Commentary for Bava Kamma 39:19

לא צריכא בחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא וגברא דעביד למיגר מאי מצי אמר ליה מאי חסרתיך או דלמא מצי אמר

or two <i>kabs</i> [of barley], no order would be given to pay the full value of the barley [that was consumed], but it would be estimated how much might an owner be willing to spend to let his animal have that particular food [which was consumed] supposing it was good for it, though in practice he was never accustomed to feed it thus. It would therefore follow that in the case of [an animal] having consumed wheat or any other food unwholesome for it, there could be no liability at all. R. Hisda said to Rami b. Hama: You were not yesterday with us in the House of Study<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'in our district,' 'domain' [H]. This word is omitted in some texts, v. D. S. a.l. ');">¹⁶</span> where there were discussed some specially interesting matters. The other thereupon asked him: What were the specially interesting matters? He answered: [The discussion was whether] one who occupied his neighbour's premises unbeknown to him would have to pay rent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the past. ');">¹⁷</span> or not. But under what circumstances? It could hardly be supposed that the premises were not for hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would in any case have remained vacant. ');">¹⁸</span> and he [the one who occupied them] was similarly a man who was not in the habit of hiring any,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he had friends who were willing to accommodate him without any pay. ');">¹⁹</span> for [what liability could there be attached to a case where] the defendant derived no benefit and the plaintiff sustained no loss? If on the other hand the premises were for hire and he was a man whose wont it was to hire premises, [why should no liability be attached since] the defendant derived a benefit and the plaintiff sustained a loss? — No; the problem arises in a case where the premises were not for hire, but his wont was to hire premises. What therefore should be the law? Is the occupier entitled to plead [against the other party]: 'What loss have I caused to you [since your premises were in any case not for hire]?'

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 39:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.