Commentary for Bava Metzia 233:10
אלא אי איכא למימר פליגי בפלוגתא דר' יוסי ורבנן דהתם קמיפלגי
Shall we say that R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Elai dispute on the same lines as R. Jose and the Rabbis [in the Mishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it was assumed that when R. Jose ruled that the tenant above must provide the plastering, it is in order that his water should inflict no damage upon the tenant below, it being the duty of the person who inflicts damage to remove himself from him who sustains it; on the other hand, the tenant below must furnish (i.e., repair) the ceiling itself, which is the floor of the upper storey, since that is an essential part of the storey which he rented to him. Whilst the first Tanna holds that the injured party must remove himself: therefore he, i.e., the lower dweller, must repair the whole ceiling, including the plastering. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 233:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.