Bava Metzia 101

חוץ מן ההוצאה

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

שטף נהר זיתיו אמר עולא אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנעקרו בגושיהן ולאחר שלש

§ The mishna teaches: In the event that a river swept away one’s 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’s land.

אבל בתוך שלש הכל של בעל הזיתים דאמר ליה אי את נטעת בתוך שלש מי הוה אכלת

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.

ולימא ליה אי אנא נטעי לאחר שלש הוה אכילנא ליה כוליה השתא קאכלת פלגא בהדאי

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.

אלא כי אתא רבין אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנעקרו בגושיהן ובתוך שלש אבל לאחר שלש הכל לבעל הקרקע דאמר ליה אי אנא נטעי לאחר שלש מי לא הוה אכילנא ליה כוליה

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?

ולימא ליה אי את נטעת בתוך שלש לא הוה אכלת השתא קא אכלת פלגא בהדאי משום דאמר ליה אי אנא נטעי הוה קטיני וזרענא תחותייהו סילקא וירקא

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.

תנא אמר הלה זיתיי אני נוטל אין שומעין לו מאי טעמא אמר רבי יוחנן משום ישוב ארץ ישראל אמר רבי ירמיה כגון דא צריכא רבה

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.

תנן התם רבי יהודה אומר המקבל שדה אבותיו מן הנכרי מעשר ונותן לו

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.

סברוה מאי שדה אבותיו ארץ ישראל ואמאי קרו לה שדה אבותיו שדה אברהם יצחק ויעקב

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.

וקסבר אין קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר

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’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not abrogate its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce.

ומקבל כחוכר דמי מה חוכר בין עבד ובין לא עבד בעי עשורי ומיתן ליה דכי פורע חובתו דמי אף מקבל נמי כי פורע חובתו דמי מעשר ונותן לו

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.

אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב פפי ואמרי לה לרב זביד אלא הא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר המקבל שדה אבותיו ממציק נכרי מעשר ונותן לו מאי איריא מציק אפילו אין מציק נמי

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’ 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.

אלא לעולם יש קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר ומקבל לאו כחוכר דמי

Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that a gentile’s 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’s 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.

ומאי שדה אבותיו שדה אבותיו ממש ולדידיה הוא דקנסוה רבנן דאיידי דחביבא עליה טפי ואזיל מקבל לה אבל איניש דעלמא לא

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’ 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.

ולדידיה מאי טעמא קנסוה רבנן אמר רבי יוחנן כדי שתהא ברה בידו

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 Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רבי ירמיה כגון דא צריכא רבה

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

איתמר היורד לתוך שדה חבירו ונטעה שלא ברשות אמר רב שמין לו וידו על התחתונה ושמואל אמר אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשדה זו לנוטעה

§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s 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’s 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.

אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי כאן בשדה העשויה ליטע כאן בשדה שאינה עשויה ליטע

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

והא דרב לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרב אמר ליה זיל שום ליה אמר ליה לא בעינא אמר ליה זיל שום ליה וידו על התחתונה אמר ליה לא בעינא

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’s 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.

לסוף חזייה דגדרה וקא מנטר לה אמר ליה גלית אדעתיך דניחא לך זיל שום ליה וידו על העליונה

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.

איתמר היורד לתוך חורבתו של חבירו ובנאה שלא ברשותו ואמר לו עציי ואבניי אני נוטל רב נחמן אמר שומעין לו רב ששת אמר אין שומעין לו

§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s ruin and built it up using his own materials but without the landowner’s permission, and then later, the builder said to the landowner: I will dismantle the structure and take my timber and my stones back. Rav Naḥman 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.

מיתיבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בית שמאי אומרים שומעין לו ובית הלל אומרים אין שומעין לו לימא רב נחמן דאמר כבית שמאי

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Naḥman’s 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 Naḥman 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.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שומעין לו דברי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בית שמאי אומרים שומעין לו ובית הלל אומרים אין שומעין לו

The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman 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.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן

The Gemara inquires: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

בבית שומעין לו בשדה אין שומעין לו

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.

בשדה מאי טעמא משום ישוב ארץ ישראל איכא דאמרי משום כחשא דארעא מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו חוצה לארץ

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.

מתני׳ המשכיר בית לחבירו בימות הגשמים אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג ועד הפסח בימות החמה שלשים יום ובכרכים אחד ימות החמה ואחד ימות הגשמים שנים עשר חדש ובחנויות אחד עיירות ואחד כרכים שנים עשר חדש רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר חנות של נחתומים ושל צבעים שלש שנים

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’ 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’ notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months’ notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice.

גמ׳ מאי שנא ימות הגשמים דכי אגר איניש ביתא בימות הגשמים אגר לכולהו ימות הגשמים ימות החמה נמי דכי אגר איניש ביתא לכולהו ימות החמה אגר אלא בימות הגשמים היינו טעמא דלא שכיח ביתא למיגר

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.

אימא סיפא בכרכים אחד ימות החמה ואחד ימות הגשמים שנים עשר חדש ואילו מלו ליה יומי שכירות בימות הגשמים מפיק ליה ואמאי הא לא שכיח ביתא למיגר

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’ 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?

אמר רב יהודה להודיע קתני והכי קאמר המשכיר בית לחבירו סתם אין יכול להוציאו בימות הגשמים מחג ועד הפסח אלא אם כן הודיעו שלשים יום מעיקרא

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.

תניא נמי הכי כשאמרו שלשים וכשאמרו שנים עשר חדש לא אמרו אלא להודיעו וכשם שמשכיר צריך להודיע כך שוכר צריך להודיע דאמר ליה אי אודעתן הוה טרחנא ומותיבנא ביה איניש מעליא

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.

אמר רב אסי אם נכנס יום אחד בימות הגשמים אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג עד הפסח והא אנן שלשים יום קאמר הכי קאמר אם נכנס יום אחד בימות הגשמים מהני שלשים יום אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג ועד הפסח

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’t we say that he must be given thirty days’ notice? Rav Asi’s 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.

אמר רב הונא ואם בא לרבות בדמיה מרבה אמר ליה רב נחמן האי לנקטיה בכובסיה דלשבקיה לגלימא לא צריכא דאייקור בתי

Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Naḥman 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’ notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna’s 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.

פשיטא נפל ליה ביתא אמר ליה לא עדיפת מינאי

§ 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.

זבניה או אורתיה או יהביה במתנה אמר ליה לא עדיפת מגברא דאתית מיניה

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.

כלליה לבריה חזינן אי הוה אפשר לאודועיה איבעי ליה לאודועי ואי לא אמר ליה לא עדיפת מינאי

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.

ההוא גברא דזבן ארבא דחמרא לא אשכח דוכתא לאותוביה אמר ליה לההיא איתתא אית לך דוכתא לאוגרי אמרה ליה לא אזל קדשה יהבה ליה דוכתא לעייליה אזל לביתיה כתב לה גיטא שדר לה אזלא איהי אגרא שקולאי מיניה וביה אפיקתיה ואותביה בשבילא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו גמולו ישוב בראשו

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.

לא מיבעיא חצר דלא קיימא לאגרא אלא אפילו חצר דקיימא לאגרא אמרה ליה לכולי עלמא ניחא לי לאוגורי ולך לא ניחא לי דדמית עלי כי אריא ארבא

The Gemara explains Rav Huna’s 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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר של נחתומים ושל צבעין שלש שנים תנא מפני שהקיפן מרובה

§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ 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.

מתני׳ המשכיר בית לחבירו המשכיר חייב בדלת בנגר ובמנעול ובכל דבר שמעשה אומן אבל דבר שאינו מעשה אומן השוכר עושהו

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.

הזבל של בעל הבית ואין לשוכר אלא היוצא מן התנור ומן הכירים בלבד

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן המשכיר בית לחבירו משכיר חייב להעמיד לו דלתות לפתוח לו חלונות לחזק לו תקרה לסמוך לו קורה ושוכר חייב לעשות לו סולם לעשות לו מעקה לעשות לו מרזב ולהטיח את גגו

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.

בעו מיניה מרב ששת מזוזה על מי מזוזה האמר רב משרשיא מזוזה חובת הדר היא אלא מקום מזוזה על מי

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’t 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?

אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה דבר שאין מעשה אומן השוכר עושהו והאי נמי לאו מעשה אומן הוא אפשר הוא

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