Commentary for Bava Metzia 204:14

אמר להו ר' יוחנן תניתוה

But R. Nahman ruled: Land remains in the presumptive possession of its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the intercalated month belongs to the landowner, and he may demand rent even at the end of the month. ');">¹²</span> Now, what does this teach us — that the last term is decisive? But that is Rab's teaching!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should R. Nahman state it? ');">¹³</span> [He informs us that it is thus] even if the terms were reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it does not depend on order, but on presumption. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Jannai was asked: If the tenant maintains, 'I have paid [rent],' and the landlord pleads, 'I have not received [it],' upon whom rests the onus of proof? But when [does the dispute take place]? If within the term, we have learnt it; if after, we have [likewise] learnt it! For we learnt: If the father died within the thirty days, the presumption is that he [the firstborn] has not been redeemed, unless proof is adduced to the contrary; after thirty days, he is presumed to have been redeemed, unless told that he was not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 49a. This refers to the redemption of the firstborn. Cf. Num. XVIII, 16: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem. Hence, if the father died within the month, it is assumed that he had not redeemed the child before the obligation matured; on the other hand, if he died after, it is assumed that he had redeemed him at the proper time. Now, rent is payable at the end of the year, and the same principle holds good. ');">¹⁵</span> The question is only [when the dispute arises] on the day that completes the term: does one pay on the day which completes the term, or not? — R. Jannai replied: We have learnt it:

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 204:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.