Bava Metzia 101b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara brings a statement:

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

In a house

that he built on his fellow’s land,

we heed him

if he said, “My wood and my stones I am taking,” in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman.

In a field

in which he planted saplings,

we do not heed him

if he said, “I am taking my saplings.”

What is the reason

that we do not heed him in the field as in the house?

Because of the settlement of the Land of Israel,

for it is important that there be more trees in it than houses.

Some say:

With regard to trees, we do not heed him because of

the weakening of the land ,

for the trees’ drawing nourishment weakened the field, and it will not return to being as good as it was before the planting.

What difference is there between them? [ [A0025]]What is the practical difference between the two reasons

What is the practical difference between the two reasons with regard to the halakha?

There is a difference between them: outside the Land of Israel,

where there is no issue of the settlement of the Land of Israel, but there is the claim of “the weakening of the land.”

Mishna:

From here until the end of the chapter, the Mishnayot deal with the laws of renting houses.

Our Mishna discusses when the landlord may remove the tenant from the house.

One who rents a house to his fellow during the rainy season cannot remove him

from the house

from Sukkot

[the festival of Sukkot]

until Passover,

when the rainy season ends.

And if he rented the house to him

during the dry season ,

he may remove him after

thirty days,

because during the dry season houses for rent are available.

This law applies in towns, where houses for rent are available during the dry season.

And in large cities,

where there are markets and people are drawn to live there, and there it is difficult to find houses to rent,

whether

the landlord rents in

the dry season,

or in

the rainy season,

he may not remove him except after twelve months.

And with regard to shops

that were rented,

whether

shops in

towns, or whether

shops in

large cities,

the tenant may not be removed except after

twelve months,

because they extend credit in the shop, and if he must leave the shop quickly, he will lose his customers’ payments, because they will not know where he is.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

From

a shop of bakers and of dyers,

one may not remove [the tenant] except after

three years,

because they extend credit for a long period.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who rents a house to his fellow during the rainy season cannot remove him from Sukkot until Passover; during the dry season, thirty days.

The Gemara initially understands simply that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which, at the time of the rental, they stipulated that the rental would be for the rainy season or for the dry season.

The Gemara discusses:

What is different

[in what way do

the days

of the rainy season

differ, that one may not remove the tenant until their end,

for when a person rents a house

[when a person rents a house]

for

the sake of

the rainy season, he rents for all

[he rents for the entire]

rainy season,

as though he said that the rental would be until Passover.

If so, one who rents a house for

the dry season as well,

we should say

that when a person rents a house, he rents for all the dry season,

as though the rental were until Sukkot.

Rather,

the Mishna is not to be understood as saying that the rental was for the rainy season or for the dry season.

Rather, the Mishna is speaking of a case in which they did not establish the end-time of the rental; they only established that each month he would pay him a certain sum.

According to the basic law, the landlord may remove the tenant after the first month in this case, but

with regard to the rainy season, this is the reason

that the tenant may not be removed: because

houses for rent are not available

[houses are not commonly available for rent], and therefore the Sages enacted an enactment for the tenant’s benefit, that he may not be removed throughout the winter.

And we object:

Consider the latter clause,

and see whether you can settle it according to this interpretation.

It is written in the latter clause:

In large cities, whether during the dry season or during the rainy season,

they grant the tenant

twelve months

from the beginning of the rental during which he may not be removed.

But if his rental days are completed during the rainy season, he removes him!

[And if the twelve months end during the rainy season, he may remove him!]

And why? Is it not the case that houses for rent are not available

during the rainy season, and the Sages enacted that the tenant may not be removed from the house during the rainy season?

Rav Yehuda said

in explanation of the Mishna:

It teaches in order to inform.

The times stated in the Mishna, before which the tenant may not be removed, do not begin from the time of the rental. Rather, even if the tenant has lived in the house for many years, the Sages enacted that the landlord may not remove him except after he informed him sufficiently in advance that he wants to remove him, so that the tenant can find another place.

And this is what

the tan[n]ay

says: One who rents a house to his fellow without specification

, may not remove him during the rainy season from Sukkot until Passover,

for the reason stated above,

unless he informed him from the outset,

during the dry season, thirty days, because during the thirty days of the dry season he can find another house.

According to this interpretation, the words of the Mishna, “during the dry season, thirty days,” are only a continuation of the first law of the Mishna. And in a case where the landlord wants to remove the tenant during the dry season, the Mishna did not speak; but it can be understood from it that in this case he must give notice thirty days beforehand , because thirty days during the dry season is the appropriate time to find another house.

And we support Rav Yehuda from a beraita:

It was taught likewise: When they said

in the Mishna

thirty, and when they said twelve months, they said it only in order to inform him

that he should leave after these periods.

And the beraita adds a law:

Just as a landlord must give notice, so a tenant must give notice

to the landlord , that he wants to leave the house; and if he did not give notice, he may not leave the house without paying rent.

And the Gemara explains: because

he says to him

the landlord to the tenant:

Had you informed me, I would have taken the trouble and settled an excellent person in it.

[Had you informed me, I would have taken the trouble to settle an upright person in the house] .

Rav Asi said:

If he entered

even

one day

during the rainy season, he may not remove him from Sukkot until Passover,

because the established period is precise.

And the Gemara understood from Rav Asi’s words that before the rainy season he may remove him.

The Gemara objects:

But we learned thirty days in the Mishna!

And we concluded that the Mishna means that he must give notice thirty days before the rainy season.

And we explain Rav Asi:

This is what he is saying: If one day of the rainy season enters within those thirty days

that preceded it—for example, he informed him on the sixteenth of Elul—

he may not remove him from Sukkot until Passover

because he did not inform him at the proper time.

Rav Huna said: And if he comes

the landlord

to increase its price

of the rental,

he increases it,

even though he did not inform him, for according to the basic law he could have removed the tenant from the house immediately; rather, the Sages enacted an enactment for the tenants’ benefit that notice is required, and they did not prevent the homeowner from raising the rent.

Rav Naḥman said to him

to Rav Huna:

This is holding him by his testicles so that he will release his garment!

[It is as though he is holding him by his testicles until he lets go of his cloak], and if you give the landlord the possibility of raising the rent, he will be able to demand rent that the tenant cannot bear, and he will leave against his will.

And we answer Rav Huna:

It is necessary

only

when houses have become more expensive ,

and the landlord is losing because of the enactment, and it is evident that he is not seeking a pretext to remove him.

Now the Gemara brings several laws concerning the enactment of the Sages that the tenant may not be removed from the house without advance notice.

1.

It is obvious

[the matter is obvious] that if

his house fell

[the landlord’s house fell], and he demands that the tenant leave his house without notice so that he can live there.

The law is that he may remove him, because

he says to him:

Indeed, I did not inform you, and you cannot find a new house immediately , but

you are not preferable to me,

for I too have no place to live, and I could not inform you because I did not know that my house would fall.

2.

He sold it, or bequeathed it, or gave it as a gift,

a landlord who sold, bequeathed, or gave as a gift his rented house, and the purchaser—who could not give advance notice—wants to remove the tenant from the house immediately.

The law is that he may not, because

he says to him

the tenant:

You are not preferable to the man from whom you derived your claim

[you are not superior to the one through whom you came], just as the seller could not remove me, so you too cannot.

3.

He married off his son

[the landlord married off his son] and needs to give him a house, and wants to remove the tenant without advance notice.

We see

[we see],

if it was possible to inform him

[if it was possible for him to inform him], because he knew that his son was about to marry,

he should have informed him

[he should have informed him], and if he did not inform him, he may not remove him.

But if not,

if he could not inform him, he may remove him, because

he says to him: You are not preferable to me,

and I need the house for my son.

Now the Gemara brings an incident in which the landlord removed the tenant according to law.

A certain man purchased a ship of wine,

[there was a man who purchased a ship with wine],

and he could not find a place to put it

[and he did not find a place to put the wine].

He said to a certain woman

[he said to one woman]:

Do you have a place to rent to me?

[Do you have a place to rent to me?]

She said to him: No.

He went and betrothed her

[the man went and betrothed the woman], and because of this

she gave him a place to bring it inside

[she gave him a place to bring in the wine].

He went to his house, wrote her a bill of divorce, and sent it to her.

[The man went to his house, wrote her a bill of divorce, and sent it to her.]

She went, hired porters from it itself, removed it, and placed it in the street,

[she went, hired porters and paid their wages from that wine, and took the wine out to the street].

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

The woman acted well,

As he did, so shall be done to him; his recompense shall return upon his head,

and certainly the woman acted according to law.

It is unnecessary to say, [concerning] a courtyard that is not fit to be rented,

[there is no need to say that if the courtyard was not designated for rental] and she rented it to him because he deceived her, that she may remove him.

Rather, even if

the courtyard was

a courtyard fit to be rented

and she wanted to rent it to other people,

she said to him

[she says to him]:

To everyone

I am pleased to rent, but with you I am not pleased,

[I want to rent to everyone, but not to you],

for you appear to me like a lurking lion

[for in my eyes you resemble a lion lying in ambush], and since the rental was effected through deception , it is void.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Of bakers and dyers, three years.

The tanna taught: Because their encumbrances are numerous

and it is necessary to give them a long time until they repay all the encumbrances that they incurred for a long period.

Mishna:

One who rents a house to another,

the landlord is obligated to provide the house to the tenant with all the things necessary for dwelling in the house.

The landlord is obligated concerning a door, a bolt, a lock, and every matter that is the work of a craftsman.

A bolt is a peg that one inserts into the threshold and with which one locks the house from inside, while a lock is made in order to lock from outside; and they are made by craftsmen.

But a matter that is not the work of a craftsman

, the tenant performs it,

and if he wishes to hire a craftsman, he pays him from his own funds.

The manure

of animals found in the courtyard of the rented house is

the property of the landlord,

the one who rents it. And it will be explained in the Gemara in which case this applies.

And the tenant has no right

to the manure

except for

ashes

that emerge from

the oven and the stove,

which are found in the courtyard

alone.

Gemara:

The Gemara brings a beraita that expands upon and specifies more than the Mishna the things that the landlord is obligated to do, and the things that the tenant must do if he wishes.

The Sages taught: One who rents a house to another, the landlord is obligated to provide him with doors,

because they are the work of a craftsman.

And if the house is dark because it has no windows, the landlord is obligated

to open windows for him .

And if the boards of the ceiling became worm-eaten and damaged, the landlord is obligated

to strengthen the ceiling for him.

And if one of the beams supporting the ceiling broke, he is obligated

to support it with a beam for him.

And the tenant is obligated to make a ladder for him ,

if he wishes to ascend to the roof of the house, where he dwells.

And likewise the tenant is obligated

to make a parapet for him .

And he is obligated

to make a gutter for him,

for they would place boards beside the wall of the house on the outside, near the roof, and this was the gutter; and when a board fell, an ordinary person would replace it.

And

he is obligated

to plaster his roof

with clay, as they were accustomed to do it in a sloping form, so that rainwater would not accumulate on the roof.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

The affixing of a

mezuzah

in a rented house,

upon whom

does it fall—upon the landlord or upon the tenant?

And the Gemara is astonished at the question: Is there room to be uncertain concerning

a mezuzah?!

For Rav Mesharsheya said: A mezuzah is an obligation of the dweller,

and one who owns a house is not obligated concerning a mezuzah if he does not dwell in it!

This halakha is derived from the word “your house” [Deuteronomy 6:9], as though it were written, “And you shall write them upon the mezuzot of your entering,” the place into which you enter . [ Menachot 34a]

Rather,

this is what they asked Rav Sheshet:

The place for the mezuzah—is it upon whom?

Is the landlord obligated to carve into the stone a place in which the mezuzah will be placed?