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

Daf Yomi

January 20, 2017 | 讻状讘 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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Metzia 116

If one seizes as collateral of any item that is used for one purpose but made up of two parts, one is obligated in two negative commandments. 聽This is learned from the verse about the millstone, which is made of two parts. 聽If one took a collateral, he needs to return it but there is a debate about whether or not he needs to then go to court to prove he is owed money for the loan or is he believed that he is at least owed the amount of the value of the item he took based on a migo- since he could have claimed that he purchased it. 聽A house that has joint ownership – one lives in the main floor and one upstairs – and it fell apart, how do they split the pieces that fell? 聽If one rents out the upstairs of his house and the floor gets ruined, who is responsible to fix聽what parts? 聽If the owner doesn’t fix his part, the renter can move in downstairs.聽Various questions are raised regarding exactly how this arrangement works out?


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

讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 砖讚讬讬讛 讗专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘

 

is superfluous and therefore includes other utensils as well. Since it is superfluous, apply it as another prohibition upon the lower and upper millstones.

 

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇讗讜 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗

 

But here, with regard to the Paschal offering, the phrase 鈥渂ut roasted with fire鈥 is not superfluous, as he requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: At the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal offering, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat of it raw, but at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal offering, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat of it raw either. Consequently, one who eats the Paschal offering at that time is not liable to receive lashes.

 

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘诇 讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讜爪诪讚 砖诇 驻专讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

 

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute concerning the lower and upper millstones. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: If one took as collateral barbers鈥 scissors [zog] or a pair of cows, he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. If he took this one blade of the pair of scissors by itself or that one cow by itself, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. According to this tanna, he is not liable for the general prohibition.

 

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讞讘诇 讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讜爪诪讚 砖诇 驻专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诪讛 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 砖讛谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

 

And it is taught in another baraita: If one took as collateral barbers鈥 scissors or a pair of cows, one might have thought that he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e may not take as collateral the lower or upper millstone,鈥 which indicates that just as the lower and upper millstones are unique in that they are two distinct vessels and they perform one task together, and nevertheless one is liable separately for this and separately for that, so too, with regard to all items that are composed of two individual vessels, such as barbers鈥 scissors or a pair of cows, and they perform one task, he is liable separately for this and separately for that.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讘诇 住讻讬谞讗 讚讗砖讻讘转讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专讬讛 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬 砖注讜砖讬诐 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讜转讗 拽讜诐 讘讚讬谞讗 注诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽诐 讘讚讬谞讗 注诇讛 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

 

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who took as collateral a slaughtering knife from another. He came before Abaye to ask him what to do. Abaye said to him: Go and return it, as it is a vessel used in the preparation of food, and it is therefore forbidden to take as collateral, and go stand in judgment, i.e., litigate with the debtor in court, concerning how much money he owes you. Rava said: He does not have to stand in judgment for this. Since the knife is in his possession, he can claim the amount of the debt up to its value.

 

讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住讘专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛谞讛讜 注讬讝讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讞讜砖诇讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗转讗 诪专讗 讚讞讜砖诇讗 讜转驻住 诇讛讜 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

 

The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept that reasoning, that one who seized an item belonging to a debtor may claim the sum owed to him up to the value of the item? In what way is it different from the incident involving those goats that ate peeled barley [岣shla] in Neharde鈥檃, and the owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats and claimed that their owner was indebted to him for a large amount, and Shmuel鈥檚 father, who acted as a judge in this case, said that he can claim a sum up to their value?

 

讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讚讗 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讜诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讜诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

 

The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, a goat is an item that is not usually lent out or rented. Consequently, the one who possesses them has a presumptive right of ownership upon which he can base his claim. Conversely, here, the slaughtering knife is an item that is usually lent out or rented. Therefore, he is not deemed credible without proof that it is his merely by virtue of its being in his possession. The Gemara supports this distinction: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent the following ruling: In a case of items that are usually lent out or rented, and one in possession of them says: They were acquired by me, he is not deemed credible by this claim alone. He must provide further proof, as he might have borrowed or rented them.

 

讜专讘讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗驻讬拽 讝讜讙讗 讚住专讘诇讗 讜住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 诪讬转诪讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬驻讙诪讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬

 

The Gemara asks: And does Rava not accept this reasoning? But didn鈥檛 Rava himself remove scissors used for wool and a scroll of aggada from the possession of orphans as items that are usually lent out or rented? The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: With regard to this slaughtering knife too, since it is likely to be damaged, people are particular and do not lend it out. Therefore, it is not considered an item that is typically lent out, and the one in possession of it can claim the money owed to him up to the value of the knife.

 

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪拽讘诇

 

MISHNA: In the case of the house and the upper story belonging to two people, i.e., the lower story was owned by one individual, while the upper story belonged to someone else, that collapsed, the two of them divide the timber and the stones and the earth of the collapsed structure. And the court considers which stones were likely to break, those of the lower or upper story, and gives those broken stones to the one who presumably owned them. If one of them recognized some of his stones he may take them for himself, and they count toward his amount of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. They do not divide the remaining stones equally.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬转 讜讛注诇讬讬讛 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘注爪讬诐 讜讘讗讘谞讬诐 讜讘注驻专 讜专讜讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讗讘谞讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讜转 诇讛砖转讘专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讻讬专 诪拽爪转 讗讘谞讬讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜注讜诇讜转 诇讜 诪谉 讛讞砖讘讜谉

 

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches that the court considers which stones were likely to break, it can be understood by inference that the case is one in which it is possible to establish with regard to the stones, by looking at the debris, how the accident occurred: Whether it fell with pressure [岣vasa], i.e., the lower story collapsed, and the upper story followed, or whether it fell with a blow, i.e., the upper story collapsed, and caused the lower story to follow suit. In the first instance, it is the stones of the lower story that were likely to break, in the latter instance, the stones of the upper story.

 

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讜讗讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讘讞讘住讗 谞驻讬诇 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 谞驻讬诇

 

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that it is possible to ascertain how the collapse occurred, then why, in the first clause of the mishna, do they divide the stones without taking the circumstances into consideration? Let us see: If the house fell with a blow, it means that the stones of the upper story broke, and the owner of the lower story takes the unbroken stones. And if it fell with pressure, it means that the stones of the lower story broke, and the owner of the upper story takes the unbroken stones.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 讗诪讗讬 讞讜诇拽讬谉 谞讞讝讬 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讬转讗 讗讬转讘讜专 讗讬 讘讞讘住讗 谞驻讬诇 转转讬讬转讗 讗讬转讘讜专

 

The Gemara rejects this analysis: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case when the house collapsed at night, and no one saw how it fell. The Gemara challenges: But in such a case, let them see the stones in the morning to ascertain how the house collapsed. The Gemara answers: The first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where they had cleared away the stones, and consequently there is no way to determine what occurred. The Gemara challenges: But even in such a case, let them see who cleared them away, and let them ask them what happened. The Gemara explains: The ruling of the first clause of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the general public cleared them away and left, so that they cannot be asked.

 

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讜诇讞讝讬谞讛讜 讘爪驻专讗 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬讞讝讬 诪讗谉 驻谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇砖讬讬诇讬讛 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗

 

The Gemara challenges: But even in such a case, let them see in whose domain the stones are situated. And once this is determined, the halakha will be that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., the owner of the stones situated in the other鈥檚 domain. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case where the stones are situated in a courtyard that belongs to both of them, or alternatively, if the stones fell into the public domain. And if you wish, say that partners in cases like this are not particular with each other about dividing the courtyard in such a way that the one cannot leave his belongings on the other鈥檚 side of the courtyard, and therefore the presence of the stones in the area of the courtyard belonging to one of them does not substantiate a claim for the stones.

 

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讘专砖讜转 讚诪讗谉 讬转讘谉 讜诇讬讛讜讬 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讬转讘谉 讘讞爪专 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬

 

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of them recognized his stones he may take them. The Gemara asks: And the other, what does he claim? If he says: Yes, they belong to the other, this halakha is obvious, so why would the mishna need to state this? And if he does not say yes, why does the one that recognizes the stones take them? What proof does he have that they are his? Rather, it must be that the other says to him: I don鈥檛 know whose stones they are, and consequently, the one who stated a definitive claim is deemed credible.

 

讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讻讬专 讻讜壮 讜讛诇讛 诪讛 讟讜注谉 讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇诪讛 谞讜讟诇 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

 

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an? As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don鈥檛 know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: The respondent is liable to pay, because he did not deny the claim. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment. It appears from the mishna that the response: I don鈥檛 know, is tantamount to an admission.

 

诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

 

The Gemara refutes this contention: Just as Rav Na岣an says in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too, it is a case where there is a matter of an oath between them. In that case, Rav Na岣an rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, the mishna is discussing a case where the one who says he does not know is liable to take an oath.

 

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

 

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a matter of an oath? The Gemara explains: This in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: One who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty dinars that I am sure about, and as for the rest, I don鈥檛 know. As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. Since he cannot take an oath to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, he must pay.

 

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪转讜讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讬砖诇诐

 

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of them recognized some of his stones he may take them for himself, and they count toward his amount of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. Rava thought to say that this means they count toward his amount of his broken stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of broken stones, and the other party takes an amount of broken stones correspond-ing to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. Apparently, since he said: I don鈥檛 know, his legal status is worse.

 

讜注讜诇讜转 诇讜 诪谉 讛讞砖讘讜谉 住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讘讜专讜转 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讬注 讟驻讬

 

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, this one, the one who recognizes some of his stones, is worse off. He is worse off because since he knows and recognizes these stones, he evidently does not know anything about any more stones, and therefore he has no rights to any more unbroken stones, and all the others are the property of the other party.

 

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 专讬注 讟驻讬 诪讚讛谞讬 讬讚注 讟驻讬 诇讗 讬讚注 转讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讛讬讗讱 谞讬谞讛讜

 

Rather, Abaye said that it means they count toward his amount of his unbroken stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of unbroken stones, and the other party takes an amount of unbroken stones corresponding to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. The Gemara asks: If so, what did the first party gain from recognizing his own stones? The Gemara answers: He gains with regard to bricks from the structure made in a wide brick mold. If his bricks were constructed from a wider mold, he is entitled to these slightly larger ones. Alternatively, if the clay from which his bricks were formed was processed better, he gains by obtaining superior bricks.

 

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖诇讬诪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讘谞讗 专讜讜讞讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讟讬谞讗 讚诪注讘讚讗

 

MISHNA: If there was a house and an upper story owned by one person, and the upper story was rented out to another, if the floor of the upper story was broken, i.e., it fell in or collapsed, and the owner of the house does not want to repair it, the resident of the upper story can go down and live in the house below until the owner repairs the upper story for him.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬转 讜讛注诇讬讬讛 谞驻讞转讛 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 专讜爪讛 诇转拽谉 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讬讜专讚 讜讚专 诇诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬转拽谉 诇讜 讗转 讛注诇讬讬讛

 

Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a house of two stories owned by two people, i.e., the lower level was owned by one and the upper level by the other, in which the ceiling collapsed; the owner of the lower story provides the ceiling of beams or stones, and the owner of the upper story provides the plaster.

 

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛转讞转讜谉 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛转拽专讛 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 讗转 讛诪注讝讬讘讛

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In the case of the floor of an upper story that was broken, to what extent did it break? What is the extent of damage that permits the upper resident to say that he is no longer able to live there? Rav says: Most of it was damaged, and Shmuel says: A break of four handbreadths occurred.

 

讙诪壮 谞驻讞转讛 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛

 

The Gemara analyzes their opinions. Rav says: Most of it was damaged, but if the break is only of four handbreadths, this halakha does not apply, since the owner of the upper story can use the lower story to place the item that would normally be placed in the area of the hole, and a person can reside partially on a level below and partially on a level above. In other words, the upper story remains inhabitable even if he must use the lower story to house some of his belongings. And Shmuel says a break of four handbreadths is sufficient for the halakha to apply, since a person cannot reside partially on a level below and partially on a level above.

 

专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讗讚诐 讚专 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛

 

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case in the mishna? If the owner said at the time of the rental that he is renting this upper story to the tenant, the tenant has rights only to this upper story, and he has lost the ability to live there. Rather, the owner said to him that he wants to rent an upper story to him, without specifying which one. If so, the renter is certainly entitled to functional living quarters, and the owner must rent him an upper story in a different house belonging to this owner where he can live.

 

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 讗讝讚讗 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 住转诐 诇讜讙专 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬转讬

 

The Gemara answers: Rava says: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case where the owner said to him: This upper story that I am renting to you, when it is up, i.e., functional, live up there in it, and when it descends, i.e., it is no longer functional, descend with it and live in the lower story. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of the mishna stating this ruling, as there was an explicit condition to this effect?

 

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讻讬 住诇拽讗 住诇讬拽 讘讛讚讛 讜讻讬 谞讞讬转 讞讜转 讘讛讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

 

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is a case where the owner said to him: I am renting to you this particular upper story, which is on top of this particular house. As by emphasizing that the upper story is above that particular house, the owner thereby rendered the house as liened with regard to the upper story, although he did not explicitly state that the renter will have the right to live in the house were the upper story to become non-functional.

 

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讚讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛

 

The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with that which Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving one who said to another: I am selling to you the vine that is on top of this peach tree [parsek], and then the peach tree was uprooted. And the incident came before Rabbi 岣yya, and he said: You are obligated to erect for him a peach tree to support the vine, as long as the vine exists.

 

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚诇讬转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 驻专住拽 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜谞注拽专 讛驻专住拽 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 驻专住拽 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讚诇讬转 拽讬讬诪讗

 

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma:

 

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇

 

 

  • 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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia 鈥 113-119 + Siyum 鈥 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that a lender cannot enter the borrower鈥檚 home to take a security for the loan....
din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: A (Biblical) Loan is Tzedakah – Mashkon Limitations

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain 诪砖讻讜谉 In this shiur, we...

Bava Metzia 116

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 116

讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 砖讚讬讬讛 讗专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘

 

is superfluous and therefore includes other utensils as well. Since it is superfluous, apply it as another prohibition upon the lower and upper millstones.

 

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇讗讜 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讗

 

But here, with regard to the Paschal offering, the phrase 鈥渂ut roasted with fire鈥 is not superfluous, as he requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: At the time when one is included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal offering, he is also included in the prohibition not to eat of it raw, but at a time when one is not included in the mitzva to arise and eat the roasted Paschal offering, he is not included in the prohibition not to eat of it raw either. Consequently, one who eats the Paschal offering at that time is not liable to receive lashes.

 

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘诇 讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讜爪诪讚 砖诇 驻专讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

 

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute concerning the lower and upper millstones. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: If one took as collateral barbers鈥 scissors [zog] or a pair of cows, he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. If he took this one blade of the pair of scissors by itself or that one cow by itself, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. According to this tanna, he is not liable for the general prohibition.

 

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讞讘诇 讝讜讙 砖诇 住驻专讬诐 讜爪诪讚 砖诇 驻专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诪讛 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 砖讛谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

 

And it is taught in another baraita: If one took as collateral barbers鈥 scissors or a pair of cows, one might have thought that he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e may not take as collateral the lower or upper millstone,鈥 which indicates that just as the lower and upper millstones are unique in that they are two distinct vessels and they perform one task together, and nevertheless one is liable separately for this and separately for that, so too, with regard to all items that are composed of two individual vessels, such as barbers鈥 scissors or a pair of cows, and they perform one task, he is liable separately for this and separately for that.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讘诇 住讻讬谞讗 讚讗砖讻讘转讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专讬讛 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬 砖注讜砖讬诐 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讜转讗 拽讜诐 讘讚讬谞讗 注诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽诐 讘讚讬谞讗 注诇讛 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

 

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who took as collateral a slaughtering knife from another. He came before Abaye to ask him what to do. Abaye said to him: Go and return it, as it is a vessel used in the preparation of food, and it is therefore forbidden to take as collateral, and go stand in judgment, i.e., litigate with the debtor in court, concerning how much money he owes you. Rava said: He does not have to stand in judgment for this. Since the knife is in his possession, he can claim the amount of the debt up to its value.

 

讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住讘专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛谞讛讜 注讬讝讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讞讜砖诇讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗转讗 诪专讗 讚讞讜砖诇讗 讜转驻住 诇讛讜 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

 

The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept that reasoning, that one who seized an item belonging to a debtor may claim the sum owed to him up to the value of the item? In what way is it different from the incident involving those goats that ate peeled barley [岣shla] in Neharde鈥檃, and the owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats and claimed that their owner was indebted to him for a large amount, and Shmuel鈥檚 father, who acted as a judge in this case, said that he can claim a sum up to their value?

 

讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讚讗 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讜诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讜诇讗讜讙讜专讬 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

 

The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, a goat is an item that is not usually lent out or rented. Consequently, the one who possesses them has a presumptive right of ownership upon which he can base his claim. Conversely, here, the slaughtering knife is an item that is usually lent out or rented. Therefore, he is not deemed credible without proof that it is his merely by virtue of its being in his possession. The Gemara supports this distinction: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent the following ruling: In a case of items that are usually lent out or rented, and one in possession of them says: They were acquired by me, he is not deemed credible by this claim alone. He must provide further proof, as he might have borrowed or rented them.

 

讜专讘讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗驻讬拽 讝讜讙讗 讚住专讘诇讗 讜住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 诪讬转诪讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬驻讙诪讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬

 

The Gemara asks: And does Rava not accept this reasoning? But didn鈥檛 Rava himself remove scissors used for wool and a scroll of aggada from the possession of orphans as items that are usually lent out or rented? The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: With regard to this slaughtering knife too, since it is likely to be damaged, people are particular and do not lend it out. Therefore, it is not considered an item that is typically lent out, and the one in possession of it can claim the money owed to him up to the value of the knife.

 

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪拽讘诇

 

MISHNA: In the case of the house and the upper story belonging to two people, i.e., the lower story was owned by one individual, while the upper story belonged to someone else, that collapsed, the two of them divide the timber and the stones and the earth of the collapsed structure. And the court considers which stones were likely to break, those of the lower or upper story, and gives those broken stones to the one who presumably owned them. If one of them recognized some of his stones he may take them for himself, and they count toward his amount of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. They do not divide the remaining stones equally.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬转 讜讛注诇讬讬讛 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘注爪讬诐 讜讘讗讘谞讬诐 讜讘注驻专 讜专讜讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讗讘谞讬诐 讛注砖讜讬讜转 诇讛砖转讘专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讻讬专 诪拽爪转 讗讘谞讬讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜注讜诇讜转 诇讜 诪谉 讛讞砖讘讜谉

 

GEMARA: From the fact that the mishna teaches that the court considers which stones were likely to break, it can be understood by inference that the case is one in which it is possible to establish with regard to the stones, by looking at the debris, how the accident occurred: Whether it fell with pressure [岣vasa], i.e., the lower story collapsed, and the upper story followed, or whether it fell with a blow, i.e., the upper story collapsed, and caused the lower story to follow suit. In the first instance, it is the stones of the lower story that were likely to break, in the latter instance, the stones of the upper story.

 

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讜讗讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讘讞讘住讗 谞驻讬诇 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 谞驻讬诇

 

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that it is possible to ascertain how the collapse occurred, then why, in the first clause of the mishna, do they divide the stones without taking the circumstances into consideration? Let us see: If the house fell with a blow, it means that the stones of the upper story broke, and the owner of the lower story takes the unbroken stones. And if it fell with pressure, it means that the stones of the lower story broke, and the owner of the upper story takes the unbroken stones.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 讗诪讗讬 讞讜诇拽讬谉 谞讞讝讬 讗讬 讘讞讘讟讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讬转讗 讗讬转讘讜专 讗讬 讘讞讘住讗 谞驻讬诇 转转讬讬转讗 讗讬转讘讜专

 

The Gemara rejects this analysis: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case when the house collapsed at night, and no one saw how it fell. The Gemara challenges: But in such a case, let them see the stones in the morning to ascertain how the house collapsed. The Gemara answers: The first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where they had cleared away the stones, and consequently there is no way to determine what occurred. The Gemara challenges: But even in such a case, let them see who cleared them away, and let them ask them what happened. The Gemara explains: The ruling of the first clause of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the general public cleared them away and left, so that they cannot be asked.

 

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讜诇讞讝讬谞讛讜 讘爪驻专讗 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬讞讝讬 诪讗谉 驻谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇砖讬讬诇讬讛 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讝诇讜 诇注诇诪讗

 

The Gemara challenges: But even in such a case, let them see in whose domain the stones are situated. And once this is determined, the halakha will be that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., the owner of the stones situated in the other鈥檚 domain. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case where the stones are situated in a courtyard that belongs to both of them, or alternatively, if the stones fell into the public domain. And if you wish, say that partners in cases like this are not particular with each other about dividing the courtyard in such a way that the one cannot leave his belongings on the other鈥檚 side of the courtyard, and therefore the presence of the stones in the area of the courtyard belonging to one of them does not substantiate a claim for the stones.

 

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讘专砖讜转 讚诪讗谉 讬转讘谉 讜诇讬讛讜讬 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讬转讘谉 讘讞爪专 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬

 

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of them recognized his stones he may take them. The Gemara asks: And the other, what does he claim? If he says: Yes, they belong to the other, this halakha is obvious, so why would the mishna need to state this? And if he does not say yes, why does the one that recognizes the stones take them? What proof does he have that they are his? Rather, it must be that the other says to him: I don鈥檛 know whose stones they are, and consequently, the one who stated a definitive claim is deemed credible.

 

讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讻讬专 讻讜壮 讜讛诇讛 诪讛 讟讜注谉 讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇诪讛 谞讜讟诇 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

 

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an? As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don鈥檛 know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: The respondent is liable to pay, because he did not deny the claim. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment. It appears from the mishna that the response: I don鈥檛 know, is tantamount to an admission.

 

诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

 

The Gemara refutes this contention: Just as Rav Na岣an says in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too, it is a case where there is a matter of an oath between them. In that case, Rav Na岣an rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, the mishna is discussing a case where the one who says he does not know is liable to take an oath.

 

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

 

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a matter of an oath? The Gemara explains: This in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: One who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty dinars that I am sure about, and as for the rest, I don鈥檛 know. As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. Since he cannot take an oath to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, he must pay.

 

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪转讜讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讬砖诇诐

 

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of them recognized some of his stones he may take them for himself, and they count toward his amount of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. Rava thought to say that this means they count toward his amount of his broken stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of broken stones, and the other party takes an amount of broken stones correspond-ing to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. Apparently, since he said: I don鈥檛 know, his legal status is worse.

 

讜注讜诇讜转 诇讜 诪谉 讛讞砖讘讜谉 住讘专 专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖讘讜专讜转 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讬注 讟驻讬

 

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, this one, the one who recognizes some of his stones, is worse off. He is worse off because since he knows and recognizes these stones, he evidently does not know anything about any more stones, and therefore he has no rights to any more unbroken stones, and all the others are the property of the other party.

 

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 专讬注 讟驻讬 诪讚讛谞讬 讬讚注 讟驻讬 诇讗 讬讚注 转讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讛讬讗讱 谞讬谞讛讜

 

Rather, Abaye said that it means they count toward his amount of his unbroken stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of unbroken stones, and the other party takes an amount of unbroken stones corresponding to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. The Gemara asks: If so, what did the first party gain from recognizing his own stones? The Gemara answers: He gains with regard to bricks from the structure made in a wide brick mold. If his bricks were constructed from a wider mold, he is entitled to these slightly larger ones. Alternatively, if the clay from which his bricks were formed was processed better, he gains by obtaining superior bricks.

 

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 砖诇讬诪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讘谞讗 专讜讜讞讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讟讬谞讗 讚诪注讘讚讗

 

MISHNA: If there was a house and an upper story owned by one person, and the upper story was rented out to another, if the floor of the upper story was broken, i.e., it fell in or collapsed, and the owner of the house does not want to repair it, the resident of the upper story can go down and live in the house below until the owner repairs the upper story for him.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬转 讜讛注诇讬讬讛 谞驻讞转讛 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 专讜爪讛 诇转拽谉 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讬讜专讚 讜讚专 诇诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬转拽谉 诇讜 讗转 讛注诇讬讬讛

 

Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a house of two stories owned by two people, i.e., the lower level was owned by one and the upper level by the other, in which the ceiling collapsed; the owner of the lower story provides the ceiling of beams or stones, and the owner of the upper story provides the plaster.

 

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛转讞转讜谉 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛转拽专讛 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 讗转 讛诪注讝讬讘讛

 

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In the case of the floor of an upper story that was broken, to what extent did it break? What is the extent of damage that permits the upper resident to say that he is no longer able to live there? Rav says: Most of it was damaged, and Shmuel says: A break of four handbreadths occurred.

 

讙诪壮 谞驻讞转讛 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛

 

The Gemara analyzes their opinions. Rav says: Most of it was damaged, but if the break is only of four handbreadths, this halakha does not apply, since the owner of the upper story can use the lower story to place the item that would normally be placed in the area of the hole, and a person can reside partially on a level below and partially on a level above. In other words, the upper story remains inhabitable even if he must use the lower story to house some of his belongings. And Shmuel says a break of four handbreadths is sufficient for the halakha to apply, since a person cannot reside partially on a level below and partially on a level above.

 

专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讗讚诐 讚专 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛

 

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case in the mishna? If the owner said at the time of the rental that he is renting this upper story to the tenant, the tenant has rights only to this upper story, and he has lost the ability to live there. Rather, the owner said to him that he wants to rent an upper story to him, without specifying which one. If so, the renter is certainly entitled to functional living quarters, and the owner must rent him an upper story in a different house belonging to this owner where he can live.

 

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 讗讝讚讗 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 住转诐 诇讜讙专 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬转讬

 

The Gemara answers: Rava says: No, it is necessary to state the ruling of the mishna in a case where the owner said to him: This upper story that I am renting to you, when it is up, i.e., functional, live up there in it, and when it descends, i.e., it is no longer functional, descend with it and live in the lower story. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of the mishna stating this ruling, as there was an explicit condition to this effect?

 

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讻讬 住诇拽讗 住诇讬拽 讘讛讚讛 讜讻讬 谞讞讬转 讞讜转 讘讛讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

 

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is a case where the owner said to him: I am renting to you this particular upper story, which is on top of this particular house. As by emphasizing that the upper story is above that particular house, the owner thereby rendered the house as liened with regard to the upper story, although he did not explicitly state that the renter will have the right to live in the house were the upper story to become non-functional.

 

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讝讜 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讚讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛

 

The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with that which Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving one who said to another: I am selling to you the vine that is on top of this peach tree [parsek], and then the peach tree was uprooted. And the incident came before Rabbi 岣yya, and he said: You are obligated to erect for him a peach tree to support the vine, as long as the vine exists.

 

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚诇讬转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 驻专住拽 讝讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜谞注拽专 讛驻专住拽 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗转讛 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 驻专住拽 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讚诇讬转 拽讬讬诪讗

 

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma:

 

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇

 

 

Scroll To Top