If a river uprooted a tree and placed it in someone else’s field, can the owner take it back? What if someone planted a tree on someone’s property without the owner’s knowledge? Does the one who planted receive payment for their work and how much? Would the law be the same for a house one built in someone else’s ruin without the property owner’s knowledge? How much advance notice is required for a landlord to a renter before kicking out the renter from the landlord’s property? The answer depends on the time of year (affected by supply and demand), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence, and what type of store it was. What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?
Bava Metzia 101
06.08.2024 | ב׳ בסיון תשפ״ד
Share this shiur:
Bava Metzia
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’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Bava Metzia
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’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
Bava Metzia 101
חוּץ מִן הַהוֹצָאָה.
is exclusive of the expense of processing the olives to produce oil.
שָׁטַף נָהָר זֵיתָיו. אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ בְּגוּשֵׁיהֶן, וּלְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ.
§ The mishna teaches: In the event that a river swept away one’s olive trees and deposited them in the field of another, and they took root there and yielded olives, then the olives are divided between the owner of the trees and the owner of the field. Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew; and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew after three years since the trees took root in the new field. After three years there is no longer any prohibition of orla (see Leviticus 19:23) on the olives even if one presumes that the olives were nourished from the field owner’s land.
אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ – הַכֹּל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַזֵּיתִים. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַתְּ נְטַעְתְּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, מִי הֲוָה אָכְלַתְּ?
But during the first three years after the trees took root in the new field, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the olive trees, as he can say to the owner of the field: Even if you had planted the trees yourself at the time that they took root in your field, would you have eaten the olives during the first three years? If you claim that the nourishment from your land yielded the olives, the olives will be prohibited as orla. The only reason for them to be permitted is if it is assumed that they were nourished only from the clods of earth in which they were initially planted over three years ago, in which case they should belong entirely to me, as the owner of both the trees and the clods.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי, לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הֲוָה אָכֵילְנָא לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ. הַשְׁתָּא קָאָכְלַתְּ פַּלְגָא בַּהֲדַאי!
The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the field say to him: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years I could have consumed all of the olives yielded by them. Now that I let your trees remain and so you have a right to consume half with me, in return I should be entitled to half the yield during the first three years as well.
אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ בְּגוּשֵׁיהֶן וּבְתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הַכֹּל לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ, מִי לָא הֲוָה אָכֵילְנָא לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ?
The Gemara suggests another interpretation: Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Reish Lakish: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew, and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew during the first three years since the trees took root in the new field. But after the first three years, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the land, as he can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years, could I not have consumed all of the olives produced by them?
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי אַתְּ נְטַעְתְּ – בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ לָא הֲוָה אָכְלַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא קָא אָכְלַתְּ פַּלְגָא בַּהֲדַאי? מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי – הֲוָה קַטִּינֵי וּזְרַעְנָא תְּחוֹתַיְיהוּ סִילְקָא וְיַרְקָא.
The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the trees say to him: Even if you had planted trees yourself at the time my trees took root in your field, then during the first three years you would not have consumed their fruit at all. How, then, can you come now and claim you are entitled to consume half of the olives together with me during those first three years? The Gemara answers: He has a right to demand half of the olives due to the fact that the owner of the field can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, they would be slender plants that do not cast heavy shadows, and I would have planted chard [silka] and vegetables underneath the trees and made a significant profit. Since, instead, I let your trees remain, in return I should be entitled to half of the fruit during the first three years.
תָּנָא: אָמַר הַלָּה ״זֵיתַיי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״ – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּגוֹן דָּא צְרִיכָא רַבָּה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the other one, the owner of the trees, said: I am uprooting and taking my olive trees back, the court does not listen to him. What is the reason? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage explain it, as that reason is not self-evident.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אֲבוֹתָיו מִן הַנׇּכְרִי – מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.
We learned in a mishna there (Demai 6:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors from a gentile under a sharecropping agreement, i.e., he is granted the right to cultivate the land and keep its produce in return for giving a portion of the produce to the gentile owner, must first tithe the produce grown in that field and only then give the gentile his portion from among the tithed produce.
סַבְרוּהָ מַאי ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – שְׂדֵה אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב.
Initially, when the Sages studied this mishna, they assumed the following interpretation: What is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is a reference to any field in Eretz Yisrael. And why did they call it: A field of his ancestors? Because it is a field of his forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
וְקָסָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְנׇכְרִי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר.
According to this interpretation, the mishna is referring to a field which was legitimately acquired by the gentile and to which the Jew has no claim. The Gemara explains why the Jewish sharecropper is required to tithe the produce he will give the landowner: And the reason the sharecropper tithes that produce is that the tanna holds that a gentile’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not abrogate its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce.
וּמְקַבֵּל – כְּחוֹכֵר דָּמֵי. מָה חוֹכֵר, בֵּין עֲבַד וּבֵין לָא עֲבַד, בָּעֵי עַשּׂוֹרֵי וּמִיתַּן לֵיהּ, דְּכִי פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבָתוֹ דָּמֵי. אַף מְקַבֵּל נָמֵי כִּי פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבָתוֹ דָּמֵי, מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.
And Rabbi Yehuda also holds that the obligation of one who receives a field of his ancestors, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is like that of a tenant farmer, i.e., just as a tenant farmer, whether the field produces a crop or whether it does not produce a crop, is required to procure produce from somewhere, tithe it, and then give it to the landowner, as he is like one paying his debt, so too, one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, is also like one paying his debt, and he must consequently first tithe the produce and then give it to the landowner. Since his obligation to the landowner is regarded as a debt, apparently before the produce is given to the landowner, it belongs to the tenant farmer or sharecropper, who is therefore required to tithe it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב פַּפִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְרַב זְבִיד: אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אֲבוֹתָיו מִמֵּצִיק נׇכְרִי מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, מַאי אִירְיָא מֵצִיק? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין מֵצִיק – נָמֵי!
Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappi, and some say that he said it to Rav Zevid: But this explanation is challenged by that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors under a sharecropping agreement, from a gentile oppressor who seized it, first tithes produce and then gives the gentile his portion. According to the Sages’ initial understanding, why does the baraita specifically refer to an oppressor who stole the land? Even if the gentile was not an oppressor, the ruling of the baraita would also apply.
אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְנׇכְרִי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וּמְקַבֵּל לָאו כְּחוֹכֵר דָּמֵי.
Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that a gentile’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael abrogates its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce, and he also holds that the obligation of one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is not like that of a tenant farmer. Since under the sharecropping arrangement the landowner retains a percentage stake in the yield, when the sharecropper provides the landowner with a portion of the produce, he is not considered to be paying a debt to him, but simply to be providing the landowner with the latter’s own produce. Therefore, fundamentally the sharecropper should not have to tithe the produce before giving it to the landowner. The requirement to do so is a fine the Sages imposed upon him, as the Gemara will explain.
וּמַאי ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו מַמָּשׁ. וּלְדִידֵיהּ הוּא דְּקַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, דְּאַיְּידֵי דַּחֲבִיבָא עֲלֵיהּ טָפֵי וְאָזֵיל מְקַבֵּל לַהּ. אֲבָל אִינִישׁ דְּעָלְמָא – לָא.
And, according to this explanation, what is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is referring to a field that belonged to his actual ancestors, of whom he is their heir, and it was then seized by a gentile. And it is only him whom the Sages penalized and required to take tithes from produce before giving it to the gentile oppressor, as, since the land is dear to him, he will more readily go and receive it in a sharecropping arrangement from the gentile, despite the Sages’ requirement. But with regard to another person of the world at large, the Sages did not penalize him, as no one else would be willing to receive the land under such disadvantageous terms.
וּלְדִידֵיהּ מַאי טַעְמָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בָּרָה בְּיָדוֹ.
This explains why the Sages limited the fine to a person who has an ancestral claim to the field, but what is the reason that the Sages penalized him? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was in order to encourage him to purchase the field, so that it will be clearly in his possession. The disadvantageous conditions will make it preferable for him to purchase the land outright from the gentile instead of entering into a sharecropping arrangement with him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּגוֹן דָּא צְרִיכָא רַבָּה.
Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage to explain it.
אִיתְּמַר: הַיּוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ וּנְטָעָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, אָמַר רַב: שָׁמִין לוֹ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ לְנוֹטְעָהּ.
§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s field and planted trees in it without the permission of the owner of the field. Since the owner of the field profits from the planter’s actions, he is required to pay him. Rav says: The court appraises both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements and the planter is at a disadvantage, i.e., the owner of the field pays the lesser of the two amounts. And Shmuel says: The court estimates how much a person would be willing to give for someone to plant trees in this field, and that is how much the owner of the field must pay.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: כָּאן – בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע, כָּאן – בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע.
Rav Pappa said: And Rav and Shmuel do not disagree. Here, Shmuel’s ruling is with regard to a field that is designated for planting, while there, Rav’s ruling is with regard to a field that is not designated for planting.
וְהָא דְּרַב לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵינָא.
The Gemara notes: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated implicitly. As there was a certain person who came before Rav after someone had planted trees in that person’s field. Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements. The owner of the field said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he is at a disadvantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him only the lesser of the two amounts. The owner of the field again said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav did not persist with his ruling, indicating that he conceded that the owner of the field was not obligated to pay.
לְסוֹף חַזְיֵיהּ דְּגַדְרַהּ וְקָא מְנַטַּר לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ גַּלִּית אַדַּעְתָּיךְ דְּנִיחָא לָךְ, זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Eventually, Rav saw that the owner of the field had fenced in the field and was safeguarding the trees. Rav said to him: By doing so you have demonstrated your opinion that having those trees in your field is satisfactory to you. Therefore, I rule that you should go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he has the advantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him the greater of the two amounts.
אִיתְּמַר: הַיּוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ חוּרְבָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וּבְנָאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: עֵצַיי וַאֲבָנַיי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s ruin and built it up using his own materials but without the landowner’s permission, and then later, the builder said to the landowner: I will dismantle the structure and take my timber and my stones back. Rav Naḥman says: The court listens to him and he is allowed to do so. Rav Sheshet says: The court does not listen to him and he is not allowed to do so.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. לֵימָא רַב נַחְמָן דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Naḥman’s ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:6) about the same case: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed: Shall we say that Rav Naḥman said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? That is untenable, as this is not listed as one of the specific exceptions to the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: According to both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the court listens to him; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
The Gemara inquires: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
בְּבַיִת – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. בְּשָׂדֶה – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
In the case of a house, the court listens to him, but in the case of a field, the court does not listen to him.
בְּשָׂדֶה מַאי טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: מִשּׁוּם כַּחְשָׁא דְאַרְעָא. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: In the case of a field, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? It is that due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. There are those who say that it is for a different reason: It is due to the weakening of the land already caused by the tree roots, as it made the land unsuitable for other uses. Therefore, the owner of the trees may not just take them and leave the land in its worsened condition. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these reasons? The practical difference between them is whether outside of Eretz Yisrael, the one who planted the trees may uproot them.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח. בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וּבַכְּרַכִּים, אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבַחֲנוּיוֹת, אֶחָד עֲיָירוֹת וְאֶחָד כְּרַכִּים – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִים שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.
MISHNA: In the case of one who rents out a house in a town to another in the rainy season, the owner cannot evict the renter from the house from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. If the rental was in the summer, he must give thirty days’ notice before he can evict him. And for a house located in the cities [uvakerakim], both in the summer and in the rainy season he must give twelve months’ notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months’ notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, דְּכִי אָגַר אִינִישׁ בֵּיתָא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אָגַר לְכוּלְּהוּ יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה נָמֵי, דְּכִי אָגַר אִינִישׁ בֵּיתָא לְכוּלְּהוּ יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה אָגַר! אֶלָּא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ בֵּיתָא לְמֵיגַר.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different about the rainy season that one cannot evict his renter? The Gemara suggests: Because when a person rents a house during the rainy season, it is presumed that he rents it for the entire rainy season. The Gemara challenges this: But in the summer as well, the same halakha should apply, because when a person rents a house, he rents it for the entire summer. The Gemara offers a different explanation: Rather, in the rainy season, this is the reason that he cannot evict him: It is because at that time, houses for renting are not found on the market. Since alternative housing is not available, even if he is renting the house month by month, one cannot evict him.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בַּכְּרַכִּים, אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְאִילּוּ מְלוֹ לֵיהּ יוֹמֵי שְׂכִירוּת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, וְאַמַּאי? הָא לָא שְׁכִיחַ בֵּיתָא לְמֵיגַר!
The Gemara asks: If that is the reason for the first clause of the mishna, say and try to explain accordingly the latter clause that states: And for a house located in the cities, both in the summer and in the rainy season, one must give twelve months’ notice. It arises from this ruling that if the twelve month rental period would be completed during the rainy season, he could evict him then. But why is this acceptable, given that houses for renting are not found on the market at that time?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, לְהוֹדִיעַ קָתָנֵי. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם – אֵין יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים מֵחַג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Given this difficulty, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of the mishna: Rav Yehuda said: The mishna teaches about the requirement to give notice before eviction, and this is what it is saying: Although in general in a case of one who rents out a house to another without specification of when the rental period will end, both the landlord and the renter can end the rental whenever they so decide, the landlord cannot evict the renter during the rainy season, i.e., from the festival of Sukkot until Passover, unless he gives him notice of thirty days from the outset, i.e., before the rainy season begins. Since it would still be summer, it would be possible for the renter to find alternate housing. But if a fixed rental period was agreed upon, the renter may be evicted upon its completion without prior notice.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים, וּכְשֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּיר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ, כָּךְ שׂוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אוֹדַעְתַּן, הֲוָה טָרַחְנָא וּמוֹתֵיבְנָא בֵּיהּ אִינִישׁ מְעַלְּיָא.
This is also taught in a baraita: When they said, in the mishna: Thirty days, and when they said: Twelve months, they said it only with regard to the requirement to give notice before eviction. And just as a landlord needs to give notice to his renter before he evicts him, so too a renter needs to give notice to his landlord before he can terminate the rental. The Gemara explains why the renter must give notice: As the landlord can say to him: Had you given me notice, I would have exerted myself to find and settle a respectable person in my house.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אִם נִכְנַס יוֹם אֶחָד בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג עַד הַפֶּסַח. וְהָא אֲנַן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם קָאָמַר! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם נִכְנַס יוֹם אֶחָד בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מֵהָנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַחַג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח.
Rav Asi says: If one day of the rental enters into the rainy season without notice being given, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. The Gemara challenges this: But didn’t we say that he must be given thirty days’ notice? Rav Asi’s ruling indicates that if notice was given even a day before Sukkot, that would be sufficient. The Gemara explains: This is what Rav Asi is saying: If one day of these thirty days of notice enters into the rainy season without notice being given, i.e., if notice was given fewer than thirty days before Sukkot, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְאִם בָּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּדָמֶיהָ מְרַבֶּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי לִנְקְטֵיהּ בְּכוּבְסֵיהּ דְּלִשְׁבְּקֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵאּ?! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִיַּיקּוּר בָּתֵּי.
Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Naḥman said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days’ notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna’s opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.
פְּשִׁיטָא נְפַל לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא – אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִינַּאי.
§ It is obvious that if the house in which the landlord lives fell down, then he can evict his renter from the house that he is renting to him, without giving notice, as he can say to him: You are no better than me. Since the landlord needs to find a new house to live in, he can demand that he should move into his rental property and it should be his renter who must look for new housing. He cannot be expected to have given notice, as he could not have foreseen that his house would fall down.
זַבְּנֵיהּ אוֹ אוֹרְתֵיהּ אוֹ יַהֲבֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה – אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִגַּבְרָא דַּאֲתֵית מִינֵּיהּ.
If a landlord sold the rental property to another, or bequeathed it to his heirs, or gave it to another person as a gift, the renter can say to the new owner: You are no better than the person from whom your ownership of the property came. Since he was required to give me notice before evicting me, so must you.
כַּלְּלֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ, חָזֵינַן: אִי הֲוָה אֶפְשָׁר לְאוֹדוֹעֵיהּ – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאוֹדוֹעֵי, וְאִי לָא – אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִינַּאי.
If a landlord marries off his son, and wishes to evict his current renter to provide a home for the newly married couple, then we see: If it was possible for him to have given notice, as the couple had already been engaged for some time, then he is required to give notice and cannot evict his renter otherwise, but if it was not possible to give timely notice, then he can say to his renter: You are no better than me and my needs. I need the property now for my son, so it should be you who should go and find alternate housing.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּזְבַן אַרְבָּא דְחַמְרָא. לָא אַשְׁכַּח דּוּכְתָּא לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא: אִית לָךְ דּוּכְתָּא לְאוֹגוֹרַי? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲזַל קַדְּשַׁהּ יְהַבָה לֵיהּ דּוּכְתָּא לְעַיֹּילֵיהּ. אֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ כְּתַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא, שַׁדַּר לַהּ. אֲזַלָא אִיהִי, אֲגַרָא שָׁקוֹלָאֵי מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ, אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בִּשְׁבִילָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ גְּמוּלוֹ יָשׁוּב בְּרֹאשׁוֹ״.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.
לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חָצֵר דְּלָא קָיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר דְּקָיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִיחָא לִי לְאוֹגוֹרֵי וְלָךְ לָא נִיחָא לִי, דְּדָמֵית עֲלַי כִּי אַרְיָא אָרְבָא.
The Gemara explains Rav Huna’s ruling: It is not necessary to state that the woman is entitled to evict the man if the place she rented out to him was a courtyard that did not stand to be rented out, in which case she is not expected to rent it to anyone; rather, even if it was a courtyard that stands to be rented out, she could say to him: It is amenable for me to rent the place to everyone else, but it is not amenable to me to rent it to you, as you are to me like a preying lion. Since you deceived me, I do not wish to have any dealings with you.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶקֵּיפָן מְרוּבֶּה.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice. It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:27): The need for this unusually long period of notice is due to the fact that the length of the credit extended by these businesses to their customers is extensive. They must be provided with enough time to collect their debts before being forced to relocate.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חַיָּיב בַּדֶּלֶת, בַּנֶּגֶר וּבַמַּנְעוּל, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן – הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֵׂהוּ.
MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it.
הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין לַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וּמִן הַכִּירַיִם בִּלְבַד.
The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, מַשְׂכִּיר חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ דְּלָתוֹת, לִפְתּוֹחַ לוֹ חַלּוֹנוֹת, לְחַזֵּק לוֹ תִּקְרָה, לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ קוֹרָה. וְשׂוֹכֵר חַיָּיב לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ סוּלָּם, לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מַעֲקֶה, לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מַרְזֵב וּלְהָטִיחַ אֶת גַּגּוֹ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility to install doors for it, to open windows in its walls to provide light for it, to strengthen its ceiling, and to support its cross beam. And the renter bears the responsibility to make a ladder for it to provide access to the roof, to erect a parapet for its roof (see Deuteronomy 22:8), to construct a gutter for it to carry away rain which falls on the roof, and to plaster its roof so that rain does not leak through it.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְזוּזָה עַל מִי? מְזוּזָה?! הָאָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מְזוּזָה חוֹבַת הַדָּר הִיא. אֶלָּא: מְקוֹם מְזוּזָה עַל מִי?
The students in the study hall raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: Upon whom is the obligation to affix a mezuza (see Deuteronomy 6:9)? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: Why did they ask about a mezuza; doesn’t Rav Mesharshiyya say: Affixing a mezuza is the obligation of the resident? It is certainly the responsibility of the renter. The Gemara emends the dilemma: Rather, their dilemma was: Upon whom is the responsibility to prepare the place where the mezuza will be affixed, e.g., to bore a slit in a stone doorpost to insert the mezuza there?
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן – הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֵׂהוּ, וְהַאי נָמֵי לָאו מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן הוּא, אֶפְשָׁר הוּא
Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned this in the mishna: With regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. And this task is also something that does not require the work of a craftsman, as it is possible
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Bava Metzia 101
חוּץ מִן הַהוֹצָאָה.
is exclusive of the expense of processing the olives to produce oil.
שָׁטַף נָהָר זֵיתָיו. אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ בְּגוּשֵׁיהֶן, וּלְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ.
§ The mishna teaches: In the event that a river swept away one’s olive trees and deposited them in the field of another, and they took root there and yielded olives, then the olives are divided between the owner of the trees and the owner of the field. Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew; and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew after three years since the trees took root in the new field. After three years there is no longer any prohibition of orla (see Leviticus 19:23) on the olives even if one presumes that the olives were nourished from the field owner’s land.
אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ – הַכֹּל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַזֵּיתִים. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אַתְּ נְטַעְתְּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, מִי הֲוָה אָכְלַתְּ?
But during the first three years after the trees took root in the new field, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the olive trees, as he can say to the owner of the field: Even if you had planted the trees yourself at the time that they took root in your field, would you have eaten the olives during the first three years? If you claim that the nourishment from your land yielded the olives, the olives will be prohibited as orla. The only reason for them to be permitted is if it is assumed that they were nourished only from the clods of earth in which they were initially planted over three years ago, in which case they should belong entirely to me, as the owner of both the trees and the clods.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי, לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הֲוָה אָכֵילְנָא לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ. הַשְׁתָּא קָאָכְלַתְּ פַּלְגָא בַּהֲדַאי!
The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the field say to him: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years I could have consumed all of the olives yielded by them. Now that I let your trees remain and so you have a right to consume half with me, in return I should be entitled to half the yield during the first three years as well.
אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ בְּגוּשֵׁיהֶן וּבְתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ הַכֹּל לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ, מִי לָא הֲוָה אָכֵילְנָא לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ?
The Gemara suggests another interpretation: Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Reish Lakish: They taught this only about a case where the olive trees were uprooted and relocated together with their clods of earth in which they grew, and the ruling is with regard to olives that grew during the first three years since the trees took root in the new field. But after the first three years, everything that grows is the property of the owner of the land, as he can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, then after three years, could I not have consumed all of the olives produced by them?
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי אַתְּ נְטַעְתְּ – בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ לָא הֲוָה אָכְלַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא קָא אָכְלַתְּ פַּלְגָא בַּהֲדַאי? מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲנָא נְטַעִי – הֲוָה קַטִּינֵי וּזְרַעְנָא תְּחוֹתַיְיהוּ סִילְקָא וְיַרְקָא.
The Gemara asks: But let the owner of the trees say to him: Even if you had planted trees yourself at the time my trees took root in your field, then during the first three years you would not have consumed their fruit at all. How, then, can you come now and claim you are entitled to consume half of the olives together with me during those first three years? The Gemara answers: He has a right to demand half of the olives due to the fact that the owner of the field can say to the owner of the trees: If I had uprooted your trees from my field and instead planted my own trees, they would be slender plants that do not cast heavy shadows, and I would have planted chard [silka] and vegetables underneath the trees and made a significant profit. Since, instead, I let your trees remain, in return I should be entitled to half of the fruit during the first three years.
תָּנָא: אָמַר הַלָּה ״זֵיתַיי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״ – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּגוֹן דָּא צְרִיכָא רַבָּה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the other one, the owner of the trees, said: I am uprooting and taking my olive trees back, the court does not listen to him. What is the reason? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage explain it, as that reason is not self-evident.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אֲבוֹתָיו מִן הַנׇּכְרִי – מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.
We learned in a mishna there (Demai 6:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors from a gentile under a sharecropping agreement, i.e., he is granted the right to cultivate the land and keep its produce in return for giving a portion of the produce to the gentile owner, must first tithe the produce grown in that field and only then give the gentile his portion from among the tithed produce.
סַבְרוּהָ מַאי ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לַהּ ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – שְׂדֵה אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב.
Initially, when the Sages studied this mishna, they assumed the following interpretation: What is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is a reference to any field in Eretz Yisrael. And why did they call it: A field of his ancestors? Because it is a field of his forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
וְקָסָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְנׇכְרִי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר.
According to this interpretation, the mishna is referring to a field which was legitimately acquired by the gentile and to which the Jew has no claim. The Gemara explains why the Jewish sharecropper is required to tithe the produce he will give the landowner: And the reason the sharecropper tithes that produce is that the tanna holds that a gentile’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not abrogate its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce.
וּמְקַבֵּל – כְּחוֹכֵר דָּמֵי. מָה חוֹכֵר, בֵּין עֲבַד וּבֵין לָא עֲבַד, בָּעֵי עַשּׂוֹרֵי וּמִיתַּן לֵיהּ, דְּכִי פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבָתוֹ דָּמֵי. אַף מְקַבֵּל נָמֵי כִּי פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבָתוֹ דָּמֵי, מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ.
And Rabbi Yehuda also holds that the obligation of one who receives a field of his ancestors, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is like that of a tenant farmer, i.e., just as a tenant farmer, whether the field produces a crop or whether it does not produce a crop, is required to procure produce from somewhere, tithe it, and then give it to the landowner, as he is like one paying his debt, so too, one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, is also like one paying his debt, and he must consequently first tithe the produce and then give it to the landowner. Since his obligation to the landowner is regarded as a debt, apparently before the produce is given to the landowner, it belongs to the tenant farmer or sharecropper, who is therefore required to tithe it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב פַּפִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְרַב זְבִיד: אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה אֲבוֹתָיו מִמֵּצִיק נׇכְרִי מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, מַאי אִירְיָא מֵצִיק? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין מֵצִיק – נָמֵי!
Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappi, and some say that he said it to Rav Zevid: But this explanation is challenged by that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that one who receives a field of his ancestors under a sharecropping agreement, from a gentile oppressor who seized it, first tithes produce and then gives the gentile his portion. According to the Sages’ initial understanding, why does the baraita specifically refer to an oppressor who stole the land? Even if the gentile was not an oppressor, the ruling of the baraita would also apply.
אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְנׇכְרִי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וּמְקַבֵּל לָאו כְּחוֹכֵר דָּמֵי.
Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that a gentile’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael abrogates its sanctity with regard to separating tithes from its produce, and he also holds that the obligation of one who receives, i.e., a sharecropper, to pay the landowner is not like that of a tenant farmer. Since under the sharecropping arrangement the landowner retains a percentage stake in the yield, when the sharecropper provides the landowner with a portion of the produce, he is not considered to be paying a debt to him, but simply to be providing the landowner with the latter’s own produce. Therefore, fundamentally the sharecropper should not have to tithe the produce before giving it to the landowner. The requirement to do so is a fine the Sages imposed upon him, as the Gemara will explain.
וּמַאי ״שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו״ – שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו מַמָּשׁ. וּלְדִידֵיהּ הוּא דְּקַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, דְּאַיְּידֵי דַּחֲבִיבָא עֲלֵיהּ טָפֵי וְאָזֵיל מְקַבֵּל לַהּ. אֲבָל אִינִישׁ דְּעָלְמָא – לָא.
And, according to this explanation, what is the meaning of: A field of his ancestors? It is referring to a field that belonged to his actual ancestors, of whom he is their heir, and it was then seized by a gentile. And it is only him whom the Sages penalized and required to take tithes from produce before giving it to the gentile oppressor, as, since the land is dear to him, he will more readily go and receive it in a sharecropping arrangement from the gentile, despite the Sages’ requirement. But with regard to another person of the world at large, the Sages did not penalize him, as no one else would be willing to receive the land under such disadvantageous terms.
וּלְדִידֵיהּ מַאי טַעְמָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בָּרָה בְּיָדוֹ.
This explains why the Sages limited the fine to a person who has an ancestral claim to the field, but what is the reason that the Sages penalized him? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was in order to encourage him to purchase the field, so that it will be clearly in his possession. The disadvantageous conditions will make it preferable for him to purchase the land outright from the gentile instead of entering into a sharecropping arrangement with him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּגוֹן דָּא צְרִיכָא רַבָּה.
Upon hearing this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya said: For rulings such as this, it is necessary to have a great Sage to explain it.
אִיתְּמַר: הַיּוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ וּנְטָעָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, אָמַר רַב: שָׁמִין לוֹ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ לְנוֹטְעָהּ.
§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s field and planted trees in it without the permission of the owner of the field. Since the owner of the field profits from the planter’s actions, he is required to pay him. Rav says: The court appraises both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements and the planter is at a disadvantage, i.e., the owner of the field pays the lesser of the two amounts. And Shmuel says: The court estimates how much a person would be willing to give for someone to plant trees in this field, and that is how much the owner of the field must pay.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: כָּאן – בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע, כָּאן – בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע.
Rav Pappa said: And Rav and Shmuel do not disagree. Here, Shmuel’s ruling is with regard to a field that is designated for planting, while there, Rav’s ruling is with regard to a field that is not designated for planting.
וְהָא דְּרַב לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵינָא.
The Gemara notes: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated implicitly. As there was a certain person who came before Rav after someone had planted trees in that person’s field. Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements. The owner of the field said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav said to him: Go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he is at a disadvantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him only the lesser of the two amounts. The owner of the field again said to him: I do not want these trees; why should I pay for them? Rav did not persist with his ruling, indicating that he conceded that the owner of the field was not obligated to pay.
לְסוֹף חַזְיֵיהּ דְּגַדְרַהּ וְקָא מְנַטַּר לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ גַּלִּית אַדַּעְתָּיךְ דְּנִיחָא לָךְ, זִיל שׁוּם לֵיהּ, וְיָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Eventually, Rav saw that the owner of the field had fenced in the field and was safeguarding the trees. Rav said to him: By doing so you have demonstrated your opinion that having those trees in your field is satisfactory to you. Therefore, I rule that you should go and have the court appraise both the expenses for the one who planted the trees and the value of the improvements, and he has the advantage, i.e., you are obligated to pay him the greater of the two amounts.
אִיתְּמַר: הַיּוֹרֵד לְתוֹךְ חוּרְבָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וּבְנָאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: עֵצַיי וַאֲבָנַיי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who entered another’s ruin and built it up using his own materials but without the landowner’s permission, and then later, the builder said to the landowner: I will dismantle the structure and take my timber and my stones back. Rav Naḥman says: The court listens to him and he is allowed to do so. Rav Sheshet says: The court does not listen to him and he is not allowed to do so.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. לֵימָא רַב נַחְמָן דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Naḥman’s ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:6) about the same case: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed: Shall we say that Rav Naḥman said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? That is untenable, as this is not listed as one of the specific exceptions to the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: According to both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the court listens to him; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say that the court listens to him, and Beit Hillel say that the court does not listen to him.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
The Gemara inquires: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
בְּבַיִת – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. בְּשָׂדֶה – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
In the case of a house, the court listens to him, but in the case of a field, the court does not listen to him.
בְּשָׂדֶה מַאי טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: מִשּׁוּם כַּחְשָׁא דְאַרְעָא. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: In the case of a field, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? It is that due to the desire to promote the settling of Eretz Yisrael, it is inappropriate to uproot trees. There are those who say that it is for a different reason: It is due to the weakening of the land already caused by the tree roots, as it made the land unsuitable for other uses. Therefore, the owner of the trees may not just take them and leave the land in its worsened condition. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these reasons? The practical difference between them is whether outside of Eretz Yisrael, the one who planted the trees may uproot them.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח. בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וּבַכְּרַכִּים, אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבַחֲנוּיוֹת, אֶחָד עֲיָירוֹת וְאֶחָד כְּרַכִּים – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִים שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.
MISHNA: In the case of one who rents out a house in a town to another in the rainy season, the owner cannot evict the renter from the house from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. If the rental was in the summer, he must give thirty days’ notice before he can evict him. And for a house located in the cities [uvakerakim], both in the summer and in the rainy season he must give twelve months’ notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months’ notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, דְּכִי אָגַר אִינִישׁ בֵּיתָא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אָגַר לְכוּלְּהוּ יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה נָמֵי, דְּכִי אָגַר אִינִישׁ בֵּיתָא לְכוּלְּהוּ יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה אָגַר! אֶלָּא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ בֵּיתָא לְמֵיגַר.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different about the rainy season that one cannot evict his renter? The Gemara suggests: Because when a person rents a house during the rainy season, it is presumed that he rents it for the entire rainy season. The Gemara challenges this: But in the summer as well, the same halakha should apply, because when a person rents a house, he rents it for the entire summer. The Gemara offers a different explanation: Rather, in the rainy season, this is the reason that he cannot evict him: It is because at that time, houses for renting are not found on the market. Since alternative housing is not available, even if he is renting the house month by month, one cannot evict him.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בַּכְּרַכִּים, אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְאִילּוּ מְלוֹ לֵיהּ יוֹמֵי שְׂכִירוּת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, וְאַמַּאי? הָא לָא שְׁכִיחַ בֵּיתָא לְמֵיגַר!
The Gemara asks: If that is the reason for the first clause of the mishna, say and try to explain accordingly the latter clause that states: And for a house located in the cities, both in the summer and in the rainy season, one must give twelve months’ notice. It arises from this ruling that if the twelve month rental period would be completed during the rainy season, he could evict him then. But why is this acceptable, given that houses for renting are not found on the market at that time?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, לְהוֹדִיעַ קָתָנֵי. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם – אֵין יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים מֵחַג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Given this difficulty, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of the mishna: Rav Yehuda said: The mishna teaches about the requirement to give notice before eviction, and this is what it is saying: Although in general in a case of one who rents out a house to another without specification of when the rental period will end, both the landlord and the renter can end the rental whenever they so decide, the landlord cannot evict the renter during the rainy season, i.e., from the festival of Sukkot until Passover, unless he gives him notice of thirty days from the outset, i.e., before the rainy season begins. Since it would still be summer, it would be possible for the renter to find alternate housing. But if a fixed rental period was agreed upon, the renter may be evicted upon its completion without prior notice.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים, וּכְשֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמַּשְׂכִּיר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ, כָּךְ שׂוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אוֹדַעְתַּן, הֲוָה טָרַחְנָא וּמוֹתֵיבְנָא בֵּיהּ אִינִישׁ מְעַלְּיָא.
This is also taught in a baraita: When they said, in the mishna: Thirty days, and when they said: Twelve months, they said it only with regard to the requirement to give notice before eviction. And just as a landlord needs to give notice to his renter before he evicts him, so too a renter needs to give notice to his landlord before he can terminate the rental. The Gemara explains why the renter must give notice: As the landlord can say to him: Had you given me notice, I would have exerted myself to find and settle a respectable person in my house.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אִם נִכְנַס יוֹם אֶחָד בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג עַד הַפֶּסַח. וְהָא אֲנַן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם קָאָמַר! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם נִכְנַס יוֹם אֶחָד בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מֵהָנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַחַג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח.
Rav Asi says: If one day of the rental enters into the rainy season without notice being given, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. The Gemara challenges this: But didn’t we say that he must be given thirty days’ notice? Rav Asi’s ruling indicates that if notice was given even a day before Sukkot, that would be sufficient. The Gemara explains: This is what Rav Asi is saying: If one day of these thirty days of notice enters into the rainy season without notice being given, i.e., if notice was given fewer than thirty days before Sukkot, then the landlord cannot evict the renter from the festival of Sukkot until Passover.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְאִם בָּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּדָמֶיהָ מְרַבֶּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי לִנְקְטֵיהּ בְּכוּבְסֵיהּ דְּלִשְׁבְּקֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵאּ?! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִיַּיקּוּר בָּתֵּי.
Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Naḥman said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days’ notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna’s opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.
פְּשִׁיטָא נְפַל לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא – אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִינַּאי.
§ It is obvious that if the house in which the landlord lives fell down, then he can evict his renter from the house that he is renting to him, without giving notice, as he can say to him: You are no better than me. Since the landlord needs to find a new house to live in, he can demand that he should move into his rental property and it should be his renter who must look for new housing. He cannot be expected to have given notice, as he could not have foreseen that his house would fall down.
זַבְּנֵיהּ אוֹ אוֹרְתֵיהּ אוֹ יַהֲבֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה – אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִגַּבְרָא דַּאֲתֵית מִינֵּיהּ.
If a landlord sold the rental property to another, or bequeathed it to his heirs, or gave it to another person as a gift, the renter can say to the new owner: You are no better than the person from whom your ownership of the property came. Since he was required to give me notice before evicting me, so must you.
כַּלְּלֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ, חָזֵינַן: אִי הֲוָה אֶפְשָׁר לְאוֹדוֹעֵיהּ – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאוֹדוֹעֵי, וְאִי לָא – אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיפַתְּ מִינַּאי.
If a landlord marries off his son, and wishes to evict his current renter to provide a home for the newly married couple, then we see: If it was possible for him to have given notice, as the couple had already been engaged for some time, then he is required to give notice and cannot evict his renter otherwise, but if it was not possible to give timely notice, then he can say to his renter: You are no better than me and my needs. I need the property now for my son, so it should be you who should go and find alternate housing.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּזְבַן אַרְבָּא דְחַמְרָא. לָא אַשְׁכַּח דּוּכְתָּא לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְהַהִיא אִיתְּתָא: אִית לָךְ דּוּכְתָּא לְאוֹגוֹרַי? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲזַל קַדְּשַׁהּ יְהַבָה לֵיהּ דּוּכְתָּא לְעַיֹּילֵיהּ. אֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ כְּתַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא, שַׁדַּר לַהּ. אֲזַלָא אִיהִי, אֲגַרָא שָׁקוֹלָאֵי מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ, אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בִּשְׁבִילָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ גְּמוּלוֹ יָשׁוּב בְּרֹאשׁוֹ״.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.
לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חָצֵר דְּלָא קָיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר דְּקָיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִיחָא לִי לְאוֹגוֹרֵי וְלָךְ לָא נִיחָא לִי, דְּדָמֵית עֲלַי כִּי אַרְיָא אָרְבָא.
The Gemara explains Rav Huna’s ruling: It is not necessary to state that the woman is entitled to evict the man if the place she rented out to him was a courtyard that did not stand to be rented out, in which case she is not expected to rent it to anyone; rather, even if it was a courtyard that stands to be rented out, she could say to him: It is amenable for me to rent the place to everyone else, but it is not amenable to me to rent it to you, as you are to me like a preying lion. Since you deceived me, I do not wish to have any dealings with you.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶקֵּיפָן מְרוּבֶּה.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice. It was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:27): The need for this unusually long period of notice is due to the fact that the length of the credit extended by these businesses to their customers is extensive. They must be provided with enough time to collect their debts before being forced to relocate.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חַיָּיב בַּדֶּלֶת, בַּנֶּגֶר וּבַמַּנְעוּל, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן – הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֵׂהוּ.
MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it.
הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין לַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וּמִן הַכִּירַיִם בִּלְבַד.
The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, מַשְׂכִּיר חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ דְּלָתוֹת, לִפְתּוֹחַ לוֹ חַלּוֹנוֹת, לְחַזֵּק לוֹ תִּקְרָה, לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ קוֹרָה. וְשׂוֹכֵר חַיָּיב לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ סוּלָּם, לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מַעֲקֶה, לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מַרְזֵב וּלְהָטִיחַ אֶת גַּגּוֹ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility to install doors for it, to open windows in its walls to provide light for it, to strengthen its ceiling, and to support its cross beam. And the renter bears the responsibility to make a ladder for it to provide access to the roof, to erect a parapet for its roof (see Deuteronomy 22:8), to construct a gutter for it to carry away rain which falls on the roof, and to plaster its roof so that rain does not leak through it.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְזוּזָה עַל מִי? מְזוּזָה?! הָאָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מְזוּזָה חוֹבַת הַדָּר הִיא. אֶלָּא: מְקוֹם מְזוּזָה עַל מִי?
The students in the study hall raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: Upon whom is the obligation to affix a mezuza (see Deuteronomy 6:9)? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: Why did they ask about a mezuza; doesn’t Rav Mesharshiyya say: Affixing a mezuza is the obligation of the resident? It is certainly the responsibility of the renter. The Gemara emends the dilemma: Rather, their dilemma was: Upon whom is the responsibility to prepare the place where the mezuza will be affixed, e.g., to bore a slit in a stone doorpost to insert the mezuza there?
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן – הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֵׂהוּ, וְהַאי נָמֵי לָאו מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן הוּא, אֶפְשָׁר הוּא
Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned this in the mishna: With regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. And this task is also something that does not require the work of a craftsman, as it is possible
Follow
