Today's Daf Yomi
January 22, 2017 | כ״ד בטבת תשע״ז
-
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. May his memory be blessed.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.
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. Does is connect to a basic argument relating to whose responsibility is it to prevent future damage the one who is damaging or the one whose items may become damaged? If a house falls down and the lower owner does not want to rebuild, what options does the upper floor owner have? 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? 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. The gemara discusses which changes are good/bad for each owner. If ones tree fell into the street, the tree owner is not responsible for damages. If it fell into another’s property, what are the rights of the neighbor to the debris? If one clears it up, can one insist to get paid by the owner?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
כשהוא דר לבדו הוא דר כדמעיקרא או דלמא שניהם דרין דאמר ליה אדעתא לאפקינן לא אגרי לך
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.
אם תמצא לומר שניהם דרין בו כשהוא משתמש דרך פתחים משתמש או דרך גגין משתמש מי אמר כדמעיקרא מה מעיקרא דרך גגין השתא נמי דרך גגין או דלמא מצי אמר ליה עלייה קבילי עלאי עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי
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.
אם תמצא לומר מצי אמר ליה עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי שתי עליות זו על גב זו מהו איפחית עליונה נחית ודר בתחתונה איפחית תחתונה מהו למיסלק לגמרי בעליונה
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?
מי אמרינן דאמר ליה שם עלייה קבילית עלך או דלמא חד עלייה קביל עליה שתי עליות לא קביל עליה תיקו
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.
רבי יוסי אומר התחתון נותן את התקרה כו׳ מאי תקרה רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר קינים וסנאין וסטיני אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לווחים ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה
§ 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 Ḥanina 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.
הנהו בי תרי דהוו דיירי חד עילאי וחד תתאי איפחית מעזיבה כי משי מיא עילאי אזלי ומזקי לתתאי מי מתקן רבי חייא בר אבא אמר העליון מתקן ורבי אלעי משום רבי חייא ברבי יוסי אמר התחתון מתקן וסימן ויוסף הורד מצרימה
§ 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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.
לימא רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אלעי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן קמיפלגי למאן דאמר העליון מתקן קסבר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו מן הניזק ומאן דאמר תחתון מתקן קסבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו מן המזיק
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
ותיסברא רבי יוסי ורבנן לענין נזקין פליגי והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור עשרים וחמש אמה ובחרוב ובשקמה חמשים אמה בין מלמעלה בין מן הצד אם הבור קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים אם האילן קדם לא יקוץ ספק זה קדם ספק זה קדם לא יקוץ
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’t 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.
רבי יוסי אומר אף על פי שהבור קודמת לאילן לא יקוץ שזה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו אלמא רבי יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ורבנן סברי על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו
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.
אלא אי איכא למימר פליגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן דהתם קמיפלגי
Rather, if it can be said that these amora’im disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, 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.
ורבי יוסי ורבנן דהכא במאי פליגי בחוזק תקרה קמיפלגי רבנן סברי מעזיבה אחזוקי תקרה הוא ואחזוקי תקרה על התחתון בעי לאחזוקי ורבי יוסי סבר מעזיבה אשוויי גומות הוא ואשוויי גומות על העליון לאשוויי
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.
איני והאמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב כהנא הוה אמרינן מודה רבי יוסי בגירי דיליה
The Gemara challenges the above conclusion: Is that so? But didn’t 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.
דפסקי מיא והדר נפלי
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.
מתני׳ הבית והעלייה של שנים שנפלו אמר בעל העלייה לבעל הבית לבנות והוא אינו רוצה לבנות הרי בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ודר בתוכה עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו
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.
רבי יהודה אומר אף זה דר בתוך של חבירו צריך להעלות לו שכר אלא בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ואת העלייה מקרה את העליונה ויושב בבית עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו
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.
גמ׳ אמר רבי יוחנן בשלשה מקומות שנה לנו רבי יהודה אסור לאדם שיהנה מממון חבירו חדא הא דתנן
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s property without paying him rent.
אידך מה היא דתנן הנותן צמר לצבע לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יותר על ההוצאה נותן לו היציאה ואם ההוצאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
What is another place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s 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’s property.
ואידך מאי היא דתנן מי שפרע מקצת חובו והשליש את שטרו ואמר לו אם אין אני נותן לך מכאן ועד זמן פלוני תן לו שטרו הגיע זמן ולא נתן רבי יוסי אומר יתן רבי יהודה אומר לא יתן
And what is the other, third place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s 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.
אמאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה הכא אלא משום דאיכא שחרוריתא
The Gemara refutes these proofs as to the general applicability of Rabbi Yehuda’s 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.
אי נמי לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור משום דקא משנה והתנן כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה
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’s instructions, and didn’t we learn in a mishna (76a) that whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage?
ומי שפרע מקצת חובו נמי הוי אסמכתא ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר לא קני
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.
אמר רב אחא בר אדא משמיה דעולא תחתון הבא לשנות בגויל שומעין לו בגזית אין שומעין לו
§ Rav Aḥa 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.
בכפיסין שומעין לו בלבנים אין שומעין לו לסכך בארזים שומעין לו בשקמים אין שומעין לו
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.
למעט בחלונות שומעין לו להרבות בחלונות אין שומעין לו להגביה אין שומעין לו למעט שומעין לו
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.
עליון שבא לשנות בגזית שומעין לו בגויל אין שומעין לו
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.
בכפיסין אין שומעין לו בלבנים שומעין לו בארזים אין שומעין לו בשקמה שומעין לו לרבות בחלונות שומעין לו למעט בחלונות אין שומעין לו להגביה אין שומעין לו למעט שומעין לו
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.
אין לו לזה ולא לזה מאי תניא אין לו לא לזה ולא לזה אין לו לבעל עלייה בקרקע כלום
§ 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.
תניא רבי נתן אומר תחתון נוטל שני חלקים והעליון שליש ואחרים אומרים תחתון נוטל שלשה חלקים והעליון נוטל רביע אמר רבה נקוט דרבי נתן בידך דדיינא הוא ונחית לעומקא דדינא קא סבר כמה מפסיד עלייה בבית תילתא הלכך אית ליה תילתא
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.
מתני׳ וכן בית הבד שהוא בנוי בסלע וגינה אחת על גביו ונפחת הרי בעל הגינה יורד וזורע למטה עד שיעשה לבית בדו כיפין
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.
הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרשות הרבים והזיקו פטור מלשלם נתנו לו זמן לקוץ את האילן ולסתור את הכותל ונפלו בתוך הזמן פטור לאחר הזמן חייב
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.
מי שהיה כותלו סמוך לגינת חבירו ונפל ואמר לו פנה אבניך ואמר לו
In the case of one whose wall was adjacent to another’s 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 Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. May his memory be blessed.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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
כשהוא דר לבדו הוא דר כדמעיקרא או דלמא שניהם דרין דאמר ליה אדעתא לאפקינן לא אגרי לך
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.
אם תמצא לומר שניהם דרין בו כשהוא משתמש דרך פתחים משתמש או דרך גגין משתמש מי אמר כדמעיקרא מה מעיקרא דרך גגין השתא נמי דרך גגין או דלמא מצי אמר ליה עלייה קבילי עלאי עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי
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.
אם תמצא לומר מצי אמר ליה עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי שתי עליות זו על גב זו מהו איפחית עליונה נחית ודר בתחתונה איפחית תחתונה מהו למיסלק לגמרי בעליונה
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?
מי אמרינן דאמר ליה שם עלייה קבילית עלך או דלמא חד עלייה קביל עליה שתי עליות לא קביל עליה תיקו
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.
רבי יוסי אומר התחתון נותן את התקרה כו׳ מאי תקרה רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר קינים וסנאין וסטיני אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לווחים ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה
§ 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 Ḥanina 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.
הנהו בי תרי דהוו דיירי חד עילאי וחד תתאי איפחית מעזיבה כי משי מיא עילאי אזלי ומזקי לתתאי מי מתקן רבי חייא בר אבא אמר העליון מתקן ורבי אלעי משום רבי חייא ברבי יוסי אמר התחתון מתקן וסימן ויוסף הורד מצרימה
§ 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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.
לימא רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אלעי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן קמיפלגי למאן דאמר העליון מתקן קסבר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו מן הניזק ומאן דאמר תחתון מתקן קסבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו מן המזיק
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
ותיסברא רבי יוסי ורבנן לענין נזקין פליגי והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור עשרים וחמש אמה ובחרוב ובשקמה חמשים אמה בין מלמעלה בין מן הצד אם הבור קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים אם האילן קדם לא יקוץ ספק זה קדם ספק זה קדם לא יקוץ
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’t 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.
רבי יוסי אומר אף על פי שהבור קודמת לאילן לא יקוץ שזה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו אלמא רבי יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ורבנן סברי על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו
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.
אלא אי איכא למימר פליגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן דהתם קמיפלגי
Rather, if it can be said that these amora’im disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, 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.
ורבי יוסי ורבנן דהכא במאי פליגי בחוזק תקרה קמיפלגי רבנן סברי מעזיבה אחזוקי תקרה הוא ואחזוקי תקרה על התחתון בעי לאחזוקי ורבי יוסי סבר מעזיבה אשוויי גומות הוא ואשוויי גומות על העליון לאשוויי
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.
איני והאמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב כהנא הוה אמרינן מודה רבי יוסי בגירי דיליה
The Gemara challenges the above conclusion: Is that so? But didn’t 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.
דפסקי מיא והדר נפלי
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.
מתני׳ הבית והעלייה של שנים שנפלו אמר בעל העלייה לבעל הבית לבנות והוא אינו רוצה לבנות הרי בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ודר בתוכה עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו
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.
רבי יהודה אומר אף זה דר בתוך של חבירו צריך להעלות לו שכר אלא בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ואת העלייה מקרה את העליונה ויושב בבית עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו
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.
גמ׳ אמר רבי יוחנן בשלשה מקומות שנה לנו רבי יהודה אסור לאדם שיהנה מממון חבירו חדא הא דתנן
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s property without paying him rent.
אידך מה היא דתנן הנותן צמר לצבע לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יותר על ההוצאה נותן לו היציאה ואם ההוצאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח
What is another place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s 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’s property.
ואידך מאי היא דתנן מי שפרע מקצת חובו והשליש את שטרו ואמר לו אם אין אני נותן לך מכאן ועד זמן פלוני תן לו שטרו הגיע זמן ולא נתן רבי יוסי אומר יתן רבי יהודה אומר לא יתן
And what is the other, third place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s 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.
אמאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה הכא אלא משום דאיכא שחרוריתא
The Gemara refutes these proofs as to the general applicability of Rabbi Yehuda’s 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.
אי נמי לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור משום דקא משנה והתנן כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה
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’s instructions, and didn’t we learn in a mishna (76a) that whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage?
ומי שפרע מקצת חובו נמי הוי אסמכתא ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר לא קני
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.
אמר רב אחא בר אדא משמיה דעולא תחתון הבא לשנות בגויל שומעין לו בגזית אין שומעין לו
§ Rav Aḥa 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.
בכפיסין שומעין לו בלבנים אין שומעין לו לסכך בארזים שומעין לו בשקמים אין שומעין לו
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.
למעט בחלונות שומעין לו להרבות בחלונות אין שומעין לו להגביה אין שומעין לו למעט שומעין לו
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.
עליון שבא לשנות בגזית שומעין לו בגויל אין שומעין לו
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.
בכפיסין אין שומעין לו בלבנים שומעין לו בארזים אין שומעין לו בשקמה שומעין לו לרבות בחלונות שומעין לו למעט בחלונות אין שומעין לו להגביה אין שומעין לו למעט שומעין לו
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.
אין לו לזה ולא לזה מאי תניא אין לו לא לזה ולא לזה אין לו לבעל עלייה בקרקע כלום
§ 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.
תניא רבי נתן אומר תחתון נוטל שני חלקים והעליון שליש ואחרים אומרים תחתון נוטל שלשה חלקים והעליון נוטל רביע אמר רבה נקוט דרבי נתן בידך דדיינא הוא ונחית לעומקא דדינא קא סבר כמה מפסיד עלייה בבית תילתא הלכך אית ליה תילתא
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.
מתני׳ וכן בית הבד שהוא בנוי בסלע וגינה אחת על גביו ונפחת הרי בעל הגינה יורד וזורע למטה עד שיעשה לבית בדו כיפין
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.
הכותל והאילן שנפלו לרשות הרבים והזיקו פטור מלשלם נתנו לו זמן לקוץ את האילן ולסתור את הכותל ונפלו בתוך הזמן פטור לאחר הזמן חייב
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.
מי שהיה כותלו סמוך לגינת חבירו ונפל ואמר לו פנה אבניך ואמר לו
In the case of one whose wall was adjacent to another’s 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:
