Bava Metzia 101b (קא:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara cites a statement:

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

With regard to a house

that he built on another’s land,

we heed him

if he says: “I am taking my beams and stones,” in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman.

With regard to a field

in which he planted saplings,

we do not heed him

if he says: “I am taking my saplings.”

What is the reason

that we do not heed him with regard to a field as we do with regard to a house?

Because of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael,

as it is important that it have more trees than houses.

Some say:

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

the weakening of the land,

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

What difference is there between them?

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

The difference between them is outside Eretz Yisrael,

where the principle of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael does not apply, but the claim of “the weakening of the land” does apply.

Mishna:

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

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

One who rents a house to another during the rainy season may not remove him

from the house

from Sukkot

[the festival of Sukkot]

until Passover,

as that is when the rainy season ends.

And if he rented the house to him

during the summer,

he may remove him after

thirty days,

because during the summer houses are readily available for rent.

This law applies in towns, where houses are readily available for rent during the summer.

And in cities,

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

both

one who rents during

the summer,

and one who rents during

the rainy season,

may not remove him except after twelve months.

And with regard to shops

that were rented,

both

shops in

towns, and both

shops in

cities,

the tenant may not be removed except after

twelve months,

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

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

From

a shop belonging to bakers or 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 another during the rainy season may not remove him from Sukkot until Passover; during the summer, thirty days.

The Gemara initially understands 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 summer.

The Gemara asks:

What is different

[in what way do

the days of

the rainy season

differ, such that the tenant may not be removed until the end of that period,

for when a person rents a house

[when a person rents a house]

for

the sake of

the rainy season, he rents it for all

[he rents it for all]

the rainy season,

as though he had said that the rental would last until Passover?

If so, when one rents a house for

the summer as well,

we should say

that when a person rents a house, he rents it for the entire summer,

as though the rental had been until Sukkot.

Rather,

the Mishna should not be understood as speaking of a rental for the rainy season or for the summer.

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

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 are not readily available for rent

[because houses are not readily available for rent]. Therefore, the Sages instituted an enactment for the tenant’s benefit, so that he could not be removed throughout the winter.

And we challenge this:

Come and hear the latter clause,

and see whether it can be reconciled according to this interpretation.

It is written in the latter clause:

In cities, both during the summer and during the rainy season,

the tenant is given

twelve months

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

But if the twelve months end for him during the rainy season, he may remove him!

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

And why? Houses are not readily available for rent

during the rainy season, and the Sages instituted that the tenant may not be removed from the house during the rainy season.

Rav Yehuda said

in explanation of the Mishna:

It was taught to inform.

The periods 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 instituted that the landlord may not remove him until after he has informed him sufficiently in advance, at a reasonable time, that he wishes to remove him, so that the tenant can find another place.

And this is what

the tanna

is saying:

One who rents a house to another without specifying a term may not remove him during the rainy season, from Sukkot until Passover,

for the reason stated above,

unless he informed him in advance,

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

According to this interpretation, the words of the Mishna, “During the summer, thirty days,” are merely a continuation of the first law in the Mishna. The Mishna did not discuss a case in which the landlord wishes to remove the tenant during the summer, but it may be understood from it that in such a case he must inform him thirty days in advance, because thirty days during the summer is the appropriate amount of time in which to find another house.

The Gemara supports Rav Yehuda from a beraita:

It was taught likewise: When they said

in the Mishna

thirty days, and when they said twelve months, they said so only to inform him

that he must leave after these periods.

The beraita adds another law:

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

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

The Gemara explains: Because

he says to him

the landlord says to the tenant:

Had you informed me, I would have made the effort to install a decent person there.

[Had you informed me, I would have made the effort to install a decent 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 period established is exact.

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But we learned in the Mishna: Thirty days!

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

And we explain Rav Asi’s statement:

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

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

he may not remove him from Sukkot until Passover,

because he did not give notice at the proper time.

Rav Huna said: And if he comes

the landlord

to increase the rent

of the rental,

he may increase it,

even though he did not give him notice. For according to the basic law, he could have removed the tenant from the house immediately; it was only that the Sages instituted an enactment for the tenants’ benefit requiring notice, and they did not prevent the landlord from raising the rent.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna

:

This is like holding him by his testicles until he relinquishes his cloak!

[He is holding him by his testicles until he gives up his cloak.] If you give the landlord the option of raising the rent, he can demand a rent that the tenant cannot afford, and the tenant will be compelled to leave.

And we resolve Rav Huna’s statement:

It is necessary

only

when the houses have increased in price,

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

The Gemara now presents several laws related to the Sages’ enactment that a tenant may not be removed from a house without advance notice.

A.

It is obvious

[It is obvious] that if

his house collapsed

[the landlord’s house collapsed], 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:

Although I did not inform you, and you cannot immediately find a new house, still,

you are no better off than I am,

as I too have no place to live, and I could not have informed you because I did not know that my house would collapse.

B.

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

meaning that a landlord sold, bequeathed, or gave as a gift his rented house, and the purchaser—who could not have given advance notice—wishes to remove the tenant from the house immediately.

The law is that he may not do so, because

he says to him

the tenant says:

You are no better than the man from whom you acquired it

[you are no better than the one through whom you acquired your rights], just as the seller could not remove me, so too you cannot.

C.

He married off his son

[the landlord married off his son] and must provide him with a house, and wishes to remove the tenant without advance notice.

We examine the matter,

[we see]:

If it was possible for him to give notice

[if he could have given notice], because he knew that his son was about to marry,

he should have given him notice

[he was required to inform him], and if he did not inform him, he may not remove him.

But if not,

if he could not have informed him, he may remove him, because

he says to him: You are no better off than I am,

as I need the house for my son.

The Gemara now relates an incident in which the landlord removed the tenant in accordance with the law.

There was a certain man who purchased a shipload of wine,

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

and he could not find a place to put it

[and he could not find a place to store the wine].

He said to a certain woman

[he said to a woman]:

Do you have a place to rent?

[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 the proceeds of the wine itself, removed it, and placed it in the street,

[she went, hired porters and paid them from that wine, and removed the wine to the street].

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

The woman acted properly;

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

and certainly the woman acted according to law.

It is not necessary to say this with regard to a courtyard that is not fit to be rented,

[it is not necessary to say that if the courtyard was not intended for rental] and she rented it to him only because he deceived her, she may remove him.

Rather, even

if the courtyard was

a courtyard fit to be rented

and she wished to rent it to other people,

she said to him

[she says to him]:

For everyone

I am willing to rent it, but I am not willing to rent it to you,

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

because you appear to me like a lurking lion

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

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to bakers’ and dyers’ shops, three years.

The tanna said: Because their credit accounts are extensive,

and it is necessary to give them considerable time until they repay all the credit extended to them on long terms.

Mishna:

One who rents a house to another,

the landlord is obligated to provide the tenant with the house along with all the necessities for inhabiting the house.

The landlord is obligated to provide a door, a bolt, a lock, and anything else requiring the work of a skilled craftsman.

A bolt is a peg inserted into the threshold, with which the house is locked from within; a lock is made for locking the house from outside, and both are made by skilled craftsmen.

But an item that does not require the work of a skilled craftsman

, the tenant makes it,

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

The dung

of animals found in the courtyard of the rented house belongs

to the landlord

who rented it. The Gemara will explain the case under discussion.

And the tenant

has no right to

any

of the dung

except the ash

that comes from the oven and from the stoves

found in the courtyard

alone.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a beraita that expands upon and provides greater detail than the Mishna regarding the tasks the landlord is obligated to perform and those the tenant must perform if he wishes.

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

because this requires the work of a skilled craftsman.

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

to open windows for him.

If the ceiling boards have become worm-eaten and deteriorated, the landlord is obligated

to reinforce the ceiling for him.

If one of the beams supporting the ceiling breaks, he is obligated

to support it with a beam.

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

if he wishes to climb to the roof of the house where he resides.

Likewise, the tenant is obligated

to make a railing for him.

And he is obligated

to make a gutter for him,

as they used to place boards beside the outside wall of the house, near the roof, and this was the gutter; 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 doing, in a sloping manner, so that rainwater would not accumulate on the roof.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

The placement of a

mezuzah

in a rented house

upon whom

does it devolve—the landlord or the tenant?

The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: Is there reason to be uncertain about a

mezuzah?!

Did Rav Mesharsheya not say: A mezuzah is the obligation of the one who inhabits the house,

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

They derive this halakha from the word “your house” [Deuteronomy 6:9], as though it were written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your entering,” meaning the place into which you enter. [Menahot 34a]

Rather,

this is what they asked Rav Sheshet:

Upon whom does the place for the mezuzah devolve?

Is the landlord obligated to carve into the stone a place where the mezuzah will be affixed?