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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2017 | 讻状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 117

Study Guide Bava Metzia 117. The gemara discusses various issues concerning those who share a house (one upstairs one downstairs) as to who is responsible for fixing a leak in the limestone that covers the floor upstairs.聽 Does is connect to a basic argument relating to whose responsibility is it to prevent future damage 聙聯 the one who is damaging or the one whose items may become damaged?聽 If a house falls down and the lower owner does not want to rebuild, what options does the upper floor owner have?聽 聽Is there a pattern that can be found in various halachic decisions that Rabbi Yehuda made that he holds that one cannot benefit from money/property of another without his consent?聽聽 In rebuilding a house that fell apart, the upstairs and downstairs owners much each be careful to use the same type bricks/ceilings/height/number of windows as before unless the change he makes will not negatively affect the other owner.聽 The gemara discusses which changes are good/bad for each owner.聽 If one聙聶s tree fell into the street, the tree owner is not responsible for damages.聽 If it fell into another’s property, what are the rights of the neighbor to the debris?聽 If one clears it up, can one聽insist to get paid by the owner?

讻砖讛讜讗 讚专 诇讘讚讜 讛讜讗 讚专 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖谞讬讛诐 讚专讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇讗驻拽讬谞谉 诇讗 讗讙专讬 诇讱

With regard to a resident of the upper story who is entitled to move into the lower story, when he resides there, does he reside alone as he did at the outset when he occupied the upper story, and the owner of the house has no choice but to move out? Or perhaps they both reside there together, as the owner can say to him: I did not rent the upper story to you with the intention of being removed from my domicile.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讚专讬谉 讘讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖转诪砖 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 诪砖转诪砖 讗讜 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 诪砖转诪砖 诪讬 讗诪专 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜讬专讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬

If you say that they both reside there, when the upper-story resident uses the house, does he use it by way of its entrances, like the owner, or must he use it by way of the roofs? Must he climb the stairs and enter the upper story, and then descend to the house from there? Can the owner say: The tenant must act as he did at the outset; just as at the outset he entered by way of the roofs, now too, he must enter by way of the roofs? Or perhaps the renter can say to him: I accepted upon myself an ascent and agreed to climb the stairs to the upper story, but I did not accept upon myself an ascent and a descent, which would be necessary if I entered by way of the roofs.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讜讬专讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 诪讛讜 讗讬驻讞讬转 注诇讬讜谞讛 谞讞讬转 讜讚专 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讗讬驻讞讬转 转讞转讜谞讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬住诇拽 诇讙诪专讬 讘注诇讬讜谞讛

If you say that the tenant can say to the owner: I did not accept upon myself an ascent and a descent, in a case where there were two upper stories, this one on top of that one, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the circumstances of this case: If the floor of the higher upper story was broken, clearly he may descend and reside in the lower one, but if the floor of the lower upper story was broken, what is the halakha? Is he required to ascend the full way and reside in the higher upper story, or does he go down to reside on the ground floor?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诐 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇讬转 注诇讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讚 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

Do we say that the owner of the house can say to the tenant: You accepted upon yourself the term: An upper story, and I have provided one for you? Or perhaps one says that the tenant accepted upon himself one ascent, but he did not accept upon himself two ascents. No answer was found for these questions, and the Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

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 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 转拽专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽讬谞讬诐 讜住谞讗讬谉 讜住讟讬谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讜讜讞讬诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says: The lower resident provides the ceiling and the upper resident provides the plaster. The Gemara asks: What is the word ceiling referring to in this context? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: Mats and beams. And the Sage Setini says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Wide wooden planks. The Gemara comments: And these two opinions do not disagree over the basic halakha; rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale and this Sage in accordance with the custom of his locale, and they each were describing the necessary materials for a ceiling, according to the local building conventions.

讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讞讚 注讬诇讗讬 讜讞讚 转转讗讬 讗讬驻讞讬转 诪注讝讬讘讛 讻讬 诪砖讬 诪讬讗 注讬诇讗讬 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讝拽讬 诇转转讗讬 诪讬 诪转拽谉 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 诪转拽谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 讛转讞转讜谉 诪转拽谉 讜住讬诪谉 讜讬讜住祝 讛讜专讚 诪爪专讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were residing in the same house, one in the upper story, and the other one in the lower story. The plaster of the floor of the upper story broke, so that when the resident of the upper apartment would wash with water, it would run down and cause damage to the lower story. The question was: Who must repair the ceiling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Yosei: The lower resident repairs it. The Gemara comments: And the following verse can serve as a mnemonic device to remember who issued which ruling: 鈥淎nd Joseph was brought down to Egypt鈥 (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Yosei, indicated by Joseph, is the Sage who maintains that the owner of the lower story, indicated by: Brought down, must repair the ceiling.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 诪转拽谉 拽住讘专 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞转讜谉 诪转拽谉 拽住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Elai disagree with regard to the matter subject to dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis in the mishna? The explanation of the dispute would then be as follows: According to the one who says that the upper resident repairs it, he holds that the responsibility is on the one potentially responsible for the damage to distance himself from the one whose property is potentially damaged. This accounts for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who holds that the resident of the upper story must provide the plaster, because his water is clearly causing damage below. And the one who says that the lower resident repairs it, he holds like the Rabbis, who say that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage.

讜转讬住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛讘讜专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讜讘讞专讜讘 讜讘砖拽诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗诐 讛讘讜专 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讛讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to distancing oneself from damages? But haven鈥檛 we heard them say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a pit, because its roots damage the pit, and in the case of a carob or sycamore tree, whose roots spread far, one must distance it by fifty cubits. This is the halakha whether the pit or tree is located above or to the side of the other. If the pit preceded the tree, the owner of the pit may cut down the tree and pay its monetary value. If the tree preceded the pit, then he may not cut it down. If it is uncertain whether this tree preceded that pit, and it is uncertain whether that pit preceded this tree, he may not cut down the tree.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讘讜专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 砖讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the pit preceded the tree, he may not cut it down. Why is that? As this one digs in his own property, and that one plants in his own property. Consequently, the owner of the pit cannot complain about the damage, and if he wants to avoid it, he can dig his pit elsewhere. Apparently, this mishna indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage, and the Rabbis hold that the responsibility is on the one potentially responsible for the damage to distance himself from the one whose property is potentially damaged.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚讛转诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, if it can be said that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, then they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis there, concerning the question of who is obligated to distance himself from the damage, but it has nothing to do with the dispute in the mishna here.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讜讝拽 转拽专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪注讝讬讘讛 讗讞讝讜拽讬 转拽专讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞讝讜拽讬 转拽专讛 注诇 讛转讞转讜谉 讘注讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪注讝讬讘讛 讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis of the mishna here disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the strength of a ceiling. The Rabbis hold that the function of the plaster is to strengthen the ceiling, and strengthening the ceiling is the obligation of the lower resident, as he is required to strengthen it. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the function of the plaster is to level out any holes, so that the surface of the ceiling will be flat, and leveling out holes it is the obligation of the upper resident, as he is required to level them out.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讙讬专讬 讚讬诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges the above conclusion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: When I was in the school of Rav Kahana we would say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in a case of his arrows. Although Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage, that is only if the one causing the damage is not performing a direct action that is causing the damage, as in the case of the tree and the pit. But if he is performing an action that causes damage from a distance, as in this case, where the water he pours damages the resident of the lower story, he is like someone shooting arrows, who is certainly obligated to ensure that he does not cause any damage.

讚驻住拽讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讚专 谞驻诇讬

The Gemara answers: This is a case in which the water flow stops in one place, as the hole in the floor is not directly in the place where the water was poured, and subsequently it falls into the lower story once it flows to the opening in the floor. Consequently, even in this case, the upper resident does not directly cause the damage.

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 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讘谞讜转 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讚专 讘转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讜

MISHNA: In the case of the house and the upper story belonging to two different people, and that house and upper story collapsed, and the owner of the upper story told the owner of the house to build the lower story in order to enable him to rebuild the upper story, and he does not want to build it, the owner of the upper story may build the house and reside in it, until the other gives him his expenses for the construction of the house, and he then rebuilds his upper story.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讝讛 讚专 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讗转 讛注诇讬讬讛 诪拽专讛 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: This one too, i.e., the owner of the upper story, who is meanwhile residing inside the property of the other, must pay him rent. Since he derived benefit by living in the house of the other, as he had no other place in which he could live, he must pay rent. This solution is therefore flawed. Rather, the owner of the upper story builds the house and the upper story, and he roofs the upper story, i.e., he completes the entire construction of the upper story, and he may then sit in the house, i.e., the lower story, until the other gives him his expenses for the building of the house, at which point he returns to his upper story. Since in any event he could have lived in the upper story, he is not considered to have derived any benefit by living in the lower story, and is not obligated to pay rent.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖谞讛 诇谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讞讚讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In three places Rabbi Yehuda taught us the principle that it is forbidden for a person to derive benefit from the property of another without his full awareness and consent, even if the other does not suffer a loss. One of the places where we are taught this principle is that which we learn in the mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda does not allow one to reside in another鈥檚 property without paying him rent.

讗讬讚讱 诪讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬讜转专 注诇 讛讛讜爪讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讛讜爪讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

What is another place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 100b): If one gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the value of the enhancement exceeds the dyer鈥檚 expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement. But the dyer may not keep the dyed wool for himself, as it is forbidden for one to benefit from another鈥檚 property.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 讜讛砖诇讬砖 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讝诪谉 驻诇讜谞讬 转谉 诇讜 砖讟专讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉

And what is the other, third place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 168a): In a case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, and he deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee, to ensure that the creditor not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I do not give you the balance from now until such and such a time, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated in the note; if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor has not given the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee shall give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor鈥檚 stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee shall not give it, as the stipulation is void. Here too, the reason is that the creditor is forbidden to benefit from the property of another.

讗诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讞专讜专讬转讗

The Gemara refutes these proofs as to the general applicability of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 rulings. Why is it necessary to explain in this manner? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda is saying this only here, with regard to the case of the mishna concerning a house and an upper story, only because there is the blackening of the walls. By using the house, the owner of the upper story causes its walls to blacken, thereby lowering its value, and yet he will ultimately claim the value of a new house that he built. Therefore, he is prohibited from using the house without paying.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

Alternatively, if one attempts to prove a general principle from the case where one instructed a dyer to dye the wool for him red and he dyed it black, it can be explained that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda is due to the fact that the dyer is changing and deviating from the owner鈥檚 instructions, and didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (76a) that whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage?

讜诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讬

And as for the case of one who repaid part of his debt, there too, the reason the trustee may not transfer the promissory note is not as explained above. Rather, it is due to the fact that the transfer of the promissory note and subsequent collection of the entire sum if he does not repay on time is considered a transaction with inconclusive intent [asmakhta], a condition that an individual accepts upon himself as an exaggerated measure that he does not expect to have to fulfill, and we heard Rabbi Yehuda who says that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition. There is therefore no proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is forbidden for one to benefit from the money of another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 转讞转讜谉 讛讘讗 诇砖谞讜转 讘讙讜讬诇 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讙讝讬转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Rav A岣 bar Adda says in the name of Ulla: In the case of a resident of the lower story who wishes to rebuild the collapsed house, who comes to change the structure and now seeks to rebuild it with untrimmed stones that are larger than the original ones, the court listens to him and accepts his wishes, since an adjustment of this kind only serves to benefit the owner of the upper story. But if the house was previously built with large untrimmed stones and he now wants to rebuild it with hewn stones, which are smaller, the court does not listen to him, as this reduces the strength of the building.

讘讻驻讬住讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇住讻讱 讘讗专讝讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖拽诪讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Similarly, if the house was formerly built with bricks, and he wants to rebuild it with girders, the court listens to him, as this type of wall is very stable. But if the house was previously built with girders, and he now wants to rebuild it with bricks, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to roof it with strong cedar wood, the court listens to him, but if he wants to roof it with sycamore wood, instead of cedar, the court does not listen to him.

诇诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛专讘讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

If he wants to reduce the number of windows, the court listens to him, as this will strengthen the walls, but if he wants to increase the number of windows, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to heighten the building, the court does not listen to him, as it might be less stable than before, but if he wants to reduce its height, the court listens to him.

注诇讬讜谉 砖讘讗 诇砖谞讜转 讘讙讝讬转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讙讜讬诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The halakha is the same in the reverse: In the case of a resident of the upper story who comes to change the structure, and wishes to rebuild the upper story with hewn stones instead of large untrimmed stones, the court listens to him, as this reduces the weight on the lower floor. But if he wants to change from smaller hewn stones and rebuild with larger untrimmed stones, the court does not listen to him, as this would make the upper story heavier.

讘讻驻讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘诇讘谞讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讗专讝讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖拽诪讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Likewise, if he wants to rebuild it with girders instead of bricks, the court does not listen to him, but if it was previously built with girders, and he now wants to rebuild it with bricks, the court listens to him. If he wants to roof it with heavy cedar wood, the court does not listen to him, but if he wants to roof it with sycamore wood instead of cedar, the court listens to him. If he wants to increase the number of windows, which would lessen the weight of the construction, the court listens to him, but if he wants to reduce the number of windows, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to heighten the building, the court does not listen to him, as this increases the weight of the building, but if he wants to reduce its height, the court listens to him.

讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 诪讗讬 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘注诇 注诇讬讬讛 讘拽专拽注 讻诇讜诐

搂 The Gemara poses a question: If they are so poor that neither this one nor that one has enough money to rebuild it, and they are prepared to sell the land, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita: If neither this one nor that one has the money to rebuild the house, the owner of the upper story does not have any rights to the land, and all rights of the land belong to the owner of the lower story.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 转讞转讜谉 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 砖诇讬砖 讜讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讞转讜谉 谞讜讟诇 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讗诪专 专讘讛 谞拽讜讟 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讬讚讱 讚讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜谞讞讬转 诇注讜诪拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 拽讗 住讘专 讻诪讛 诪驻住讬讚 注诇讬讬讛 讘讘讬转 转讬诇转讗 讛诇讻讱 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讬诇转讗

It is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Natan says: The resident of the lower story takes two shares of the land, and the resident of the upper story takes one-third. And others say: The resident of the lower story takes three shares, and the resident of the upper story takes one-quarter. Rabba says: Take the statement of Rabbi Natan in your hand, because he is a judge, and he descends to the depths of the law. He maintains: How much does the presence of the upper story depreciate the value of the house? One-third. Therefore he has one-third, i.e., he is entitled to one-third of the total sum that they receive for the land.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻谉 讘讬转 讛讘讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谞讜讬 讘住诇注 讜讙讬谞讛 讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讜谞驻讞转 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛讙讬谞讛 讬讜专讚 讜讝讜专注 诇诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诇讘讬转 讘讚讜 讻讬驻讬谉

MISHNA: And likewise, in the case of an olive press that is built inside a cave in a rock, and one garden, belonging to another person, was planted on top of it, and the roof of the olive press broke, which caused the garden to collapse inward, in such a case, the owner of the garden may descend and sow below until the other one constructs for his olive press sturdy arches to support the roof, so that the owner of the garden can once again sow above him.

讛讻讜转诇 讜讛讗讬诇谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇拽讜抓 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诇住转讜专 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讜谞驻诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 驻讟讜专 诇讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讞讬讬讘

The mishna continues: In the case of a wall or a tree that fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is exempt from having to pay, as it was an accident. If the court saw that the wall was shaky, or that the tree was tilting, and they gave him time to cut down the tree or to dismantle the wall, and then they fell down, if this occurred during the allotted time, he is exempt, but if they collapsed after the time given to him had elapsed, he is liable to pay, since he was warned against this very occurrence.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转诇讜 住诪讜讱 诇讙讬谞转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻谞讛 讗讘谞讬讱 讜讗诪专 诇讜

In the case of one whose wall was adjacent to another鈥檚 garden, and the wall fell, and the owner of the garden said to him: Clear away your stones, and the owner of the stones said to him:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 117

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 117

讻砖讛讜讗 讚专 诇讘讚讜 讛讜讗 讚专 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖谞讬讛诐 讚专讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 诇讗驻拽讬谞谉 诇讗 讗讙专讬 诇讱

With regard to a resident of the upper story who is entitled to move into the lower story, when he resides there, does he reside alone as he did at the outset when he occupied the upper story, and the owner of the house has no choice but to move out? Or perhaps they both reside there together, as the owner can say to him: I did not rent the upper story to you with the intention of being removed from my domicile.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讚专讬谉 讘讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖转诪砖 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 诪砖转诪砖 讗讜 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 诪砖转诪砖 诪讬 讗诪专 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜讬专讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬

If you say that they both reside there, when the upper-story resident uses the house, does he use it by way of its entrances, like the owner, or must he use it by way of the roofs? Must he climb the stairs and enter the upper story, and then descend to the house from there? Can the owner say: The tenant must act as he did at the outset; just as at the outset he entered by way of the roofs, now too, he must enter by way of the roofs? Or perhaps the renter can say to him: I accepted upon myself an ascent and agreed to climb the stairs to the upper story, but I did not accept upon myself an ascent and a descent, which would be necessary if I entered by way of the roofs.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讬讛 讜讬专讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讗讬 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 诪讛讜 讗讬驻讞讬转 注诇讬讜谞讛 谞讞讬转 讜讚专 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讗讬驻讞讬转 转讞转讜谞讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬住诇拽 诇讙诪专讬 讘注诇讬讜谞讛

If you say that the tenant can say to the owner: I did not accept upon myself an ascent and a descent, in a case where there were two upper stories, this one on top of that one, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the circumstances of this case: If the floor of the higher upper story was broken, clearly he may descend and reside in the lower one, but if the floor of the lower upper story was broken, what is the halakha? Is he required to ascend the full way and reside in the higher upper story, or does he go down to reside on the ground floor?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诐 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇讬转 注诇讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讚 注诇讬讬讛 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

Do we say that the owner of the house can say to the tenant: You accepted upon yourself the term: An upper story, and I have provided one for you? Or perhaps one says that the tenant accepted upon himself one ascent, but he did not accept upon himself two ascents. No answer was found for these questions, and the Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

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 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 转拽专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽讬谞讬诐 讜住谞讗讬谉 讜住讟讬谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讜讜讞讬诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says: The lower resident provides the ceiling and the upper resident provides the plaster. The Gemara asks: What is the word ceiling referring to in this context? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: Mats and beams. And the Sage Setini says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Wide wooden planks. The Gemara comments: And these two opinions do not disagree over the basic halakha; rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale and this Sage in accordance with the custom of his locale, and they each were describing the necessary materials for a ceiling, according to the local building conventions.

讛谞讛讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讞讚 注讬诇讗讬 讜讞讚 转转讗讬 讗讬驻讞讬转 诪注讝讬讘讛 讻讬 诪砖讬 诪讬讗 注讬诇讗讬 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讝拽讬 诇转转讗讬 诪讬 诪转拽谉 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 诪转拽谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 讛转讞转讜谉 诪转拽谉 讜住讬诪谉 讜讬讜住祝 讛讜专讚 诪爪专讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were residing in the same house, one in the upper story, and the other one in the lower story. The plaster of the floor of the upper story broke, so that when the resident of the upper apartment would wash with water, it would run down and cause damage to the lower story. The question was: Who must repair the ceiling? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Yosei: The lower resident repairs it. The Gemara comments: And the following verse can serve as a mnemonic device to remember who issued which ruling: 鈥淎nd Joseph was brought down to Egypt鈥 (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Yosei, indicated by Joseph, is the Sage who maintains that the owner of the lower story, indicated by: Brought down, must repair the ceiling.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注诇讬讜谉 诪转拽谉 拽住讘专 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞转讜谉 诪转拽谉 拽住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Elai disagree with regard to the matter subject to dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis in the mishna? The explanation of the dispute would then be as follows: According to the one who says that the upper resident repairs it, he holds that the responsibility is on the one potentially responsible for the damage to distance himself from the one whose property is potentially damaged. This accounts for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who holds that the resident of the upper story must provide the plaster, because his water is clearly causing damage below. And the one who says that the lower resident repairs it, he holds like the Rabbis, who say that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage.

讜转讬住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛讘讜专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讜讘讞专讜讘 讜讘砖拽诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗诐 讛讘讜专 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讛讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to distancing oneself from damages? But haven鈥檛 we heard them say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a pit, because its roots damage the pit, and in the case of a carob or sycamore tree, whose roots spread far, one must distance it by fifty cubits. This is the halakha whether the pit or tree is located above or to the side of the other. If the pit preceded the tree, the owner of the pit may cut down the tree and pay its monetary value. If the tree preceded the pit, then he may not cut it down. If it is uncertain whether this tree preceded that pit, and it is uncertain whether that pit preceded this tree, he may not cut down the tree.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讘讜专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 砖讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the pit preceded the tree, he may not cut it down. Why is that? As this one digs in his own property, and that one plants in his own property. Consequently, the owner of the pit cannot complain about the damage, and if he wants to avoid it, he can dig his pit elsewhere. Apparently, this mishna indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage, and the Rabbis hold that the responsibility is on the one potentially responsible for the damage to distance himself from the one whose property is potentially damaged.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚讛转诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, if it can be said that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, then they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis there, concerning the question of who is obligated to distance himself from the damage, but it has nothing to do with the dispute in the mishna here.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讜讝拽 转拽专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪注讝讬讘讛 讗讞讝讜拽讬 转拽专讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞讝讜拽讬 转拽专讛 注诇 讛转讞转讜谉 讘注讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪注讝讬讘讛 讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讜讗 讜讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis of the mishna here disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the strength of a ceiling. The Rabbis hold that the function of the plaster is to strengthen the ceiling, and strengthening the ceiling is the obligation of the lower resident, as he is required to strengthen it. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the function of the plaster is to level out any holes, so that the surface of the ceiling will be flat, and leveling out holes it is the obligation of the upper resident, as he is required to level them out.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讙讬专讬 讚讬诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges the above conclusion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: When I was in the school of Rav Kahana we would say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in a case of his arrows. Although Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage, that is only if the one causing the damage is not performing a direct action that is causing the damage, as in the case of the tree and the pit. But if he is performing an action that causes damage from a distance, as in this case, where the water he pours damages the resident of the lower story, he is like someone shooting arrows, who is certainly obligated to ensure that he does not cause any damage.

讚驻住拽讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讚专 谞驻诇讬

The Gemara answers: This is a case in which the water flow stops in one place, as the hole in the floor is not directly in the place where the water was poured, and subsequently it falls into the lower story once it flows to the opening in the floor. Consequently, even in this case, the upper resident does not directly cause the damage.

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 讗诪专 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讘谞讜转 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讘谞讜转 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讚专 讘转讜讻讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讜

MISHNA: In the case of the house and the upper story belonging to two different people, and that house and upper story collapsed, and the owner of the upper story told the owner of the house to build the lower story in order to enable him to rebuild the upper story, and he does not want to build it, the owner of the upper story may build the house and reside in it, until the other gives him his expenses for the construction of the house, and he then rebuilds his upper story.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讝讛 讚专 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛注诇讬讬讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜讗转 讛注诇讬讬讛 诪拽专讛 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: This one too, i.e., the owner of the upper story, who is meanwhile residing inside the property of the other, must pay him rent. Since he derived benefit by living in the house of the other, as he had no other place in which he could live, he must pay rent. This solution is therefore flawed. Rather, the owner of the upper story builds the house and the upper story, and he roofs the upper story, i.e., he completes the entire construction of the upper story, and he may then sit in the house, i.e., the lower story, until the other gives him his expenses for the building of the house, at which point he returns to his upper story. Since in any event he could have lived in the upper story, he is not considered to have derived any benefit by living in the lower story, and is not obligated to pay rent.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖谞讛 诇谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讛谞讛 诪诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜 讞讚讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In three places Rabbi Yehuda taught us the principle that it is forbidden for a person to derive benefit from the property of another without his full awareness and consent, even if the other does not suffer a loss. One of the places where we are taught this principle is that which we learn in the mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda does not allow one to reside in another鈥檚 property without paying him rent.

讗讬讚讱 诪讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 爪诪专 诇爪讘注 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 砖讞讜专 讜爪讘注讜 讗讚讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬讜转专 注诇 讛讛讜爪讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讛讜爪讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

What is another place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 100b): If one gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the value of the enhancement exceeds the dyer鈥檚 expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement. But the dyer may not keep the dyed wool for himself, as it is forbidden for one to benefit from another鈥檚 property.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 讜讛砖诇讬砖 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讝诪谉 驻诇讜谞讬 转谉 诇讜 砖讟专讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉

And what is the other, third place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 168a): In a case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, and he deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee, to ensure that the creditor not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I do not give you the balance from now until such and such a time, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated in the note; if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor has not given the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee shall give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor鈥檚 stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee shall not give it, as the stipulation is void. Here too, the reason is that the creditor is forbidden to benefit from the property of another.

讗诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讞专讜专讬转讗

The Gemara refutes these proofs as to the general applicability of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 rulings. Why is it necessary to explain in this manner? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda is saying this only here, with regard to the case of the mishna concerning a house and an upper story, only because there is the blackening of the walls. By using the house, the owner of the upper story causes its walls to blacken, thereby lowering its value, and yet he will ultimately claim the value of a new house that he built. Therefore, he is prohibited from using the house without paying.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇爪讘讜注 诇讜 讗讚讜诐 讜爪讘注讜 砖讞讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

Alternatively, if one attempts to prove a general principle from the case where one instructed a dyer to dye the wool for him red and he dyed it black, it can be explained that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda is due to the fact that the dyer is changing and deviating from the owner鈥檚 instructions, and didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (76a) that whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage?

讜诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讬

And as for the case of one who repaid part of his debt, there too, the reason the trustee may not transfer the promissory note is not as explained above. Rather, it is due to the fact that the transfer of the promissory note and subsequent collection of the entire sum if he does not repay on time is considered a transaction with inconclusive intent [asmakhta], a condition that an individual accepts upon himself as an exaggerated measure that he does not expect to have to fulfill, and we heard Rabbi Yehuda who says that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition. There is therefore no proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is forbidden for one to benefit from the money of another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 转讞转讜谉 讛讘讗 诇砖谞讜转 讘讙讜讬诇 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讙讝讬转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Rav A岣 bar Adda says in the name of Ulla: In the case of a resident of the lower story who wishes to rebuild the collapsed house, who comes to change the structure and now seeks to rebuild it with untrimmed stones that are larger than the original ones, the court listens to him and accepts his wishes, since an adjustment of this kind only serves to benefit the owner of the upper story. But if the house was previously built with large untrimmed stones and he now wants to rebuild it with hewn stones, which are smaller, the court does not listen to him, as this reduces the strength of the building.

讘讻驻讬住讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇住讻讱 讘讗专讝讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖拽诪讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Similarly, if the house was formerly built with bricks, and he wants to rebuild it with girders, the court listens to him, as this type of wall is very stable. But if the house was previously built with girders, and he now wants to rebuild it with bricks, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to roof it with strong cedar wood, the court listens to him, but if he wants to roof it with sycamore wood, instead of cedar, the court does not listen to him.

诇诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛专讘讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

If he wants to reduce the number of windows, the court listens to him, as this will strengthen the walls, but if he wants to increase the number of windows, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to heighten the building, the court does not listen to him, as it might be less stable than before, but if he wants to reduce its height, the court listens to him.

注诇讬讜谉 砖讘讗 诇砖谞讜转 讘讙讝讬转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讙讜讬诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The halakha is the same in the reverse: In the case of a resident of the upper story who comes to change the structure, and wishes to rebuild the upper story with hewn stones instead of large untrimmed stones, the court listens to him, as this reduces the weight on the lower floor. But if he wants to change from smaller hewn stones and rebuild with larger untrimmed stones, the court does not listen to him, as this would make the upper story heavier.

讘讻驻讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘诇讘谞讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘讗专讝讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讘砖拽诪讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇诪注讟 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

Likewise, if he wants to rebuild it with girders instead of bricks, the court does not listen to him, but if it was previously built with girders, and he now wants to rebuild it with bricks, the court listens to him. If he wants to roof it with heavy cedar wood, the court does not listen to him, but if he wants to roof it with sycamore wood instead of cedar, the court listens to him. If he wants to increase the number of windows, which would lessen the weight of the construction, the court listens to him, but if he wants to reduce the number of windows, the court does not listen to him. If he wants to heighten the building, the court does not listen to him, as this increases the weight of the building, but if he wants to reduce its height, the court listens to him.

讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 诪讗讬 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘注诇 注诇讬讬讛 讘拽专拽注 讻诇讜诐

搂 The Gemara poses a question: If they are so poor that neither this one nor that one has enough money to rebuild it, and they are prepared to sell the land, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita: If neither this one nor that one has the money to rebuild the house, the owner of the upper story does not have any rights to the land, and all rights of the land belong to the owner of the lower story.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 转讞转讜谉 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 砖诇讬砖 讜讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讞转讜谉 谞讜讟诇 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讛注诇讬讜谉 谞讜讟诇 专讘讬注 讗诪专 专讘讛 谞拽讜讟 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讬讚讱 讚讚讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜谞讞讬转 诇注讜诪拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 拽讗 住讘专 讻诪讛 诪驻住讬讚 注诇讬讬讛 讘讘讬转 转讬诇转讗 讛诇讻讱 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讬诇转讗

It is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Natan says: The resident of the lower story takes two shares of the land, and the resident of the upper story takes one-third. And others say: The resident of the lower story takes three shares, and the resident of the upper story takes one-quarter. Rabba says: Take the statement of Rabbi Natan in your hand, because he is a judge, and he descends to the depths of the law. He maintains: How much does the presence of the upper story depreciate the value of the house? One-third. Therefore he has one-third, i.e., he is entitled to one-third of the total sum that they receive for the land.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻谉 讘讬转 讛讘讚 砖讛讜讗 讘谞讜讬 讘住诇注 讜讙讬谞讛 讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讜谞驻讞转 讛专讬 讘注诇 讛讙讬谞讛 讬讜专讚 讜讝讜专注 诇诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诇讘讬转 讘讚讜 讻讬驻讬谉

MISHNA: And likewise, in the case of an olive press that is built inside a cave in a rock, and one garden, belonging to another person, was planted on top of it, and the roof of the olive press broke, which caused the garden to collapse inward, in such a case, the owner of the garden may descend and sow below until the other one constructs for his olive press sturdy arches to support the roof, so that the owner of the garden can once again sow above him.

讛讻讜转诇 讜讛讗讬诇谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇拽讜抓 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诇住转讜专 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讜谞驻诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讝诪谉 驻讟讜专 诇讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讞讬讬讘

The mishna continues: In the case of a wall or a tree that fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is exempt from having to pay, as it was an accident. If the court saw that the wall was shaky, or that the tree was tilting, and they gave him time to cut down the tree or to dismantle the wall, and then they fell down, if this occurred during the allotted time, he is exempt, but if they collapsed after the time given to him had elapsed, he is liable to pay, since he was warned against this very occurrence.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转诇讜 住诪讜讱 诇讙讬谞转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻谞讛 讗讘谞讬讱 讜讗诪专 诇讜

In the case of one whose wall was adjacent to another鈥檚 garden, and the wall fell, and the owner of the garden said to him: Clear away your stones, and the owner of the stones said to him:

Scroll To Top