Bava Metzia 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

As we learned later, in the chapter “The One Who Hires”:

A hired worker who makes his claim within the proper time—

he takes an oath and collects.

(Bava Metzia 111a)

A worker who worked for an employer and claims his wages, while the employer says, “I paid you,” is exempt from payment by Torah law, because “the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.” He is even exempt from taking an oath, because he denies the entire claim.

The Sages instituted that if the worker makes his claim when the work is completed [before the time at which the employer violates the prohibition of “You shall not leave it overnight” —that the employer did not give him his wages—the worker is deemed credible, because the employer is preoccupied with his workers, and it is possible that he is mistaken and thinks that he paid this worker, when in fact he paid another worker. And in order to appease the employer, the Sages instituted that the worker takes an oath and collects. This is one of the oaths mentioned in the Mishna that were instituted by the Sages (Shevuot 44b).

Rabbi Yohanan proves from this law that a person is deemed credible when he claims that he paid on the final day of the rental period, and this is the proof:

In the case of

a hired worker,

specifically,

they imposed

who imposed]

an oath upon him, and

obligated the employer to pay

because the employer is preoccupied with his workers.

But here,

where the tenant is not preoccupied, we should apply the Torah law. Therefore

the tenant is deemed credible

that he paid on the final day

with an oath, and this oath is the rabbinic enactment of the amoraim that anyone who denies the entire claim must take an oath; it is called the oath of heset.

The Gemara presents a law concerning a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding how long the tenant has permission to reside in the house.

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: With regard to one who rents a house to another for ten years,

a person who rents a house to another for ten years,

and writes him a document,

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 several years

he said to him,

the landlord said to the tenant:

You have taken five years,

you have already lived there for five years.

And the tenant says: I lived in the house for only three years.

The law is that the landlord

is deemed credible,

because land remains in the possession of its owner, and in a case of doubt the house is to be considered in the landlord’s possession; and the document in the tenant’s possession does not establish how long the tenant lived in the house.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina,

raising an objection to Rav Naḥman:

If so,

since that is the law,

if one lent another one hundred dinars by a document,

a person who lent another one hundred dinars by means of a document,

and he said to him,

the borrower said to him:

I repaid you half

of it,

is he likewise deemed credible?!

Is the borrower also deemed credible in this case?!

He said to him,

Ravina said to him:

How can these cases be compared?

There is no basis for comparison.

There,

in the case of a lender and a borrower,

the document stands for collection,

the document was made so that the lender would have proof enabling him to collect his debt; therefore, the logic is that

if it is so that he repaid it

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

Either

he should have written beside it

he should have written on the promissory note that half had been repaid, so that the lender could not produce a promissory note for one hundred dinars.

Alternatively, he should have written a receipt for it

or the lender should have written him a receipt for fifty dinars.

But here,

the landlord has nothing to do, since

he can say to him: The reason I wrote this document for you

was not so that you could always claim that you have the right to reside there for ten years. Rather, the document was made primarily for my benefit,

so that you would not establish a claim against me

so that you could not establish possession of the house by living there for three years and claim that you had purchased it.

You might say: If this is the purpose of the document, why is the document in the tenant’s possession? If the tenant wished to claim, “It is purchased property in my possession,” the landlord would have no proof that he had rented it to him!

The answer is: The document creates publicity that the tenant rented the house and did not purchase it, and he therefore cannot establish possession of the house . 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 presents several laws concerning borrowing.

Rav Naḥman said: A person who borrows an item for its use

may use it forever .

A person who says to another: “Lend me this utensil for its use” ,

and the other agrees to his request: He has lent him the utensil without a time limit, and it is lent to him forever, since the expression “for its use” means for as long as the utensil remains in good condition.

Moreover, even if he returned the utensil to the lender, he may return and take it from him whenever he wishes .

Rav Mari, son of Rav Dovetai bar Shmuel, said: And this is so

specifically

when he acquired it from him

through a kinyan sudar.

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

But if he performed only an act of taking possession, the utensil is lent to him forever as long as he does not return it; once he returns it, however, he may not take it again. This is because the purpose of the act of taking possession is to bring the object into the acquirer’s domain, and that acquisition 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 may not repair it ] and continue using it, because when the utensil broke, the borrowing ended; for he said “for its use,” implying for as long as the utensil remains in good condition.

The Gemara presents additional laws concerning borrowing.

Rava said: With regard to one who says to another

a person who says to another:

“Lend me a hoe with which to hoe this orchard,”

and the other agrees to his request and lends it to him,

the law is:

He may hoe that orchard with it

but not another orchard, since he said “this orchard.”

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

an orchard,

and he did not say “this” one,

the law is:

He may hoe any orchard he wishes with it

he may hoe any orchard with it, even a very large orchard , but he may not hoe two orchards with it.

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

my orchards,

which is a plural expression,

the law is not that we say, “The minimum of a plural is two,” so that he may hoe only two orchards ; rather,

he may go and hoe 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 the handle of the hoe to him if the metal was worn down through the extensive hoeing , and he is exempt from payment, since this is a case of an animal that died due to its labor.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to one who says to another, “Lend me this well”

a water well, in order to irrigate my fields,

and it collapsed,

and he wishes to rebuild it,

he may not rebuild it, because he borrowed only this well, which collapsed, and when it collapsed his right to use it ended.

If he borrowed

And if he borrowed

a well

without saying “this well,”

and it collapsed,

and he wishes to rebuild it,

he may rebuild it

and use it until he irrigates all his fields.

And if he borrowed from him

a place for a well,

and he dug but did not find water,

he may dig and proceed through as many wells as there are in the ground until one happens to be found

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

Everything we have said ] is the meaning of the wording; but if there was only a verbal statement, the lender may retract it.

And he must acquire it from him

with regard to what he said, and then he may no longer retract.

Mishna:

If one rents a house to another and it collapses

during the rental period,

the landlord is obligated

the landlord

to provide him with

the tenant

a house

in place of the house that collapsed. The new house must be similar to the original house.

If

the house that collapsed was

small, he may not make it

the landlord may not make it

larger,

if the tenant does not want a larger house.

And likewise, if the house was

large, he may not make it smaller.

One

large

house that collapsed

he may not make into two

small houses of the same area as the large one and give them to the tenant.

And likewise, if there were

two, he may not make them into one

in their place.

He may not reduce the number of

the

windows

that were in the house that collapsed,

nor may he add to them

windows,

except with the consent of both of them.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If one rents a house to another and it collapses, the landlord is obligated to provide him with a house.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances? [

How was the rental carried out, and in what wording was it stated]?

If the landlord said to him,

the tenant:

“I am renting you this house”?

?

Then, if

it falls ,

the house,

it is gone for him [

the house went and was lost to the tenant, since he rented him only this house] , why must the landlord provide him with another house ?!

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

and the rental did not apply to a particular house, and therefore he is obligated to provide him with another house, then all that the landlord undertook toward the tenant was to provide him with a place that is called a house. If so, if the house was

one, why [

why]

could he not make it two?

And if it was

small, why could he not make it large

? Reish Lakish said:

The Mishna is discussing a case in which he did not rent a particular house, and

he said

to him:

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

and he likewise specified the other features. And we challenge this:

If so, what is the point of stating it? [

If so, what is the novelty in the Mishna]? Since they stipulated the dimensions of the house between them, certainly the landlord must fulfill his stipulation in any house that he provides. The Gemara presents a more precise version of Reish Lakish’s statement:

Rather, when Ravin came, Reish Lakish said:

The case is one

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

and they did not explicitly discuss its length.

But it can still be challenged:

What is the point of stating it?

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

And we answer:

It is necessary

only

when

the house that he showed him was

standing on the riverbank [

on the bank of the river], and this feature is important to people.

Lest you say [

There might have been room to say]:

What did the landlord mean by

“like this one”

when he said it?

That it stands on the riverbank,

but not with regard to all the details.

The tanna

teaches us that this is not so, and that he must provide him with a house similar to the one he showed him in every respect .

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

One who hires a laborer to work, sow, and harvest his field, on the condition that he receive his wages from the produce yielded by the field according to a percentage—if it yields much, he receives much, and if little, he receives little—the laborer becomes a partner of the landowner in the field’s produce, and he is called

an aris.

This chapter discusses an aris who supplies the seeds from his own resources. For that reason, the aris is considered like the owner of the field: he takes all the produce, and from it he pays the landowner one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, as they stipulated between themselves. Thus, the landowner receives according to a percentage, whereas the laborer takes all the remainder.

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

a hired laborer

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

Likewise, if the laborer wishes to receive his wages as a fixed quantity of produce, he is called

a hokher,

and his law is identical in every regard to that of a renter.

The Gemara explains that, apart from the first two mishnayot, there are no laws in which a hokher and a sokher are equivalent to an aris who accepts a field as a contractor, and the Mishna that discusses a hokher does not discuss an aris, and vice versa.

There is also a laborer who undertakes to work the field permanently and to receive his wages as an aris, according to a percentage, and he is called

a shetla.

Mishna:

One who accepts a field from another

to work it, sow it, and harvest its produce—whether he accepted it as an aris, on the condition that he receive wages according to the quantity of the produce; or whether he accepted it as a rental, on the condition that he receive a fixed monetary sum; or as a hokher, on the condition that he receive a fixed quantity of produce—

In a place where it is customary

for the laborers

to harvest

the stalks with a sickle, thereby leaving the roots of the grain in the ground, he must harvest with a sickle!

In a place where it is customary

to uproot the stalks

by hand, together with their roots,

he must uproot them!

In a place where it is customary

to plow after it,

after harvesting or uprooting, so that the roots of the harmful weeds will die,

he must plow

after it!

Everything follows the custom of the region.

Just as they divide

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

of the grain, so they divide the straw

that grows with the grain and is harvested with the stalks,

and the stubble

that remains in the ground after harvesting.

Just as they divide

the landowner and the aris

the wine,