Bava Metzia 103a — the Talmud in English

As we learned below, in the chapter “The one who hires”:

an employee in his time—

swears and takes.

B.M. 111a]

A worker who worked for a householder and claims his wages, while the householder claims: “I paid,” according to Torah law the householder is exempt from paying, because “the one who extracts from his fellow—the burden of proof is upon him.” He is also exempt from swearing, because he denies everything.

The Sages enacted that if the employee claims at the completion of the work [before the time when the householder transgresses the prohibition of “you shall not delay his wages”] that the employer did not give him his wages—the employee is believed, because the householder is preoccupied with his workers, and it is possible that he is mistaken and thinks that he gave them to him, whereas in truth he gave them to another worker. And in order to appease the householder, the Sages enacted that the employee shall swear and take; and this is one of the oaths mentioned in the Mishna that are enactments of the Sages [Shevuot 44b].

And Rabbi Yohanan proves from this law that a person is believed to claim that he paid on the last day of the rental, and this is the proof:

With regard to a

hired worker

specifically,

they imposed [

imposed ]

an oath upon him,

and obligated the householder to pay

because the householder is preoccupied with his workers.

But here,

since the tenant is not preoccupied, we should establish the Torah law; therefore

a tenant is believed

that he paid on the last day

with an oath, and this oath is an enactment of the amoraim, who enacted that anyone who denies everything is obligated to swear, and it is called the oath of heset.

The Gemara brings the law when there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant concerning how long the tenant has permission to dwell in the house.

Rava said that Rav Nahman said: With regard to this person who rented a house to his fellow for ten years,

a person who rented a house to his fellow for ten years,

and wrote a document for him,

and it was written in the document that the rental was for ten years, but the date on which the rental began was not written, and he gave the document to the tenant.

And

after years

he said to him

the landlord said to the tenant:

You have taken five years,

you have already dwelled for five years.

And the tenant says: “I dwelled in the house only three years.”

The law is that the landlord

is believed,

because land stands in the possession of its owners, and in a case of doubt the house is to be established as being in the possession of the landlord; and the document in the tenant’s possession does not testify how long the tenant dwelled in the house.

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina

a difficulty against Rav Nahman:

But from now,

since this is the law, if so,

if he lent him one hundred zuz by a document,

a person who lent his fellow one hundred zuz by a document,

and he said to him,

the borrower said to him:

I paid you half

half,

is it also so that he is believed!

is the borrower also believed here?!

He said to him

Ravina said to him:

Is it comparable now

there is no room for comparison.

There,

with regard to a lender and a borrower,

the document stands for collection,

the document was made so that it would be in the lender’s possession as proof enabling him to collect his debt, and therefore the reasoning indicates that

if it is so that he paid it

if the borrower had paid half the debt, he would have done one of these two things:

Either

he should have written upon it

he should have written on the debt document that half of it had been paid, and the lender would not be able to produce a debt document for one hundred zuz.

Alternatively, he should have had a receipt written concerning it

or the lender would write him a receipt for fifty zuz.

But here

the landlord has nothing to do, for

he said to him: This is why I wrote you the document,

this is why I wrote you a document; was it, then, so that you could claim forever, “I have the right to dwell for ten years”? Rather, the primary purpose of the document was for me,

so that you would not establish possession against him

so that you could not establish possession in the house for three years and claim that you had purchased it.

Perhaps you will say: If this is the purpose of the document, what is the document doing in the tenant’s possession? For if the tenant wishes to claim, “It is purchased property in my possession,” the landlord will have no proof that he rented it to him!

Your answer is: through the document, publicity emerges that the tenant rented the house and did not purchase it, and he will not be able to establish possession in the house . And the document was given to the tenant so that the landlord could not claim that he had rented it to him for only five years .

From here until the next Mishna, the Gemara brings several laws concerning borrowing.

Rav Nahman said: A person who borrows according to its goodness

forever .

A person who said to his fellow: “Lend me this utensil according to its goodness” ,

and the other agreed to his request. He has thereby lent him the utensil without a limitation of time, and it is lent forever, for the expression “its goodness” implies: as long as the utensil is good.

And not only this, but even if he returned the utensil to the lender, he may return and take it from him whenever he wishes .

Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: And this is so

specifically

when he acquired it from him

through a kinyan sudar.

This law—that the borrower can take the utensil back from the lender applies specifically when he performed an exchange acquisition .

But if he performed only drawing, the utensil will be lent to him forever as long as he does not return it; but when he returns it, he cannot return and take it. This is because the acquisition through drawing, whose function is to bring the object into the purchaser’s domain, has already ended and been nullified when he returned it .

Rav Mari, son of Rav Ashi, said: And he returns its handle

and returns its broken pieces to him.

If the utensil breaks, he cannot repair it and continue using it, because when the utensil broke the borrowing ended, for he said “according to its goodness,” which implies: as long as the utensil is good.

The Gemara brings further laws concerning borrowing.

Rava said: With regard to this person who said to his fellow

a person who said to his fellow:

Lend me a hoe with which to hoe this orchard

lend me a hoe with which to hoe this orchard, and the other agreed to his request and lent it to him.

The law is:

He hoes with it that orchard

he may hoe that orchard with it, but not another orchard, for he said “this orchard.”

And if he said: “Lend me a hoe with which to hoe

an orchard,”

and he did not say “this.”

The law is:

He hoes with it any orchard that he wants

he may hoe with it any orchard he wishes, even an exceedingly large orchard , but he may not hoe two orchards with it.

And if he said: “Lend me a hoe with which to hoe

my orchards,”

which is a plural expression.

The law is: We do not say, “the minimum of a plural is two,” and he may therefore hoe only two orchards , but

he hoes and goes through all the orchards that he has

he may go and hoe all his orchards, but not the orchards of others .

And he returns its handle

and returns to him the handle of the hoe, if the iron was worn down through the extensive hoeing , and he is exempt from paying, for this is “it died through its work.”

Rav Pappa said: With regard to this person who said to his fellow: Lend me this well

a water well, in order to irrigate my fields,

and it fell

the well fell, and he wishes to rebuild it.

He does not rebuild it,

because he borrowed only this well that fell, and when it fell his right ended.

And if he borrowed

a well,

and did not say “this well,”

and it fell

the well fell and he wishes to rebuild it.

He rebuilds it

and uses it until he irrigates all his fields.

And if he borrowed from him

a well-site

a place for a well, and he dug but did not find water.

He digs and proceeds through several well-sites in the land, until one becomes available to him

he may dig several wells in his land until he finds water.

And everything that we have said, is the meaning of the language; but if there was only speech and nothing more, the lender may retract from it,

and he must acquire from him

concerning what he said, and then he cannot retract from it.

Mishna:

One who rents a house to his fellow, and it fell

the house fell during the rental period—

he is obligated

the landlord

to provide him

the tenant

a house

in place of the house that fell. The new house must be similar to the first house.

If

the house that fell was

small, he shall not make it

the landlord

large,

if the tenant does not want a large house.

And likewise, if the house was

large, he shall not make it small.

One

house

that was large fell;

he shall not make it two

small ones equal in size to the large one and give them to the tenant.

And likewise, if there were

two, he shall not make them one

in their place.

He shall not decrease from

the number of

windows

that were in the house that fell,

and he shall not add to them

windows,

except with the agreement of both of them.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: “One who rents a house to his fellow and it fell—he is obligated to provide him a house.”

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances? [

how was the renting carried out, and in what wording was it stated]?

If the lessor said to him,

the lessee:

“This house

I am renting to you”?

Then, if

it fell

the house—

it is gone for him [

the house went and was lost to the lessee], for he rented to him only this house , and why must the lessor give him another house ?!

If he said to him, “an unspecified house,”

and the renting did not take effect upon a specific house, and therefore he is obligated to give him another house, then all that the lessor undertook toward the lessee was to give him a place that is called a house. If so, if the house was

one, why [

why]

should he not make it two?!

And if it was

small, why should he not make it large

? Rish Lakish said:

The Mishna is speaking when he did not rent a specific house, and

he said

to him:

“The house that I am renting to you is of such-and-such length,”

and he likewise specified the other details for him. And we challenge this:

If so, what does it teach us! [

If so, what is the novelty in the Mishna], since they stipulated between themselves the measurement of the house, certainly the lessor must fulfill his stipulation in whatever house he gives. And the Gemara brings a more precise version of the words of Rish Lakish:

Rather, when Ravin came, Rish Lakish said:

The case is

where he said to him: “I am renting you a house like this,”

and they did not speak explicitly about its length.

But it is still possible to challenge:

What does it teach us!

Since he said that he would give him a house like the house that he showed him, he must fulfill his words.

And we answer:

It is necessary

rather

that the house [

that he showed him stands]

stood on the bank of the river [

on the riverbank], and this matter is important to people.

You might have said [

there was room to say]:

What is

“like this”

that the lessor said?

That it stood on the bank of the river,

and not in all the details.

It teaches us

the tanna of the Mishna, that we do not say so, and he is obligated to give him a house resembling the one that he showed him in every respect .

We shall return to you, chapter “The One Who Borrows.”

One who hires a laborer so that he will toil, sow, and reap in his field, on condition that he receive his wages from the produce that the field yields, according to percentages—if it yields much, he receives much, and if little, he receives little—the laborer becomes a partner of the landowner in the produce of the field, and he is called

an aris.

This chapter speaks of an aris who brings the seeds from his own [property], and for that reason the aris becomes like the owner of the field, taking all the produce, and he pays from it to the landowner one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, as they established between them. It follows that the landowner is the one who takes according to percentages, whereas the laborer takes all the rest.

But if they agreed between them that the laborer would receive his wages in a fixed sum determined in advance, the laborer becomes

a hired laborer

of the landowner, and then he has no share in the substance of the field.

And likewise, if the laborer wished to receive his wages in a fixed quantity of produce, he is called

a hokher, and

his law is equal in every matter to that of a renter.

It is explained in the Gemara that, apart from the first two Mishnayot, there are no laws in which a hokher and a renter are equal to a contractor, an aris, and the Mishna dealing with a hokher does not deal with an aris, and vice versa.

There is also a laborer who accepts upon himself to work in the field permanently and to take his wages as an aris, according to percentages, and he is called

a shetla.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from his fellow

to work it, sow it, and reap its produce, whether he received it as an arisut, on condition that he receive wages according to the quantity of the produce, or whether he received it as a rental, on condition that he receive a fixed monetary sum, or as a hokharut, on condition that he receive a fixed quantity of produce,

Where it is customary

for the laborers

to reap

the ears of grain with a sickle, and thereby the roots of the grain remain in the ground, he shall reap with a sickle!

Where it is customary

to uproot the ears of grain

by hand together with the roots,

he shall uproot!

Where it is customary

to plow after it,

after the reaping or the uprooting, so that the roots of the bad weeds will die,

he shall plow

after it!

Everything follows the custom of the country.

Just as they divide

the landowner and the aris one-half, one-third, and one-quarter

of the grain, so they divide the straw

that grows together with the grain and is reaped with the ears,

and the stubble

that remains in the ground after the reaping.

Just as they divide

the landowner and the aris

the wine,