Commentary for Bava Kamma 41:4
תרתי הא דקיימא לאגרא הא דלא קיימא לאגרא
whereas the former ruling [remitting rent in the absence of an agreement] refers to premises which were not for hire. It has similarly been stated: R. Hiyya b. Abin quoting Rab said, (some say that R. Hiyya b. Abin quoting R. Huna said): 'He who occupies his neighbour's premises without any agreement with him is not under a legal obligation to pay him rent. He, however, who hires premises from the representatives of the town must pay rent to the owners.' What is the meaning of the reference to 'owners'? — Read therefore thus: '… [representatives of the town,] and the premises are discovered to be the property of [particular] owners, the rent must be paid to them.' But [if so,] how can the two statements be reconciled with each other? The latter statement [ordering payment to the newly discovered owners] deals with premises which are for hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the owner sustains a loss and rent must be paid. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 41:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.