Bava Kamma 41

כהדיוט מדעת דמי

just as the use of private property under an agreement [is subject to the law of Contracts].

שלח ליה רבי אבא בר זבדא למרי בר מר בעי מיניה מרב הונא הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר או לא אדהכי נח נפשיה דרב הונא

R. Abba b. Zabda sent [the following message] to Mari the son of the Master:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 97a; B.M. 64b. ');">¹</span>

א"ל רבה בר רב הונא הכי אמר אבא מרי משמיה דרב אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר והשוכר בית מראובן מעלה שכר לשמעון שמעון מאי עבידתיה הכי קאמר נמצא הבית של שמעון מעלה לו שכר

'Ask R. Huna as to his opinion regarding the case of one who occupies his neighbour's premises without any agreement with him, must he pay him rent or not?' But in the meanwhile R. Huna's soul went to rest. Rabbah b. R. Huna thereupon replied as follows: 'Thus said my father, my Master, in the name of Rab: He is not legally bound to pay him rent; but he who hires premises from Reuben may have to pay rent to Simeon.' But what connection has Simeon with premises [hired from Reuben, that the rent should be paid to him]? — Read therefore thus: '… [Reuben] and the premises were discovered to be the property of Simeon, the rent must be paid to him.' But [if so], do not the two statements [made above in the name of Rab] contradict each other? — The latter statement [ordering payment to Simeon] deals with premises which were for hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the owner sustains a loss and rent must be paid. ');">²</span>

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. ');">²</span>

אתמר נמי א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר ר' חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר והשוכר בית מבני העיר מעלה שכר לבעלים בעלים מאי עבידתייהו הכי קאמר נמצאו לו בעלים מעלין להן שכר

whereas the former ruling [remitting rent in the absence of an agreement] refers to premises which are not for hire.

תרתי הא דקיימא לאגרא הא דלא קיימא לאגרא

R. Sehorah slated that R. Huna quoting Rab had said: He who occupies his neighbour's premises without having any agreement with him is under no legal obligation to pay him rent, for Scripture says, Through emptiness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew word She'iyyah [H] rendered 'emptiness', is taken to be the name of a demon that haunts uninhabitated premises; cf. Rashi a.l. ');">³</span>

אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא אמר רב הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אין צריך להעלות לו שכר משום שנאמר (ישעיהו כד, יב) ושאיה יוכת שער אמר מר בר רב אשי לדידי חזי ליה ומנגח כי תורא רב יוסף אמר ביתא מיתבא יתיב

even the gate gets smitten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXIV, 12. ');">⁴</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דקא משתמש ביה בציבי ותיבנא

Mar, son of R. Ashi, remarked: I myself have seen such a thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. '… him' referring, to the demon. ');">⁵</span>

ההוא גברא דבנה אפדנא אקילקלתא דיתמי אגביה רב נחמן לאפדניה מיניה לימא קסבר רב נחמן הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר ההוא מעיקרא קרמנאי הוו דיירי ביה ויהבי להו ליתמי דבר מועט א"ל זיל פייסינהו ליתמי ולא אשגח אגביה רב נחמן לאפדניה מיניה:

and the damage was as great as though done by a goring ox. R. Joseph said: Pre mises that are inhabited by tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who look after premises. ');">⁶</span>

כיצד משלמת מה שנהנית וכו': אמר רב ובמחזרת ושמואל אמר אפילו מחזרת נמי פטור

keep in a better condition. What however is the [practical] difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between the reason adduced by Rab and that given by R. Joseph. ');">⁷</span>

ולשמואל היכי משכחת לה דמחייב כגון דשבקתה לרחבה ואזלה וקמה בצידי רחבה

— There is a difference between them in the case where the owner was using the premises for keeping there wood and straw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the premises had in any case not been empty and thus not haunted by the so-called demon 'She'iyyah'. There would therefore be liability to pay rent. But according to the reason given by R. Joseph that premises inhabited by tenants keep in better condition as the tenants look after their repairs, there would even in this case be no liability of rent upon the tenant who trespassed into his neighbour's premises that had previously been used only for the keeping of wood and straw and thus liable to fall into dilapidation. ');">⁸</span>

ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באפי נפשה מחזרת רב אמר חייבת ושמואל אמר פטורה ולשמואל משלמת מה שהזיקה היכי משכחת לה דמחייבא כגון דשבקה לרחבה ואזלה וקמה בצידי רחבה

There was a case where a certain person built a villa upon ruins that had belonged to orphans. R. Nahman thereupon confiscated the villa from him [for the benefit of the orphans]. May it therefore not be inferred that R. Nahman is of the opinion that he who occupies his neighbour's premises without having any agreement with him must still pay him rent? — [The case of the orphans is based on an entirely different principle, as] that site had originally been occupied by certain Carmanians<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., persons who came from Carmania. According to a different reading quoted by Rashi a.l. and occurring also in MS.M., it only means 'Former settlers'. ');">⁹</span>

מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק מפתח החנות משלמת מה שנהנית היכי משכחת לה פשיטא במחזרת וקאמר (מר) מה שנהנית מה שנהנית אין מה שהזיקה לא

who used to pay the orphans a small rent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the plaintiffs suffered an actual loss, however small it was. ');">¹⁰</span>

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה דקיימא בקרן זוית

When the defendant had thus been advised by R. Nahman to go and make a peaceful settlement with the orphans, he paid no heed. R. Nahman therefore confiscated the villa from him.

איכא דאמרי מחזרת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייבת כי פליגי במקצה מקום מרשותו לרשות הרבים

WHEN WILL PAYMENT BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT? [IF IT CONSUMED [FOOD]&nbsp;… IN THE SIDEWAYS OF THE MARKET, THE PAYMENT WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE ANIMAL.] Rab thereupon said: [The last ruling ordering payment for the actual damage done extends] even to a case where the animal itself [stood in the market place but] turned its head to the sideways [where it in this wise consumed the food]. Samuel on the other hand said: Even in the case of the animal turning its head to the sideways no payment will be made for the actual damage done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the body of the animal is still on public ground. ');">¹¹</span>

והכי אתמר אמר רב ל"ש אלא מחזרת אבל מקצה מקום מרשותו לרה"ר פטורה ושמואל אמר אפילו מקצה מקום מרשותו לרשות הרבים חייבת

But according to Samuel, how then can it happen that there will be liability to pay for actual damage? — Only when, e.g., the animal had quitted the market place altogether and walked right into the sideways of the market place. There are some [authorities] who read this argument [between Rab and Samuel] independent of any [Mishnaic] text: In the case of an animal [standing in a market place but] turning its head into the sideways [and unlawfully consuming food which was lying there], Rab maintains that there will be liability [for the actual damage] whereas Samuel says that there will be no liability [for the actual damage]. But according to Samuel, how then can it happen that there will be liability to pay for actual damage? — Only when, e.g., the animal had quitted the market place altogether and had walked right into the sideways of the market place. R. Nahman b. Isaac raised an objection: [SO ALSO IF IT CONSUMED] AT THE ENTRANCE OF A SHOP, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 94. ');">¹²</span>

לימא בבור ברשותו קמפלגי רב דאמר פטור קסבר בור ברשותו חייב

How could the damage in this case have occurred unless, of course, by the animal having turned [its head to the entrance of the shop]? Yet the text states, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT. [That is to say,] only to the extent of the benefit [derived by the animal] but not for the actual damage done by it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supporting thus the view of Samuel but contradicting that of Rab. ');">¹³</span>

ושמואל דאמר חייב קסבר בור ברשותו פטור

— He raised the objection and he himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Nahman b. Isaac. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר לך רב לעולם אימא לך

answered it: The entrance to the shop might have been at a corner [in which case the animal had access to the food placed there without having to turn its head]. There are some [authorities], however, who say that in the case of an animal turning [its head to the sideways of the market place] there was never any argument whatsoever that there would be liability [for the actual damage done]. The point at issue between Rab and Samuel was in the case of a plaintiff who left unfenced a part of his site abutting on public ground, and the statement ran as follows: Rab said that the liability for the actual damage done could arise only in a case where [the food was placed in the sideways of the market to which] the animal turned [its head]. But in the case of a plaintiff leaving unfenced a part of his site abutting on public ground [and spreading out there fruits which were consumed by the defendant's animal] there would be no liability to pay [for the loss sustained].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only for the benefit the animal derived from the fruits. ');">¹⁵</span> Samuel, however, said that even in the case of a plaintiff leaving unfenced a part of his site abutting on to the public ground, there would be liability to pay [for the loss sustained]. Might it not be suggested that the basic issue [between Rab and Samuel] would be that of a defendant having dug a pit on his own site [and while abandoning the site still retains his ownership of the pit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruits kept near the public ground are a public nuisance and equal a pit, the ownership of which was retained and which was dug on a site to which the public has full access. ');">¹⁶</span> Rab who here upholds exemption [for the loss sustained by the owner of the fruits] maintains that a pit dug on one's own site is subject to the law of Pit [so that fruits left on an unfenced site adjoining the public ground constitute a nuisance which may in fact be abated by all and everybody],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 30a. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas Samuel who declares liability [for the loss sustained by the owner of the fruits] would maintain that a pit dug on one's own site could never be subject to the law of Pit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the pit still remains private property. ');">¹⁸</span> — Rab could, however, [refute this suggestion and] reason thus: [In spite of your argument] I may nevertheless maintain