide light for it, to strengthen its ceiling, and to support its cross beam. And the renter bears the responsibility to make a ladder for it to provide access to the roof, to erect a parapet for its roof (see Deuteronomy 22:8), to construct a gutter for it to carry away rain which falls on the roof, and to plaster its roof so that rain does not leak through it.

 

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 诪讬 诪讝讜讝讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜讘转 讛讚专 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 诪讬

 

The students in the study hall raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: Upon whom is the obligation to affix a mezuza (see Deuteronomy 6:9)? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: Why did they ask about a mezuza; doesn鈥檛 Rav Mesharshiyya say: Affixing a mezuza is the obligation of the resident? It is certainly the responsibility of the renter. The Gemara emends the dilemma: Rather, their dilemma was: Upon whom is the responsibility to prepare the place where the mezuza will be affixed, e.g., to bore a slit in a stone doorpost to insert the mezuza there?

 

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛砖讜讻专 注讜砖讛讜 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗驻砖专 讛讜讗

 

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned this in the mishna: With regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. And this task is also something that does not require the work of a craftsman, as it is possible

 

Scroll To Top