Responsa for Bava Metzia 201:5
אלא כי אתא רבין אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנעקרו בגושיהן ובתוך שלש אבל לאחר שלש הכל לבעל הקרקע דאמר ליה אי אנא נטעי לאחר שלש מי לא הוה אכילנא ליה כוליה
he said in the name of Resh Lakish: This holds good only if they were uprooted together with their clods, and within three years; but after three years, it all belongs to the field-owner. For he can say to him, 'Had I planted them myself, would I not have enjoyed their entire usufruct after three years?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the cost of buying young olive trees for planting is trifling, and insufficient to justify half of the present usufruct going to the owner of the olive trees (Tosaf.). — The same applies above. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A erected a building on premises owned by a widow in spite of the latter's protests and warnings not to do so. She now demands that A remove his building and that he pay her rent for the time the building stood on her premises. A claims that he rented the space for his building, for ten years (at an annual rental of ten denarii, one-half pound*The rental price given above is mentioned in the answer only, and may represent. therefore, a mere arbitrary sum assumed by R. Meir instead of the actual rental.), from the widow's son and son-in-law; that the latter two informed the widow of the transaction, and that the widow sent them her written consent thereto. The widow denies that she ever gave her consent to lease her courtyard to A.
A. Even A's producing a written consent from the widow would be of no avail unless he can also prove through witnesses that the widow instructed and ordered the writing of the instrument. Should he not be able to do so, he will have to remove the building from the widow's premises and pay her rent for the time his building stood thereon. Should A produce such witnesses, his contract with the widow's son and son-in-law will be non-voidable even though A did not yet pay the rent for the full ten years. Although the widow did not personally instruct her son and son-in-law to rent her premises to A, but sent such instructions in writing — such manner of sending instructions not being acceptable in talmudic law — nevertheless the son and son-in-law became the widow's agents, since it is the usual custom of merchants to accept as valid written instruments, and since the custom of merchants prevails in business transactions.
This Resp. is addressed to R. Eliezer ha-Kohen, and R. Eliezer.
SOURCES: Pr. 698.
A. Even A's producing a written consent from the widow would be of no avail unless he can also prove through witnesses that the widow instructed and ordered the writing of the instrument. Should he not be able to do so, he will have to remove the building from the widow's premises and pay her rent for the time his building stood thereon. Should A produce such witnesses, his contract with the widow's son and son-in-law will be non-voidable even though A did not yet pay the rent for the full ten years. Although the widow did not personally instruct her son and son-in-law to rent her premises to A, but sent such instructions in writing — such manner of sending instructions not being acceptable in talmudic law — nevertheless the son and son-in-law became the widow's agents, since it is the usual custom of merchants to accept as valid written instruments, and since the custom of merchants prevails in business transactions.
This Resp. is addressed to R. Eliezer ha-Kohen, and R. Eliezer.
SOURCES: Pr. 698.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy